As the criminal justice bill stumbles through parliament this week – beset by delays and controversies, and picking up amendments as it goes – another woman, Sophie Harvey, is on trial for an alleged illegal abortion, after taking pills to end her pregnancy when she was past the 24-week legal threshold. She was just 19 at the time. She faces a sentence of up to life in prison.
Anyone who cares about women’s rights should be alarmed not just by this trial, but by two new amendments to the bill put forward, targeting abortion in England and Wales. The first, from Caroline Ansell, a Conservative MP, aims to reduce the abortion limit to 22 weeks. The other, tabled by Liam Fox, another Conservative, would stop women’s choice over whether to abort a pregnancy where Down’s syndrome looks likely, up to birth. Currently, she can choose to do so for the entirety of her pregnancy, under ground E of the Abortion Act, which allows for termination if there is “substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped”.
These amendments are symptomatic of a new anti-abortion narrative, which has crept into UK politics after the overturning of Roe v Wade in the United States in June 2022, prioritising the life – or rather existence – of the foetus, over the life and rights of its mother.
The rationale behind Ansell’s amendment is data showing medical advances mean more extremely premature babies are surviving at 22 weeks rather than 24. But research published in November 2023 from the University of Leicester and Imperial College London shows the majority of babies born before 24 weeks still die, with only three out of 10 of babies born at 22 weeks likely to survive until they can be discharged from hospital. Those who do survive will spend many months in intensive care in hospital, and are often left with serious and lasting impairments. To whose benefit would it be to force women to give birth in such situations? As someone who has been faced with this prospect, I can tell you that abortion, horrible as it is, is sometimes the least bad option.
Another two amendments to this bill (from Labour MPs Diana Johnson and Stella Creasy) aim to decriminalise abortion. Given that this has already happened in Northern Ireland, it should be a formality in England and Wales – although that’s by no means a certainty. In the light of what has happened in the US, where more than a dozen states have outlawed abortion entirely, that this is even being argued about between politicians should serve as a warning: we cannot and should not take our abortion rights for granted. Remember that many MPs in this government – in this cabinet – have voted to restrict abortion rights, and voiced support for banning very early term abortions.
As many concerned voices predicted, the momentous constitutional change in the US has emboldened our homegrown anti-choice activists here in the UK (I refuse to call them by their chosen moniker, pro-life). Anti-abortion groups are extremely active on social media and, despite legislation to create buffer zones around abortion clinics – again delayed – they are still harassing women making deeply personal, often very difficult, medical decisions. They are clearly well-organised and funded. Where, we should ask, is this money coming from?
Activists and politicians are able to undermine our reproductive rights only because abortion remains, technically, a criminal offence in the UK, under laws made in Victorian times. Unlike other healthcare issues – because let’s be clear, birth is often a matter of life and death – it being a criminal issue means a woman can’t just say she wants or needs a procedure; she must first get approval from two doctors and meet certain criteria. This often leads to delays, which cause distress and mean pregnancies grow more advanced (read: more complicated and requiring increasingly invasive treatment).
Like Creasy, I believe abortion should be fully decriminalised and that no woman should ever be prosecuted or imprisoned for having one. Personal experience has shown me that no woman would choose to have a late termination unless it was absolutely necessary. In 2012, after months of scans and invasive tests, I discovered the much-wanted baby I was carrying had an extremely rare and serious chromosome disorder. Were she to be born alive, which was in grave doubt, she would suffer greatly and almost certainly die within months. I was already 23 weeks pregnant.
After many painful discussions, I chose to terminate my pregnancy to spare my daughter suffering. At 24 weeks gestation, this was extremely physically and emotionally traumatic. After a procedure to stop her heart, I had to be induced, then go through a full labour and a stillbirth. My daughter’s name was Elodie and I will never forget her, or what I went through.
Many women don’t discover what is wrong with their pregnancy until late on. An earlier imminent legal deadline might mean they are forced to make a choice to abort before they are in possession of the full facts – thus leading to more abortions. By putting the rights of an unborn child before a mother’s, we are placing the first foot on a slippery slope. Let’s not forget that, already, women in some countries are imprisoned for having miscarriages.
The fact is, there is no need to reduce legal time limits because very few late abortions take place in the UK. In 2021, only 1% of abortions were performed past 20 weeks. In my opinion, the viability debate is a red herring, a distraction from what is really going on here: the chip, chip, chipping away at women’s rights by those who want to see abortions outlawed. We must decriminalise abortion so that this cannot happen.
Hilary Freeman is a journalist and author
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
