Guest Column
FOSTER CARE ADVOCATE: My first hero was my mom, who chose life
Tori Hope Petersen
·Spotlight Articles
Guest Column·By Right to Life UK
UK House of Lords debates extreme expansion of abortion up to birth
(Right to Life UK) Second Reading of the Crime and Policing Bill in the House of Lords, which includes an abortion up to birth clause that was added in the Commons, took place on Thursday 16 October, with almost two-thirds of Peers who took a position on the abortion clause speaking against it.
Throughout the debate, of the 20 Peers who took a stance on the amendment, 13 (65%) spoke in opposition and 7 (35%) spoke in favour.
The abortion up to birth clause (191) was introduced by Tonia Antoniazzi MP in the Commons after just 46 minutes of backbench debate – there was no prior consultation with the public, no Committee Stage scrutiny and no evidence sessions.
The clause would change the law so it would no longer be illegal for women to perform their own abortions for any reason, including sex-selective purposes, and at any point up to and during birth, likely leading to a significant increase in the number of women performing dangerous late-term abortions at home.
Two high-profile members of the House of Lords, Baroness Monckton and Baroness Stroud, have both tabled amendments with other Peers in the House of Lords to overturn the highly controversial abortion up to birth clause in the Crime and Policing Bill, and to reinstate in-person consultations with a medical professional prior to an abortion taking place at home.
One of the key issues that presented itself throughout the debate concerned how women’s safety would be put at risk by late-term abortions permitted by clause 191.
Baroness O’Loan warned that the clause “constitutes a very significant change to our law on abortion” and “carries with it enormous risks to women” who might think that ending a pregnancy up to birth without medical help is safe, if the criminal penalty were to disappear.
Quoting Dr Caroline Johnson MP, a paediatrician, she highlighted that babies at 30 weeks gestation and upwards “have a more than 98% chance of survival”.
Baroness O’Loan continued by spelling out exactly how late-term abortions are carried out, by inducing cardiac arrest in the unborn child.
This theme was reiterated in a fierce speech by Baroness Monckton, who highlighted that late-term at-home abortions will likely create “a modern-day equivalent of back-street abortion”, leaving the door wide open for coercion to take place. “There is no popular demand or pressure for this form of infanticide”, she said.
She drew attention to the dangerous ‘pills by post’ scheme, which allows women to have abortion pills sent to their home without ever having an in-person consultation with a medical professional.
“I fear there would be an increase in the number of late-term abortions with no medical supervision whatever, particularly as women continue to be able to obtain pills through the post without an in-person consultation”, she said.
“That came in during the special circumstances of the pandemic, but it has not been rescinded as it should be, even though we are no longer in such a health emergency”.
Baroness Monckton also underscored the risks and dangers associated with abortion pills generally.
“Recent figures show that 54,000 women were admitted to NHS hospitals in England for the treatment of complications arising from the use of such abortion pills—a 50% rise from the figures before the pandemic”.
She continued, “Analysis of accredited official statistics published by NHS England and the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that one in 17 women self-managing their abortion at home were subsequently admitted for hospital treatment. This clause will scarcely improve that”.
Lord Frost pointed out that the amendment, which would introduce “the biggest change to abortion legislation since the Act was introduced in 1967”, received insufficient scrutiny in the House of Commons. He highlighted that this would be “the beginning of a slippery slope”, and received only “a wholly inadequate couple of hours’ debate in the Commons”.
Lord Frost argued that there is no public demand for such legislation; indeed, he argued, the public supports the opposite. “Polling shows that more than half the public favour keeping abortion after 24 weeks a criminal offence”, he said, “and only 1% of women support introducing abortion up to birth – and, in passing, 70% of women support a reduction in the time limit from 24 to 20 weeks”.
He continued by highlighting the contradiction in our law and our medical practices as a society that such an amendment would bring.
“In our country, if children are born prematurely after 24 weeks, the medical system will do everything it can to save them, and it is often successful”, Lord Frost said.
