(Photo: Getty/iStock)
Catholic Archbishop John Sherrington has urged members of the House of Lords to vote down a proposal that would effectively allow abortion up to the point of birth for any reason.
Last year the House of Commons voted in favour of an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill that removes all criminal sanctions for women who carry out their own abortions at any stage in the pregnancy.
If passed into law, the proposals in clause 208 would not change the current 24 week legal limit at which a woman can have an abortion. However they would make it possible for women to arrange their own abortions beyond this point with no fear of legal consequences.
Critics have said that after decades of talking about the horrors of coat hangers and back-street abortions, passing the amendment would encourage such activity. The fact that a bill ostensibly about law and order and preventing terrorism has now become a vehicle for an extreme pro-abortion position has been condemned by some. Critics have also pointed out that it opens the door to sex-selective abortions.
A House of Lords vote is due to take place on Wednesday.
Archbishop Sherrington, who is the Church’s lead bishop for life issues, is urging peers to support Baroness Monckton’s amendment to remove clause 208 completely from the Crime and Policing Bill.
“If not removed, this clause would represent a radical departure from our current law, further threatening the dignity of the unborn child. The clause is not supported by the British public,” he said.
“Apart from the further threat clause 208 poses to the lives of unborn babies and the health of their mothers, this change would leave women more susceptible to coercion and abuse.”
The archbishop also called for an end to the controversial “pills-by-post” scheme that allows pregnant women to obtain abortion pills in the mail without the need for an in-person meeting with a healthcare professional.
Proposals to reinstate mandatory in-person consultations prior to receiving pills for an at-home abortion are contained within a separate amendment tabled by Baroness Stroud.
Critics argue that the pills-by-post scheme is open to abuse, pointing to one case in which a woman obtained the pills and illegally aborted her own baby at around 33 weeks. In another case, a man was able to receive the pills by false means and slip them into the drink of his pregnant girlfriend without her consent. She wished to have the baby but lost what would have been her first child. She has since been unable to conceive again.
Archbishop Sherrington is asking peers to also vote in favour of Baroness Stroud’s amendment.
“As well as leading to an increase in abortions in general, pills-by-post has led to a number of late-term, at-home abortions, which have also put the health of the mother in serious danger,” he said.
He also called on believers to pray for those responsible for drafting the nations’ laws and for “a healthcare system that respects the dignity of both mother and baby”.
Criticism of the measures passed by the Commons is not confined to religious figures.
Baroness Stroud’s amendment was co-sponsored by ex-Olympian Sharron Davies. Writing in The Telegraph, she said that even though she is “pro-choice”, she believes that reinstating in-person medical consultations before receiving pills by post would “protect women”. She that the pills-by-post service, introduced as a temporary measure during the pandemic, “should have ended afterwards.”
She said, “Activists may claim the 24-week time limit would remain on paper, since only women administering their own abortions would be removed from the criminal law under the proposed law change. However, this is disingenuous when women can obtain pills so easily.
“Indeed, it is profoundly unfeminist to suggest that women, uniquely, should be removed from the criminal law in this area as if women are always victims and lack agency.
“Equality requires that women have equal responsibilities as well as rights, and are accountable for our actions. The disturbing case of Sarah Catt, who callously aborted a baby at full term in 2010, emphasises the need for an ongoing legal deterrent in this area – Catt could not have been prosecuted if the abortion up to birth proposal had been law.”
She added, “It is difficult to see a significant moral distinction between ending the life of a baby shortly before birth and infanticide shortly afterwards.”
The Times newspaper has also come out against removing legal sanctions past 24 weeks.
“Forty-six minutes of backbench debate. That was the length of time the House of Commons afforded last year to discussing the biggest change to abortion laws in more than half a century … Rarely has a piece of legislation so freighted with ethical dangers, and so heavy with unintended consequences, passed so lightly,” the newspaper said.
Baroness Monckton told The Times ahead of Wednesday’s debate that the welfare of the child had been ignored in the narrative of those supporting full decriminalisation.
“They say we should decriminalise women. In all the reports I’ve read, I have not read anything about the other person involved in this. I haven’t read about the child. But I think not only are we removing the life of the child, we’re removing the protection for the mother,” she said.
Kevin Duffy, a former abortion provider director turned pro-life advocate, said there was a “double standard” at play in the push to decriminalise late-term at-home abortions.
“Behind the call for decriminalisation lies a practical reality: providers avoid later‑term medical abortion because of its risks, complexity, and resource demands – yet campaign for women to be legally permitted to attempt these procedures alone at home,” he said.
“It is a position that shows a troubling disregard for women’s safety and a striking lack of institutional integrity.”
