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.

Sadly I think this will lead to situations that put women in harms way. More woman will take abortion pills procured over the phone, mistakenly thinking that because the law has changed that it’s legally fine (even if they may have their dates wrong) - no one wants to be “judged” for a late term abortion so I think they might take care of it themselves which could put them in danger as it’s basically an unassisted birth. Just because it’s now “legal” doesn’t mean these women are more likely to seek help from medical professionals as they don’t want someone trying to change their mind and persuading them to have the baby. It’s a slippery slope. I did feel sorry for the women prosecuted for this sort of thing, as did most people, but if these situations become more commonplace I fear the tide of opinion will change. I also worry about those women pressured into late term abortions for nebulous reasons (I.e. sex selection). I understand why the law has been proposed but (in my opinion) the damage outweighs the benefits.

It's true that most women have abortions as soon as they can and wouldn't want a late term abortion. However not all women. I think this terribly thought through law change will increase late term 'self' abortions. The current law deters that. Now you could be a scared teenager and buy a pill online. Yes it's not great being a scared teenager but surely we can't morally allow termination at any stage.

Following with interest.

I do think this change is important and necessary because it will help address the use of "the law" as it stands being used as a weapon against women in unusual circumstances.

Unfortunately we are seeing an even more regressive attitude towards women developing, and it is being driven by all sorts of people with all sorts of agendas. Things like "evolutionary psychology" the rise of the trad wife, the rise of evangelical religion, all sorts of things that are seeping into the psyche of many via the blessing and the curse of the Internet.

I've quoted the post above because of the "the law as it stands can sort it out" which overlooks the fact that some of the people enacting and upholding that law, be it medical professionals (in this instance) police, prosecutors and judges could actually put the boot in because of their thoughts and beliefs, essentially using the law as it stands as a weapon against women who are in unfortunately left field and extreme circumstances.

Bear in mind that medical opinions can vary wildly as to the likely cause of deaths, and sometimes decisions are made not beyond reasonable doubt but on the balance of probabilities even in the criminal court inexperienced witnesses are in the mix.

Just because it's a small number of women, it doesn't mean this issue shouldn't be addressed. It is Kafaesque indeed to know you are innocent of a crime, yet the prosecutions job is to prove you are at all costs. Immediately there is bias subconsciously in a jury's mind - theu wouldn't bring a case to court if it wasn't pretty clear there was wrong doing?

But actually it happens in all sorts of scenarios.

In situations such as abortion that "might" be illegal, or might not, given the current state of the world, and the cavalier attitude to pesky women wanting their bodily autonomy, wanting equality, wanting all sorts of things that often benefit society as a whole, I think any change that recognises that women aren't all hell bent on murdering their unborn children on a whim is necessary.

We don't want the "think dirty" mantra of Roy Meadows to start being applied wholesale to any woman who ends up under suspicion and investigation for having a late term miscarriage because she texted her mate something that "could be" evidence she didn't want the baby after all.

I think this is the vote split

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2025-06-17/division/4E082812-576E-402D-A817-A071EDA8A2E8/CrimeAndPolicingBill?outputType=Names

Greens and lib Dems mainly voted for, Reform and independents (non labour) voted against. Farage doesn't seem to be on either list from what I see

I hear this argument made a lot. But I can’t help but think back to that young mum in Paris who threw her baby out of the window, or those babies abandoned in London that turn out to be siblings. There are lots of desperate young women out there, driven to do heinous things. I don’t know what the right answer is, or where I stand on this issue- but the argument that NO woman will leave it to the last moment doesn’t wash with me.

I think there are some women who bury their heads in the sand, confused, desperate, not knowing what to do, and they make terrible decisions.

As I said, I don’t know where I sit on this issue, but certain arguments don’t hold water for me- and this is one of them.

If Farage isn't on the list, that's yet more proof that he never wants to do the actual graft in politics. Just there for the PR, rest doesn't interest him.

Those women who end up doing terrible things will be prosecuted. No one has decriminalised murder and the first horrible example you've described here is murder.

So it's horrible to throw a newborn out of a window, but absolutely fine if you stabbed that same creature in the head 5 minutes earlier because it was still in your birth canal? One is murder the other is so morally neutral it doesn't even warrant a fine?

Is that really the case?

And don't say 'it doesn't happen' because women chucking their newborns out of windows is an incredibly rare thing also, and it's highly likely that no rational thinking woman would do so. And yet, it's criminalised because it's the right thing to do.

Ps: what about surgery conducted during pregnancy where the fetus is operated on and removed from the womb for this (albeit cord not cut obviously) and placed back in. Does it turn from a fetus to a baby, then lose it's personhood again?

Radio this morning noting it's passed with a relative lack of heated debate. It's hoped that BC ppl are less religious and generally see this as a healthcare issue than in the USA. Joan Smith said she hoped it stayed that way. I suspect that might be wishful thinking.

The Spectator are outraged (but they would be) I think there might be some sort of intervention by JD Vance next

Agreed.

So if it's a post 24 week death at home, then it still needs to be investigated by the police to establish whether the baby was born alive and whether it's parents failed to get it help?

