Last week in the House of Commons, two controversial measures passed that could profoundly reshape British society.
Most of the public has heard about the assisted dying provision for terminally ill patients, but another measure has received far less attention: Clause 191, which would allow women to self-manage abortions up to full term, for any reason, without medical supervision.
I have committed to opposing this in the House of Lords, where both bills are now under consideration.
How Clause 191 Sneaked Through
The Crime and Policing Bill has kept peers busy for over two months, but Clause 191 was quietly inserted via an amendment from Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi.
Shockingly, it was debated in the Commons for only 46 minutes before passing.
The clause removes all remaining legal oversight of women seeking abortions, effectively allowing terminations at any stage of pregnancy, including late-term, with no requirement for a doctor or clinical supervision.
The Risks to Women
This measure carries serious implications for the mother’s health.
Without medical oversight, late-term abortions could lead to complications that require urgent hospital care.
NHS England statistics show that about one in 17 women self-managing abortions at home end up needing hospital treatment, and the risk rises significantly later in pregnancy.
Removing clinical supervision could put thousands of women at unnecessary medical risk.
The Fate of the Unborn
Clause 191 also eliminates virtually all legal protections for unborn children.
For babies past 22 weeks, medical abortions in clinical settings involve lethal injections to prevent live births with severe injury.
But under this clause, women performing abortions alone could inadvertently deliver living infants with no legal guidance on what to do next.
This raises troubling ethical and legal questions about the fate of viable unborn children.
The Argument for “Choice”
Supporters, including the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, argue that women should not face criminal penalties for managing their own reproductive health.
Letters I received urge peers to support Clause 191, emphasizing the rights and autonomy of women.
But nowhere in these statements is the unborn child mentioned, creating a stark imbalance in consideration of both lives affected.
The Public Opinion Gap
Contrary to claims of progressiveness, public support for full-term self-managed abortion is extremely low.
A December 2023 Whitestone Insight Poll found only two percent of people favor extending the abortion limit to birth.
Yet the law is being pushed through with minimal public consultation and scrutiny.
Moral and Legal Consequences
By effectively disapplying the Infant Life Preservation Act of 1929, Clause 191 would treat viable unborn babies as legal non-entities, while the mother is left alone to navigate potentially dangerous procedures.
Critics, including myself, see this as a dangerous and morally troubling step, stripping away the last protections for vulnerable children while failing to safeguard women adequately.
Why I Oppose Clause 191
I am fighting to have Clause 191 removed because it represents a radical, unsafe, and ethically questionable shift.
It offers no real protection for the unborn and exposes women to significant health risks.
Our society must consider both lives involved, not just one, and uphold safeguards that reflect this responsibility.
Looking Ahead
As debate continues in the House of Lords, it is vital that peers carefully weigh the consequences of removing legal oversight from abortion up to full term.
This is not a minor technical amendment; it is a profound moral and medical decision that will affect countless women and children for generations to come.
Baroness Rosa Monckton is founder of the charity Team Domenica.
