UK House of Lords committee debates extreme bill allowing abortion to birth

(Right to Life UK) Peers lined up on Monday 2 February to back a major bid to overturn the abortion up to birth clause in the Crime and Policing Bill, and to reinstate the requirement for in-person consultations with a medical professional prior to an abortion taking place at home.

Across the day’s debate during the Lords Committee Stage, of the 29 speakers who made speeches and took a stance, 21 (72%) spoke against changing the law so it would no longer be illegal for women to perform their own abortions right through to birth, while 8 (28%) spoke in favour of it. 

Clause 191 was introduced by Tonia Antoniazzi MP in the Commons after just 46 minutes of speeches – there was no prior consultation with the public, no Committee Stage scrutiny, no evidence sessions and no impact assessment.

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.

Baroness Monckton, along with other female Peers, tabled an amendment to the Bill at Committee Stage that would remove clause 191 from the Crime and Policing Bill. 

Abortion clause received little scrutiny and is not relevant to the wider Bill 

Baroness Monckton criticised the abortion decriminalisation clause for the lack of scrutiny it has received, saying, “Good laws require careful thought and prior consideration regarding any unintended consequences”. 

“Clause 191 fails to meet these criteria and should not become law. It was hastily added to an unrelated Bill and concerns a proposal that was neither a government manifesto commitment, nor called for by the public, nor subject to even rudimentary scrutiny”, she added.

Right To Life UK

@RightToLifeUK

·Follow

‼️NO ONE ASKED FOR THIS! Baroness Monckton (@MoncktonR) makes it clear that the abortion up to birth amendment was added to an unrelated Bill, is not wanted by the public and is not in the Government's manifesto. It should be rejected.

Watch on X

4:49 PM · Feb 2, 2026

4.7K

Reply

Copy link

Read 88 replies

Baroness O’Loan reiterated this point, saying, “Clause 191 was passed in the other place following a very brief and truncated debate, entirely incommensurate with the gravity of its impact”. 

Right To Life UK

@RightToLifeUK

·Follow

Baroness O’Loan reminds Peers that Clause 191 had a truncated Commons debate, wholly disproportionate to its significance. This clause is not about “supporting women” but abolishing all legal deterrents to ending an unborn child’s life right up to the very moment of birth.

Watch on X

6:49 PM · Feb 2, 2026

9

Reply

Copy link

Read more on X

Lord Bailey also criticised the lack of scrutiny that “the most radical change to abortion laws in a generation” received in the House of Commons, and argued that it was the duty of the Lords to subject it to rigorous, detailed scrutiny.

Right To Life UK

@RightToLifeUK

·Follow

Lord Bailey (@ShaunBaileyUK) is correct to highlight just how little debate this amendment, which would fundamentally change our abortion laws, received in the Commons. The House of Lords must now give this horrific proposal the intense scrutiny it needs.

Watch on X

6:44 PM · Feb 2, 2026

795

Reply

Copy link

Read 8 replies

Lord Jackson highlighted that the debate on this clause in the House of Commons was so brief that it only allowed for 46 minutes of speeches from backbench MPs, criticising “a scandalous lack of consideration of this change in our law and its impact”. 

Lord McCrea added to this point, saying, “This is not responsible lawmaking on a matter that carries profound consequences for the status of the unborn and the safety of women”.

Speaking for the Opposition Front Bench, Lord Cameron of Lochiel added to these criticisms, saying, “Many Members in the other place were limited to less than five minutes of speaking time. On such an issue of profound social change, in no way can that be described as a full and proper debate—compare that to the vigorous debate we have had today”.

Right To Life UK

@RightToLifeUK

·Follow

Lord Cameron of Lochiel makes things clear: whatever your view on abortion, Clause 191 was added through an insufficient process and deficient procedure, with minimal Commons scrutiny and no full debate. That alone should be a sufficient case against it.

Watch on X

10:01 PM · Feb 2, 2026

16

Reply

Copy link

Read more on X

Peers draw attention to the “uncomfortable truth” of what this clause would allow

Lord Alton highlighted the “uncomfortable truth” of what would transpire if clause 191 becomes law, namely that “if a woman intentionally induces an abortion at a very late stage and the baby dies in utero or during the process and is not born alive, there would be no criminal offence available in respect of her actions, regardless of gestation”. 

Baroness Meyer spoke about the vast difference between the current law and the worrying reality that clause 191 would bring, saying, “Under the current law, a woman at 32 weeks’ pregnancy—when a baby is fully formed—who contacts an abortion service may receive support, counselling or discuss adoption, but an abortion cannot be performed. Under Clause 191, however, she could obtain pills and end her own pregnancy without breaking the law. The consequence is clear: no prosecution at any stage, for any reason, even when a baby is capable of being born alive”.

Read the entire article at Right to Life UK.