“Yet this clause will make it possible to try to end the life of a baby after 24 weeks without criminal consequences. It is simply inconsistent, not just with current abortion law but with current law around maternal and child health more broadly”.
Editor's Note: This article was originally published at Right to Life UK and is reprinted here with permission.
Live Action News is pro-life news and commentary from a pro-life perspective.
Our work is possible because of our donors. Please consider giving to further our work of changing hearts and minds on issues of life and human dignity.
Contact editor@liveaction.org for questions, corrections, or if you are seeking permission to reprint any Live Action News content.
Guest Articles: To submit a guest article to Live Action News, email editor@liveaction.org with an attached Word document of 800-1000 words. Please also attach any photos relevant to your submission if applicable. If your submission is accepted for publication, you will be notified within three weeks. Guest articles are not compensated (see our Open License Agreement). Thank you for your interest in Live Action News!
Guest Column·By Right to Life UK
UK House of Lords debates extreme expansion of abortion up to birth
(Right to Life UK) Second Reading of the Crime and Policing Bill in the House of Lords, which includes an abortion up to birth clause that was added in the Commons, took place on Thursday 16 October, with almost two-thirds of Peers who took a position on the abortion clause speaking against it.
Throughout the debate, of the 20 Peers who took a stance on the amendment, 13 (65%) spoke in opposition and 7 (35%) spoke in favour.
The abortion up to birth clause (191) was introduced by Tonia Antoniazzi MP in the Commons after just 46 minutes of backbench debate – there was no prior consultation with the public, no Committee Stage scrutiny and no evidence sessions.
The clause would change the law so it would no longer be illegal for women to perform their own abortions for any reason, including sex-selective purposes, and at any point up to and during birth, likely leading to a significant increase in the number of women performing dangerous late-term abortions at home.
Two high-profile members of the House of Lords, Baroness Monckton and Baroness Stroud, have both tabled amendments with other Peers in the House of Lords to overturn the highly controversial abortion up to birth clause in the Crime and Policing Bill, and to reinstate in-person consultations with a medical professional prior to an abortion taking place at home.
One of the key issues that presented itself throughout the debate concerned how women’s safety would be put at risk by late-term abortions permitted by clause 191.
Baroness O’Loan warned that the clause “constitutes a very significant change to our law on abortion” and “carries with it enormous risks to women” who might think that ending a pregnancy up to birth without medical help is safe, if the criminal penalty were to disappear.
Quoting Dr Caroline Johnson MP, a paediatrician, she highlighted that babies at 30 weeks gestation and upwards “have a more than 98% chance of survival”.
Baroness O’Loan continued by spelling out exactly how late-term abortions are carried out, by inducing cardiac arrest in the unborn child.
This theme was reiterated in a fierce speech by Baroness Monckton, who highlighted that late-term at-home abortions will likely create “a modern-day equivalent of back-street abortion”, leaving the door wide open for coercion to take place. “There is no popular demand or pressure for this form of infanticide”, she said.
She drew attention to the dangerous ‘pills by post’ scheme, which allows women to have abortion pills sent to their home without ever having an in-person consultation with a medical professional.
“I fear there would be an increase in the number of late-term abortions with no medical supervision whatever, particularly as women continue to be able to obtain pills through the post without an in-person consultation”, she said.
“That came in during the special circumstances of the pandemic, but it has not been rescinded as it should be, even though we are no longer in such a health emergency”.
Baroness Monckton also underscored the risks and dangers associated with abortion pills generally.
“Recent figures show that 54,000 women were admitted to NHS hospitals in England for the treatment of complications arising from the use of such abortion pills—a 50% rise from the figures before the pandemic”.
She continued, “Analysis of accredited official statistics published by NHS England and the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities shows that one in 17 women self-managing their abortion at home were subsequently admitted for hospital treatment. This clause will scarcely improve that”.
Lord Frost pointed out that the amendment, which would introduce “the biggest change to abortion legislation since the Act was introduced in 1967”, received insufficient scrutiny in the House of Commons. He highlighted that this would be “the beginning of a slippery slope”, and received only “a wholly inadequate couple of hours’ debate in the Commons”.
