On Tuesday, MPs voted on a number of amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill. This aimed to tidy up various laws. However, three amendments were tabled that would impact abortion law in England and Wales.
NC1 (“new clause 1”) proposed by Tonia Antoniazzi MP would give women immunity from prosecution under the Abortion Act 1967
“Removal of women from the criminal law related to abortion
For the purposes of the law related to abortion, including sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, no offence is committed by a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy.”
NC20 proposed by Stella Creasy MP did the same but went further, repealing completely the sections of the law under which abortion after 24 weeks is illegal. The relevant portions are these:
(2) Sections 58, 59 and 60 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 are repealed under the law of England and Wales.
(3) The Infant Life Preservation Act 1929 is repealed.
NC106 proposed by Caroline Johnson MP sought to prevent purely remote abortion, “pills by post”.
“Abortion: requirement for in-person consultation
In section 1(3D) of the Abortion Act 1967, omit “, by telephone or by electronic means”.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would mean that a pregnant woman would need to have an in-person consultation
before lawfully being prescribed medicine for the termination of a pregnancy.
NC20 was not chosen for a separate vote.
NC1 had 379 votes in favour and 137 against. (See who voted which way)
NC106 had 117 votes in favour and 379 against. (See who voted which way)
Remember those names. There will be a general election in just under 4 years’ time.
Summary
If the bill becomes law with NC1 included, the effect is to legalise abortion up to birth for any reason.
Read that last sentence again.
(Yes, people objecting to arguments against this are quick to point out that it’s decriminalised not legalised. A woman would have broken the law if she had an abortion after 24 weeks, but would not face prosecution. The distinction is specious. To all intents and purposes, abortion for any reason up to birth would be able to take place and the law would forbid your prosecution. The fact the law still forbids it ceases to have any meaning.)
There is something arbitrary about the current 24 week cut-off. (Yes, the Bible teaches life from conception, so I’m not arguing here for any other position.) Heartbeats are detectable from about 6 weeks, so this would be a meaningful cut-off. Premature babies can survive birth before 24 weeks. There is no logical reason why an unborn baby is not a human being with rights at 23 weeks and 6 days, but has become one at 24 weeks and a day.
The scary thing about abortion being allowed up to birth is that this is also self-evidently arbitrary. There is no logical reason why an unborn baby is not human at 39 weeks and 6 days but becomes one at 40 weeks and a day. (I do know that very few babies are born bang on their due-date!)
This will have a huge impact on mental health of women. Research shows that 35% of women experience periods of depression following abortion. Of course, in some cases depression could have been a contributing factor in the decision to have an abortion, rather than a consequence. But more abortions will not be good for women.
It will also have a huge impact on physical health. Amendment NC1 immunises the mother from prosecution, but any who would help her will not be so immune. This has parallels with assisted dying. The Suicide Act 1961 made it no longer a crime to commit suicide, but made explicit that encouraging or assisting is. This pressure has led to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill going through parliament. This mean that women wanting an abortion after 24 weeks will have to do so without assistance. By 24 weeks, the law classifies this as still birth and a reasonably sized dead baby will need to be delivered. The later in pregnancy this is done, the more medical risks are involved.
This also means we can surely expect a similar pressure to assisted dying down the line. The argument would run it's compassionate to protect medical professionals, friends and relatives from prosecution.
Rebecca Paul, MP for Reigate, put it brilliantly on Tuesday:
If new clause 1 passes while the pills-by-post scheme remains in place, here is what will happen. More women will attempt late-term abortions at home using abortion pills acquired over the phone, and some of those women will be harmed. Many of them will not have realised that they are actually going to deliver something that looks like a baby, not just some blood clots—that is going to cause huge trauma for them. Many of those women genuinely will not have realised how far along they are, due to implantation bleeding being mistaken for their last period, and on top of all of this, some of the babies will be alive on delivery.
We in this place need to get away from this terrible habit of only considering issues through a middle-class lens. What about women who are being sexually exploited and trafficked? What about teenage girls who do not want their parents to find out that they are pregnant?
