New abortion laws

[Cheesetoastie537]

TW

I'm pro choice but the new potential abortion law changes feel a bit extreme to me. If I've understood right, if a woman was even in late stage of pregnancy (even say 35 weeks) could self abort the pregnancy and not face any charges for the death of a viable baby. I thought the 24 week mark was there for that reason. I know a woman still can't get a medically assisted abortion after 24 weeks (unless certain circumstances) but surely they'll just go home and do it now because theres nothing preventing them. No one should be in that situation surely. But if it was a case that a late pregnancy is now not wanted but a medically assisted abortion is not available and the woman knows they can do it themselves with no charges, wouldn't that just increase self done abortions?

If anything, shouldn't the law just change so that medical abortion at any stage is allowed then to at least make it safe for woman rather than them attempting a self abortion.

I'm not sure if the change in law opens up more issues than it fixes. And in part I feel that there's no protection for late pregnancies that the baby would have survived and now there's no legal charges for their life.

I've never really thought too much about abortion otherthan pro choice and felt the UK had a good middle ground.

Just reading the Hansard reports. It's got up to 5pm or so in the debate with Stella Creasy's careful references to Pregnant People that has been defeated.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-06-17/debates/CEAC32EB-971E-4A0D-BD3A-80A92B6DC230/CrimeAndPolicingBill

Anti abortion MPs are citing that decriminalisation up to full term in Australia and New Zealand have led to increases in said late terminations

I may have missed an explanation somewhere on the thread, but I wonder if people are missing the difference between decriminalisation and legalisation?

Decriminalisation means (I think - not a lawyer) that any offences or breaches of the existing law stop being criminal offences. That doesn't mean they're not offences, and that other sanctions or measures can't be used.

So, for example, lying about your dates to get access to early medical abortion will not be a criminal offence. But systems could still be put in place to prevent this happening and midwives who colluded with it (it is usually midwives dealing with early medical abortion) would be in very serious trouble (which they couldn't be if women were legally entitled to do it).

Look, we're only a few years in to telemedicine for very early abortions, and we don't know how many (if any) women are deliberately lying about it to get later abortions. We do need to know, but women aren't going to be honest after the event if they're going to get arrested.

It may be (I hope not) that we'll find that remote access to abortion pills is not working well because too many women can't or won't give accurate information. If that were the case, we could do things to control the risks (like insisting on a scan before every termination). If it is hardly ever happening then there is no ethical or financial justification for insisting on scans for all.

So the proposers of these amendments are saying that civil measures, such as regulation, professional standards, control of the supply mechanism etc, are a far better way to control abortion services than putting women in prison.

But that is NOT legalisation. Also worth pointing out that many people are calling this a bill but it is in fact two amendments to a bill on something else, so very limited scope to do much. If an abortion bill was being introduced it would have much more detail and we'd be able to get the big picture.

A pp said this is a stupid time to be messing around with legislative change on abortion and I don't disagree with that. I just think this recent rash of women being arrested for abortion offences has forced the hand of pro-choicers. We have to protect those women - it could be any of us, or our daughters.

I worry that there'll be a loophole that will show itself in a way that hasn't been anticipated.

Anyone thinking that women won't be pushed or bullied into late abortions is completely naive, the law is correct as it is

What safeguards are in place to stop this happening now and how will this change with decriminalisation?

Every proposal for progress that's ever been made has had something like that said about it.

What are you saying? That viable babies are not persons?

Can I suggest that anyone interested in this topic listen to episode 100 of the podcast Double Jeopardy?

They do excellent explanations of legal stuff like this, and this one is no exception.

Did you know, for example, that for some reason even though the law they're discussing took 80 years or so from inception before it was enacted, in the last few years, as in about ten, a couple of women have been prosecuted and even jailed over it? It beggars belief that even though the CPS ultimately make a decision as to whether it's in the public interest to go through a trial, there are some men not being prosecuted for rape but a desperate woman is jailed for procuring an abortion under desperate circumstances.

*I'm paraphrasing here, don't come at me if some of those details are wrong!