Lord Frost argued that there is no public demand for such legislation; indeed, he argued, the public supports the opposite. “Polling shows that more than half the public favour keeping abortion after 24 weeks a criminal offence”, he said, “and only 1% of women support introducing abortion up to birth – and, in passing, 70% of women support a reduction in the time limit from 24 to 20 weeks”.
He continued by highlighting the contradiction in our law and our medical practices as a society that such an amendment would bring.
“In our country, if children are born prematurely after 24 weeks, the medical system will do everything it can to save them, and it is often successful”, Lord Frost said.
“Yet this clause will make it possible to try to end the life of a baby after 24 weeks without criminal consequences. It is simply inconsistent, not just with current abortion law but with current law around maternal and child health more broadly”.
Editor's Note: This article was originally published at Right to Life UK and is reprinted here with permission.
Live Action News is pro-life news and commentary from a pro-life perspective.
Our work is possible because of our donors. Please consider giving to further our work of changing hearts and minds on issues of life and human dignity.
Contact editor@liveaction.org for questions, corrections, or if you are seeking permission to reprint any Live Action News content.
Guest Articles: To submit a guest article to Live Action News, email editor@liveaction.org with an attached Word document of 800-1000 words. Please also attach any photos relevant to your submission if applicable. If your submission is accepted for publication, you will be notified within three weeks. Guest articles are not compensated (see our Open License Agreement). Thank you for your interest in Live Action News!
Guest Column
Tori Hope Petersen
·
Guest Column
Hector O. Chapa, M.D.
·
Human Interest
Right to Life UK
·
Guest Column
Ashley Murphy
·
Guest Column
Melissa Bowcutt
·Human Interest
Right to Life UK
·
Politics
Right to Life UK
·
Guest Column
Right to Life UK
·
Human Interest
Right to Life UK
·
Guest Column
Right to Life UK
·Guest Column
Tori Hope Petersen
·Guest Column
Hector O. Chapa, M.D.
·Human Interest
Right to Life UK
·Guest Column
Ashley Murphy
·Guest Column
Melissa Bowcutt
·Human Interest
Right to Life UK
·Politics
Right to Life UK
·Guest Column
Right to Life UK
·Human Interest
Right to Life UK
·Guest Column
Right to Life UK
·📺GREAT SPEECH: “There is no popular demand… for this form of infanticide!” Baroness @MoncktonR describes clause 191 as “barbaric”, warning persuasively that it would create modern-day ‘backstreet abortions’, assist coerced abortions & remove protections for unborn babies.
📺GREAT SPEECH: “There is no popular demand… for this form of infanticide!” Baroness @MoncktonR describes clause 191 as “barbaric”, warning persuasively that it would create modern-day ‘backstreet abortions’, assist coerced abortions & remove protections for unborn babies.
Baroness O'Loan details how exactly late-term abortions are carried out, by inducing cardiac arrest in the unborn child.
Baroness O'Loan details how exactly late-term abortions are carried out, by inducing cardiac arrest in the unborn child.
Baroness O'Loan quotes Dr Caroline Johnson MP, a paediatrician, who highlights that babies at 30 weeks gestation and upwards "have a more than 98% chance of survival". These late-term abortions should not be allowed.
Baroness O'Loan quotes Dr Caroline Johnson MP, a paediatrician, who highlights that babies at 30 weeks gestation and upwards "have a more than 98% chance of survival". These late-term abortions should not be allowed.
Baroness O'Loan highlights how the abortion up to birth clause "was passed after only 46 minutes" of debate in the House of Commons. It carries "enormous" risks to women who might think that abortion up to birth without medical supervision is safe.
Baroness O'Loan highlights how the abortion up to birth clause "was passed after only 46 minutes" of debate in the House of Commons. It carries "enormous" risks to women who might think that abortion up to birth without medical supervision is safe.