I've been reflecting on the vote on Tuesday, and how we can make sense of what’s just happened. I'll share 4 reflections in a moment, but first I'll reproduce my letter to my own MP. (She has just replied today to say that she values having informed and communicative constituents.) This letter highlights some of the concerns I have.
Letter to Alison Hume, MP for Scarborough and Whitby
Dear Alison
I've been reading about the two proposed amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill, NC1 from Tonia Atoniazzi and NC20 from Stella Creasy.
I've also seen that your name is on the list of sponsors for one of those amendments, so you're clearly in favour of this in principle.
Given our conversations around assisted dying, it won't surprise you that I would oppose both amendments.
Purely from the point of view of due process, I have a concern that resembles some of what Stephen Hoare said in parliament today. This would be a big change to the laws of this country, to amend the 1961 Abortion Act in this way. Such a change should be passed, if desired, in a bill of its own, with the due scrutiny and care that affords. To include it as merely one amendment amongst several in the Crime and Policing Bill is somewhat of a Trojan Horse, and does not allow the same time for this careful thought.
But I'm also deeply concerned because of the affects such a blanket change could have on women. I'm not sure this is fully appreciated by those pushing for these changes. As well as the medical and mental-health challenges that a significant proportion of women face after abortion, there are significant unintended consequences in removing any legal guidance for abortion. One example would be the child's father deceptively getting the mother to take abortion medication, against her knowledge and will. The current law allows that to be prosecuted, but the amendments would not. This then has similar tones (but, granted, nowhere near as serious) to the Dominique Pelicot case in France.
When Kim Leadbeater presented her assisted dying bill, part of her pitch was that the current system would be broken. She argued there is currently no legal framework for voluntary death at the end of life, and her proposals fix that by creating such a framework. Currently we have a legal framework to legislate for abortion. Both those amendments would take abortion provision to precisely the place Kim Leadbeater has been seeking to take us out of with assisted dying, to a place where there is no legal framework and so zero protection for the vulnerable.
I attach a briefing paper from the Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform, which explains very clearly the full consequence (intended or not) of these amendments. Even if you continue to support the amendments, I'd be very grateful if you would read this so you're thoroughly aware of what you'd be voting for.
With best wishes,
Here then are 4 reflections
This is demonic
The Bible teaches that, as well as the world we can see, there is a spiritual world we cannot see. Angels are real, and so are demons. Precisely because that world is hidden from our view, we should not speculate excessively about what is going on. Our task is to serve God faithfully and to pray. But we need to be clear that our struggle is not against flesh and blood (Ephesians 6:12). As we seek to live out God's purposes in the world, we have an unseen enemy. Ephesians therefore counsels us to wear the full armour of God (to clothe ourselves in Christ’s finished work on our behalf) and to pray.
We can go further though. Daniel 10:12-14 suggests that behind earthly powers, kingdoms and rulers there are parallel spiritual powers at work. As states and governments advance agendas that are good or evil, their angelic proxies are also at work behind the scenes to fight those causes. We can’t say more, because Scripture stops at that hint, so we shouldn't speculate.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting any individual MPs are demon-possessed (but demon possession is a real thing, as we learn from the life and ministry of Jesus, even if it was most common when he was on the earth). But the mood in Parliament on Tuesday, and as people have sought to engage with their MPs ahead of the votes, has been frenzied. There was a quasi religious fanaticism in the air, a determination to get this through as fast as possible with no regard for facts or consequences. Watch the chamber from 19:15:10 to 19:15:45 on Tuesday. There are cheers when the vote tally is announced.
We've had a debate last Friday on assisted dying, following a committee stage, where reasonable amendments that would minimise harm were dismissed with the wave of a hand. The reply I received from our MP on assisted dying did not engage at all with the details of the bill, simply a desire to get it done. Then we had abortion law changed after just 2 hours of debate.
Putting together the biblical teaching on spiritual reality and the vibe amongst our lawmakers, my assessment is that this is more than just some MPs with an agenda, but that this is being driven diabolically. Evil spiritual powers are seeking to take our nation down a disastrous route.
