Mothers in England and Wales may be less likely to face criminal charges for ending their own pregnancies up to birth after the House of Lords approved a controversial legal measure on Wednesday (March 18), prompting strong concern from evangelical leaders who say the change weakens protections for women and unborn children.
The upper chamber of the U.K. Parliament voted 185–148 to retain Clause 208 of the Crime and Policing Bill, which would decriminalize women who end or attempt to end their pregnancies at any stage. The provision had previously been approved by the House of Commons in June 2025.
Peers rejected all proposed amendments except one, introduced by Baroness Glenys Thornton, which would pardon women previously convicted or cautioned under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 for ending their own pregnancies. Because of that amendment, the bill will return to the House of Commons for further consideration.
Speaking during the debate, Dame Sarah Mullally, Archbishop of Canterbury, outlined the Church of England’s position, describing it as one of principled opposition to abortion while acknowledging “limited conditions under which abortion may be preferable to any available alternatives.”
“This is based on the belief in the infinite value of every human life, however old or young, including life not yet born,” she said.
“The infinite value of human life underpins much of our legal system and has shaped existing laws on abortion. All life is precious. Women facing the complex decision to terminate a pregnancy deserve our utmost understanding, care, and practical support as they navigate what is often a heart-wrenching choice.”
Mullally opposed Clause 208, warning it could weaken existing legal safeguards.
“I am reminded of the call of the prophet Micah to do justice and to love mercy,” she added. “Balancing justice and mercy is the challenge we are debating today. I do not think women should be prosecuted for actions relating to their own pregnancies, but I also do not wish to see any increase in late-term abortions.”
Baroness Kishwer Falkner of Margravine also opposed full decriminalization, arguing for a system in which the law remains but prosecutions are tightly controlled.
“The question for society is whether policy and law resolve both sides of a problem,” Falkner said. “Do we pass a law that entirely removes criminal sanctions for rare but potentially criminal acts?”
She noted that police may still need to investigate cases in which a lifeless infant or late-stage fetus is found, even if women themselves are no longer criminally liable.
Douglas Hogg, 3rd Viscount Hailsham, questioned how the law could distinguish between a child just born and one about to be born, saying the ending of near-term life could only be justified “in the most compelling circumstances.”
“This is not merely personal morality,” Hogg said. “It reflects the value society and Parliament place on human life.”
He also criticized the clause as a departure from existing law passed without full scrutiny.
Baroness Rosa Monckton of Dallington Forest similarly argued the measure lacked adequate evidence, consultation and impact assessment.
“It is a radical proposal with implications for women’s mental and physical health and lethal consequences for viable unborn children,” she said.
Supporters of the clause emphasized access to care and medical safety.
Baroness Tessa Blackstone, chair of the Board of Trustees for the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, said telemedical abortion — “pills by post” — has proven safe and effective.
“Waiting times fell, gestational age at treatment declined, and 98.8% of abortions were successfully completed with medication,” she said. “Safety is not just clinical outcomes. Women accessing early medical abortion through licensed providers receive consultations that follow established safeguarding protocols.”
About half of patients still receive in-person care, she said, arguing that telemedicine expands choice without removing clinic access.
Baroness Frances D’Souza expressed support for abortion access but raised concerns about late-term cases, emphasizing the importance of in-person consultations to maintain safeguards.
Baroness Sheila Lawlor warned the measure could increase risks for both mothers and babies, particularly in cases involving home-administered abortions.
Outside Parliament, evangelical leaders voiced strong opposition.
Dawn McAvoy, advocate with the Evangelical Alliance UK and head of the Both Lives initiative, said the vote weakens protections for women and unborn children.
“By approving this measure, parliamentarians are allowing women to self-administer abortions at home at any stage of pregnancy,” she said. “This is not a victory for women — it is a tragic failure. Parliament has voted to facilitate dangerous, backstreet-style abortions.”
McAvoy compared the move to Northern Ireland’s 2019 decriminalization, noting that abortion rates there have tripled in six years. She also cited a case of a teenage girl who traveled to England for an abortion, which her mother described as traumatic.
“We do not know the full circumstances leading her to end her pregnancy at around five months,” McAvoy said.
“However, it appears she may have been inadequately informed about the physical and psychological implications of a second-trimester abortion.”
She warned that combining decriminalization with telemedicine could further increase access to late-term abortions. “The lack of clinical oversight leaves women more vulnerable than ever. This is not healthcare — this is abandonment.”
Calling for renewed safeguards, McAvoy urged lawmakers to restore in-person consultations and expand support for women facing crisis pregnancies.
“As Christians, we are called to uphold the dignity of every human life and care for those in need,” she said. “Parliament must now provide life-affirming support for women in crisis pregnancies, ensuring both mother and child are treated with dignity before and after birth.”