The CPS get mentioned a lot in the grooming gang stuff. The chorus from social workers and police and healthcare ppl seems to have been "there's not enough evidence for the CPS" when confronted with the allegations by victims

No, I am saying that where the unborn have personhood, the health of the unborn will be prioritised over that of the woman. I am saying that where the unborn have personhood, women will die because they do not get the healthcare they need when things go wrong. When the unborn have personhood, women will be under suspiciou for every single pregnancy that goes wrong - including early miscarriages. If the unborn has personhood, abortion will be considered murder.

If that is what you want, then you are not pro women.

In the UK, someone is a person the moment they are born. That must not ever change.

Exactly this. Men rape with impunity. They frequently murder theif partners with far less consequences than if ig were yhd other way around. They get to fuck and then fuck if if they wish and if their resulting children are lucky they must pay around 20% of theif income which frequently forced those children into poverty. Childcare costs are extortionate. Rents are extortionate. Abc men, their responsibility ij having jade a child are minimal.

Aside from the fact that Women’s bodies are the incubators and they take the entire risk of carrying a pregnancy and resulting birth (50% of women having given birth have done sort of prolapse as just one example - I’m currently unable to work and on a ridiculous waitlist just gif a guest appoinrment for a birth injury - I ding see my child’s father putting his hand in his pocket whilst I’m unable to work abc I don’t see him even helping with things like school runs), men are just allowed to carry on theif lives with little impact.

Enough of this Handmaids tale bullshit.
Our bodies
Our reproductive labour
Our lives impacted
Our choice.

Ok then. I hope you’re willing to put your hands in your pocket and pay h to e taxes needed gof single mothers to be supported appropriately and those impacted by birth injuries and mental health issues to be supported appropriately.

if not, you’re a hypocrite.

Absolutely the right decision. Women desperate enough to go through with a late term abortion require support and compassion, not a courtroom.

If you deliberately kill any baby you will be prosecuted. This law doesn't change that.

Abortions aren’t murder either.

Anyone thinking that women won't be pushed or bullied into late abortions is completely naive...

Anyone thinking that women aren't pushed or bullied into having their abusers child in order to further control them is completely naive.

No it isn't.

Yes they are/will be if not already- there is at least one woman that was being kept alive on a monitor so she can deliver a baby.

https://19thnews.org/2025/06/adriana-smith-georgia-brain-dead-pregnant-woman-baby/

There is a point about coercion from partners into inducing later term abortions and I don't know what safeguarding there would be on that, as it becomes increasingly dangerous the later it is

And yes women can change their minds about continuing pregnancies even past 24 weeks. I worked with a woman who was still traumatised by her birth experience BC the woman in the next bed, having split with her partner the week before was raising merry hell at full term screaming she wanted to get rid of her pregnancy NOW BC her new man didn't want it

35 weeks……. Seriously! How do people not feel that crosses a moral boundary! 35 weeks! That is a fully formed baby! Surely at THAT POINT the baby has rights to!

It’s would be easiar and less complicated to have a c section and put the baby up for adoption….

Polling by who exactly?

My poll* says that 100% of women in the UK support as early as possible and as late as necessary.

*poll consists of 1 woman sitting on my sofa.

Happy to be #2

That'll be some pro-life Christian group - self selecting sample.

@Witchling and @spicemaiden put me down for #3 in your sample.

I am very much pro-choice but I do think that for healthy pregnancies where their is no danger to the mother or child's health then there has to be some limit and I think it was correct as it stood. I am not sure I agreed with sending women to prison but some legality has to exist. I know that some people want to regard terminating a pregnancy at any stage as simple as getting a skintag removed but at some point it does cross a line.

You've missed the entire point of this decriminalisation. It has been explained ad nauseum on this thread.

Arguing against this change is the very purest form of misogyny.

Jesus wept.

Women aren't going to suddenly about to start having late term abortions.

This is about protecting womens rights and ensuring that they arent prosecuted for late miscarriages

Are you not paying attention to what happens in the USA?