As you say, no change in the law for that.
So the investigations will still happen. The police will still be involved. They'd still need to look into whether the mum did a DIY abortion as that's relevant to the likelihood of the child not being 'saved' at birth. So all the same things.

So what's the point of this change, save to give women a green light for late, risky, DIY abortions? The investigations will be the same.

Does this also mean sex selection (not permitted currently) will be decriminalised

This is what confuses me. How is this put into practice? I appreciate that this example is rare and extreme, but that is exactly what we are discussing here.

Woman turns up at hospital with a dead baby. Says it died prior to birth as she smashed her bump with a hammer until she gave birth. Is the woman free from the investigation until there is clear evidence that the baby died after birth because she says it was an at home abortion.

I appreciate this is an extreme example but if you put to some very vulnerable women, abort your baby now or never, some may take that choice.

Those women that take that choice are also expected to instantly switch from aborting their baby to saving their baby if it happens to be born alive. And this is somehow to protect women's health and MH?

I am also concerned about the use of telemedicine after 24 weeks. I do not agree with the argument that "but no woman would ever do this, or if she did she must be forced into it". I don't think there is any evidence for that. I feel that if we are decriminalising abortion we also need a situation where abortions are only performed after a physical examination.

I also don't agree with all the comments saying "oh you aren't pro-choice if you put limits on it". It's perfectly possible to be pro-choice AND think there should be a term limit on when abortions can be performed for non-medical reasons AND think there needs to be some way of ensuring that term limit is adhered to.

Colorado and maybe a few other US states allow late term abortions. Reading this article here (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2023/05/dr-warren-hern-abortion-post-roe/674000/), is harrowing tbh. The Atlantic is a left-leaning newspaper btw, so definitely not parroting the American far-right.

Personally, I don't agree with non-medically necessary late stage abortions. If you decide you don't want the baby at 30 weeks, say, why not induce delivery and then let the child be adopted?

If the baby can survive outside the mother's body, then I believe they have a right to life.

Absolutely. The pills need to only be prescribed after seeing a dr and a scan to verify dates.

@Lalgarh

Sex selection is now effectively decriminalised for women, but only in backstreet clinics.

There was an amendment for that proposed but it was defeated

Seems odd then for it to be the case you can only use them under 10 weeks but nobody verifies gestation. Even if they extended it to say you can use them up to 12 or 16 weeks but it has to be after a scan and consultation but they are basically just going to let anyone of any stage access medication they state is only for under 10w?

Because adoption and abortion are different things? If someone wants to adopt a baby out then they will usually accept the fact that it includes about 40 weeks of pregnancy.

I'm not sure if you'd be able to get medical professionals to induce labour with the intention of having a baby be born alive prematurely and potentially with life long disabilities and decreasing the chance that they will get adopted. Obviously at 30 weeks, the risk is less but I'm also thinking about at 24 weeks.

Well, one of the first answers would be to actually support mothers: housing that DIESNT require one to sit in a drug den disguised as a hotel room for months on end, accessible childcare, decent affordable public transport system outside of London decent benefits system, domestic abuse services that aren’t on theif knees.
But we can’t be having that now can we?

If a baby/fetus is dependent on the mother's body for survival, then I agree that it should be the woman's choice to have an abortion or not.

But if the baby can survive outside the mother's body, then there is a choice: killing the baby or allowing it to be born early - with potential health implications for the baby, but still alive and with a chance to thrive. Many premature babies live long, happy lives.

If you're saying it's better to kill a baby/fetus rather than risk potential health complications, that is a scary view. Close to eugenics I would say. Should preterm babies be allowed to die because trying to save them means they might have health problems later on?

Am I right in thinking that there would still be a post mortem for late miscarriages or stillbirths? You'd then involve the police and investigate the circumstances if there was anything shown to be untoward.

Preterm babies are usually born after everything is done medically to keep them inside unless for medical reasons it is better to have them on the outside.

Very different to inducing labour for no medical reasons and risking a baby having severe health problems.

It should always be the woman's choice and she should never be forced into giving birth to a premature baby if she wants an abortion.

Ok I see things very differently then. I think it should always be a woman's choice whether or not to continue with a pregnancy and she should never be forced to carry a child to 9 months of she doesn't want to.

However, ending a pregnancy can mean different things. Pre-viability (around 24 months I believe?) the only option is an abortion. After viability, the options are deliver the baby or an abortion.

A 30 week fetus can, within the space of a short c-section or labour, become a living, breathing, viable baby whose life is protected by law. I don't see how morally it's legal to kill a fetus but then half an hour later it's illegal to kill the same baby.

An abortion would also require medical intervention and getting the fetus out of the woman's body.

I don't think a woman should be allowed to kill to a viable baby rather than deliver it (unless there is a medical reason).

It's really no different to how it's currently perfectly legal to have an abortion at 23 weeks & 6 days but just one day later at 24 weeks, suddenly it isn't allowed due to viability despite the fact that preterm babies have survived before 24 weeks.

If we go down the route of after 24 weeks, the options are abortion or deliver a potentially live baby then it should still be the woman's choice.

Viability is irrelevant to me since an aborted fetus obviously isn't going to survive.