I wish to set out clearly my decision making in respect of the recent vote on New Clause 1 (NC1) to the Crime and Policing Bill, the intent of which is to decriminalise a woman’s actions in relation to her own abortion in all circumstances.
Let me begin by reaffirming my long-held position on this issue; I am, and remain, pro-choice. I have always supported measures that enhance women’s autonomy over their own reproductive choices, and I believe strongly in ensuring safe, compassionate access to abortion services.
As a matter of principle, I do not believe it is right for the law to criminalise some of the most vulnerable girls and women in our society; particularly those who have endured unimaginable trauma, such as survivors of rape and exploitation. In such circumstances, the law must offer compassion, not condemnation, and it must never compound the suffering they have already faced.
However, with every piece of legislation, particularly one that concerns complex matters of justice and public safety, we must consider not only intention but consequence.
On this occasion, I made the difficult decision to actively abstain by voting in both the ‘Aye’ and ‘No’ lobbies. I did so not out of indifference, but because I believed the amendment, as drafted, raised serious legal concerns and unintended implications which had not been adequately addressed during the debate.
NC1 removes criminal liability from a pregnant woman in relation to abortion in all circumstances, including very late in pregnancy. Whilst I understand and respect the motivation behind this provision, it will also remove the legal basis upon which others, such as abusive partners or coercive individuals, can be prosecuted for encouraging or assisting an unlawful, late-term abortion.
To give one example: under current law, if a partner pressures a woman to induce an abortion after the 24-week limit, he may be prosecuted for aiding or abetting a crime, even if the woman herself is not charged. NC1 will remove the foundational offence, thereby eliminating the possibility of holding that partner criminally accountable. A similar issue arises where individuals, such as the operators of websites, may encourage women to undertake dangerous procedures well beyond legal time limits. Without a prosecutable offence committed by the woman, those individuals could not be held to account either.
Moreover, NC1 will inadvertently make it more difficult to prosecute rare but tragic cases of infanticide. Where there is suspicion that a baby was born alive and then unlawfully killed, the Crown currently has the option of alternative charges under abortion laws where full evidence of live birth is unavailable. NC1 will remove that legal fallback, making it harder to secure justice in such cases.
I do not believe these consequences reflect the intention of the amendment’s sponsor. However, in my judgement, Parliament had not sufficiently resolved these serious legal concerns before the vote.
I want to be clear, my decision was not a retreat from my pro-choice stance, nor a vote against the principle of reform. Rather, it was an expression of deep concern that this particular measure, without further refinement, risked undermining the very safeguards that protect vulnerable women and children.
Reform in this area is necessary, but it must be done with care, legal clarity, and comprehensive foresight. I remain committed to engaging constructively with colleagues and advocates to ensure that future legislation advances women’s rights while also preserving necessary legal protections.
I respect the strength of feeling this matter arouses and am always grateful for the opportunity to explain my reasoning honestly and openly.”
