Bid in Lords to overturn move to decriminalise abortion for women

[IwantToRetire]

A landmark move to decriminalise women terminating their own pregnancies could be overturned as legislation is considered in the House of Lords.

In June, MPs in the Commons voted in favour of decriminalisation, with one saying it would remove the threat of “investigation, arrest, prosecution or imprisonment” of any woman who acts in relation to her own pregnancy. ...

But, with the Bill making its way through the Lords, an amendment has been tabled to remove the relevant clause. ...

https://nation.cymru/news/bid-in-lords-to-overturn-move-to-decriminalise-abortion-for-women/

There was one news headline, that I now cant find, that said something about Lady Falkner being one of the ones doing this.

There was this in Prick News

https://www.thepinknews.com/2026/03/17/ehrc-chair-abortion-rights/

It may not be exactly what you're referring to?

Looks like she has co-signed. What a tragedy. To know what a woman is but be unable to step up to fight for women’s rights not to be imprisoned for something only they can suffer as a result of their biology.

I think that must be it.

So it is specifically about the pills by post scheme.

Need to read up on this.

Yes, me too. I saw TRAs crowing about her and Sharron Davies but couldn't find much on it

this makes me so sad, once again, other people having a say over women’s bodies

There’s two things.

One is the decriminalisation of abortion.
The other is removing pills by post

So it’s not stopping women having abortions? It’s saying a pregnant woman should have an in-person consultation before lawfully being prescribed medicine for the termination of a pregnancy at home?
Is this driven by the woman who said she thought she wasn’t that pregnant but was beyond 24 weeks?

Completely. From the people who actually claim to understand the meaning of women’s bodies. Pills by post gives women more choices. Any woman who wants to see a clinician in person can, but it’s not compulsory. It is particularly important for women whose moves are monitored by men who also use pregnancy to tie her to them. I cannot understand why anyone who says they support women would
oppose this.

I feel like there have been two cases where this medication was used to intentionally terminate full-term, healthy babies. In both cases, the mothers lied about how far along they were.

It seems a sensible step to prevent abuses like that.

Well the majority of MPs and lords didn’t agree with you or Lady Faulkner and saw how telemedicine offers many women a lifeline. Both decriminalisation and retaining telemedicine have passed decisively and the amendments failed.

It is not about decriminalising abortion per se, but about late term, self induced or illegally procured abortions.

The issue of abortion so late into the pregnancy is specifically so that at some stage, they can ban abortions altogether. This is how they remove women's rights whilst appearing to support them.

There are also men who demand and pressure women into getting abortions they'd rather not have.

I don't agree. Once past a certain stage of foetal devlopment the moral issues become more pronounced and the decison far more difficult.

You don't agree with what? That is is being specifically orchestrated to ban abortions altogether?

One man put a device in his shoe what 20 years ago and they changed the rules across the whole planet, and you think they won't use one instance of this going wrong to just ban them entirely?

I don't agree that the plan or intent is to ban abortion altogether. I would certainly not support that if it was the case. But there has to be a limit on late term abortions unless there are profound medical reasons for termination. It is not acceptable in my view to terminate a baby that could potentially survive outside of the womb. Lots of babies are now being born at around 24 weeks and surviving. It would be a horror show to terminate such a wll developed, and healthy, baby.

In my mind it is analagous with the assisted dying/suicide debate - in terms of its moral magnitude.

This, and if “pills by post” is so unchecked, who’s to say a woman’s partner couldn’t order them in her name and give them covertly to cause an unwanted abortion?

But that logic would stop us legislating on basically anything. There’s always an extreme scenario one can point to.

It’s not a moral issue because there’s nothing immoral about a woman having complete control over her body.

Most of the friends I know who have had abortions ( I've had two myself) had them because their partner did not want a baby. Though, In all cases they took place within the first twelve weeks of gestation. There are plenty of men ( including husbands) who want the sex but don't want responsibility for the consequences

Can someone please explain to me why this is a bad thing? I can't get my head around it being ok for a woman to abort at any gestation.

It is a moral issue because it involves the taking of life. To say that women have no moral responsibility for their actions just because it involves their bodies is quite extreme in my view.Having had both terminations and live births, I'd say that has altered my persepective on the matter.

Until born, the fetus isn't alive. Abortions do not and cannot kill unless it goes horribly wrong and the potential mother dies.

Don't be ridiculous! Of the course a foetus, and later a near full term baby is alive.