This is expected
This should not surprise us. Our nation has been slowly turning from its Christian foundation for many decades, arguably even longer. Whereas the majority of our ancient laws are founded on Christian values, such as the dignity and worth of a human being, those values are now not held by the majority of our MPs. The era of MPs like William Wilberforce, passing laws to bring the UK into line with biblical values, is over. Instead we should expect to see an unravelling. There is a reason why human rights have historically been so protected in the UK, and it is the influence of biblical teaching on our law and culture. This will not remain so.
In particular, there is a pattern where false gods through history do seem to repeat themselves. They have different names, but are strikingly similar in the worship and lifestyles they demand. The Canaanite god Moloch or Molek demanded child sacrifice. God forbids this in the strongest terms: Leviticus 18:21; Leviticus 20:2-5; 1 Kings 11:7; 2 Kings 23:10.
That god may have been represented by statues, human inventions, but behind that physical religion was a false god who is still causing trouble today. In the modern West, the predominant religion is of the right to make my own choices without considering others, career and self-advancement, pleasure and freedom from responsibility. It should not surprise us that this “god” also demands children be sacrificed. If someone orientates their life around those values and priorities, that “god” will only bless that choice to worship him / her / it if some children are killed. Sometimes, children prevent giving full loyalty and devotions to those modern gods.
This is the judgement of God
It's tempting to long for the day when God judges those who pass such wicked laws. But we need to pause.
Romans 1:18-32 charts the path of decay we're seeing playing out. It speaks of God giving people “over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done" (Romans 1:28). “Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them” (Romans 1:32).
However, sinful as those things are, they are not the main sin in this section of Romans, but God's judgement on our sin. The main sin comes in Romans 1:18-21: “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them because God has made it plain to them. … For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him.”
We know full well that God exists, but we deliberately suppress that inconvenient truth and refuse to honour or thank him. Because of this, God’s wrath is being revealed (present tense). This happens as God takes the brakes off and lets us do whatever we want, harming ourselves more and more. The climax then is the future “day of God’s wrath” (Romans 2:5) when God will repay with perfect and exact justice.
I commented above how Britain has been moving away from having God at the centre of our culture and legal framework. As society turns our backs on God, laws like these are the result. This is God letting us do as we please, no longer restraining us from deeds as awful as infanticide. This is the judgement of God.
This highlights assisted dying
Lastly, this highlights the need to resist legislation to allow assisted suicide.
In my recent teaching video on assisted dying, I made a brief comparison with the Abortion Act. A law that was created for a small number of compassionate hard cases has seen astronomical growth in numbers of uses, and has led to de facto abortion on demand. My point was that you can't get the genie back in the bottle, and the tightly defined circumstances envisaged now for assisted death won't be where things stay.
The decision that the Commons just made takes de facto abortion on demand (up to 24 weeks) and escalates it to de jure abortion on demand (up to birth). This further validates the slippery slope argument on assisted dying. Being told that “this is only for a very tightly defined set of circumstances” does not reassure at all when you see how abortion played out in just 60 years.
They think it's all over
The last comment is that the Crime and Policing Bill still needs to go through all of its stages in the House of Lords. They regularly amend legislation before sending it back to the Commons. We must pray that the Lords remove NC1 from the bill before sending it back. It is appalling that such a major change to laws of life and death were made after just 2 hours of rushed debate, and without the proper scrutiny of being a bill in its own right.
Yes, the House of Commons could put NC1 back in again. This “ping-pong” can continue for some time. The government can use the Parliament Act to force its wishes onto the House of Lords to resolve a stalemate. But this is a matter on which the government has said it is neutral, and is giving MPs a free vote of conscience, so it would seem unlikely that they would then force this onto the Lords.
So keep praying. But ultimately we need God’s mercy. We are under his judgement as a nation, and the only path back is a wholesale return to the Lord Jesus Christ and his life-giving gospel of grace. As well as praying for this amendment to be defeated, let's pray for the nation to turn back to God in repentance. That is the only lasting hope for good laws that protect and value life in this country.
Recent comments