Christian leaders condemn UK vote to decriminalize late-term abortions: 'more women being injured'

British lawmakers voted on June 17 to remove the threat of criminal prosecution for women in England and Wales who undergo abortions after 24 weeks, prompting strong criticism from Christian leaders who say the change endangers both women and unborn children.

The amendment to the Crime and Policing bill easily passed by a majority of 242 in a free vote of conscience. It means women terminating pregnancies after 24 weeks will no longer be prosecuted by police although a legal penalty remains for anyone, including health professionals, helping a pregnant woman to abort outside the law. 

Until now, U.K. law criminalized abortion under the tenets of the Abortion Act 1967, which only permitted women to allow the killing of unborn children in the womb up to 24 weeks gestation or beyond that timeframe in particular scenarios, namely if the mother could die or the child is diagnosed with an abnormality. 

Abortion pills sent by post were allowed in the Covid pandemic in 2020, pending a remote medical consultation. In 2022, Parliament voted to make the practice permanent.

Yet the law stated—until the parliamentary vote—that the inducement of a miscarriage is a criminal act, punishable with a prison sentence.

Dr Susan Marriott, Head of Public Policy for the Christian Medical Fellowship, told Christian Daily International about her concerns for women as a result of the amended law. 

“MPs’ decision to decriminalise abortion is both dangerous and wrong,” said Marriott. 

“If this represents progress it is only progress towards more women being injured, both physically and mentally, and more viable babies losing their lives.  We must now redouble our efforts to see women and their unborn babies receive proper protection and care.”

Dawn McAvoy, Lead for Both Lives UK, affiliated with the UK Evangelical Alliance (EA), wrote an article (June 18) for the evangelical body about the decision of UK lawmakers. Titled, “Parliament votes to legalise unsafe and dangerous abortion,” she said that dangerous and late term, self-induced abortion has now been legitimised in the UK. 

It means countless unborn children losing any legal protection and an abandonment by those responsible for care, McAvoy added. 

McAvoy said the parliament’s decision meant facilitating “women acting outside of a medically regulated framework to terminate the life of their unborn child at any stage of pregnancy up to birth.”

“Some women will risk their own lives and health in the name of ​‘autonomy’. Others will be coerced into ​‘choosing’ by abusers,” McAvoy wrote. 

“Abortion providers will face little accountability for women they will never see or meet in person; posting out abortion pills after a telemedicine consultation. The tax payer will pay for a statutory regulated framework that will fail to protect women from unsafe abortion provision, with utter disregard for unborn life, even babies who can survive outside the womb.”

The article also quoted Member of Parliament Julia Lopez MP speaking in opposition to the measures proposed in the House of Commons debate. 

“As MPs, we are not here simply to express our opinions of an ideal world or even to focus only on highly distressing cases; we are legislators, and no greater legislative duty exists than to make sure that what we do in this House does not lead to unintended consequences in the real world for the most vulnerable,” said Lopez, during the debate, as quoted by McAvoy. 

“In two hours of debate on a Tuesday afternoon, we are being asked to rewrite a profound boundary in British law that protects the unborn child. That is not responsible lawmaking; it is a procedural ambush. It is telling that not even the promoters of decriminalisation in this House can agree on the form it should take. That ought to make each one of us pause, because it speaks to the challenge of moving beyond principle to real-world application.”

Meanwhile, McAvoy vowed that the battle must continue against the “culture of death” prevailing in pro abortion supporters, seeking the killings of unborn children. She called for a different culture which is “truly just, humane and compassionate.”  

“Every abortion ends a human life,” wrote McAvoy. “Abortion often hurts women and does little to solve the underlying systemic issues which cause any woman to feel driven to terminate her own child’s life.”

Danny Webster, Director of Advocacy for the UK EA, also vented his frustration at the decision in parliament. 

In a Substack article titled, “Does parliament value life and protect the vulnerable?” Webster berated the mere two hours allotted in parliament to debating the issue.  

He noted a sense of irony in many MPs vouching publicly to care about the least in society but then ducking out of “serious thought and debate” about the legality of women looking to abort children, and instead pushing a “common sense, why on earth wouldn’t we, type of issue.”  

“Maybe that is because while the law provides for abortion at specific times for specific reasons with two doctors signing it off, the practice is that people can receive abortion without question until they are 24 weeks pregnant,” Webster suggested. 

“This is based on a faulty notion of choice and bodily autonomy that suggests a baby is an extension of a woman’s body, and therefore her choice, rather than a life of its own.”

Webster also expressed concern about another amendment to abortion suggest in parliament, not adopted yet, which would enshrine abortion as a human right. He foresaw such a move would “entirely dismantle the legal framework around abortion.”

Commenting about the justification for changing the law agreed by parliament, Webster cited the “tiny number of prosecutions of women for abortions beyond 24 weeks, which largely has been a result of the availability of abortion pills in the post, with only a telephone consultation.”

“No doctor certified how many weeks pregnant a woman was, and therefore inappropriate medication was offered—such pills are only for early abortions in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy,” Webster wrote. 

“Whether the women in question really thought they were less than 10 weeks pregnant, or knew they weren’t, is not for me to say. A far more [effective] response would have been the proposal suggested by Caroline Johnson MP, but rejected by three-quarters of MPs to reinstate in person consultations for all abortions.”

The change in law will stop women in such cases facing criminal prosecution, Webster added but it would also “incentivise them seeking dangerous abortions outside the medical system.”

“This is because while they are exempt from prosecution any doctor who assisted them with an abortion that would not be permitted under the 1967 Act would still be liable for prosecution,” he explained. 

“Pregnancy is about two lives, the mother and the baby, and our system has to work for both. This change disregards the legal status of the baby – at any point during pregnancy, and leaves women far more vulnerable to coercion and dangerous abortions. It was not a surprising outcome but it is immensely sad.”