MPs prepare for abortion showdown
Pro-lifers fear that embryology Bill will be hijacked next week to legalise abortion on demand
By Anna Arco and Simon Caldwell
16 May 2008

The Tories, like Labour and the Lib Dems, are expected to back the deregulation of early abortions

Fears are mounting that pro-choice MPs plan to hijack the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill next week to legalise abortion on demand.

Some MPs and pro-life groups are deeply worried that the Bill will be used to sweep aside a number of regulations on early abortions.

Under the 1967 Abortion Act, abortion is a criminal offence but two doctors are allowed to permit terminations in certain circumstances, such as when there is a grave risk to the mother's mental and physical health.

But widespread recognition that the law is routinely flouted to allow de facto abortion on demand in Britain has led campaigners to press for the practice to be treated in the same way as any other medical procedure.

MPs pressing for the liberalisation of the law have the support of many people who feel uncomfortable about late abortions. They want terminations to be carried out as early as possible and believe it is necessary to remove any obstructions.

On Tuesday, MPs will have the chance to vote on abortion for the first time in 18 years when the HFE Bill arrives before a committee of the whole House of Commons.

Ann Widdecombe, Conservative MP for Maidstone and the Weald, said she had "very serious worries" that abortion on demand would be legalised.

She said: "The most likely way they will do it is to remove the need for two doctors, which will effectively mean abortion on demand."

Miss Widdecombe added that she believed that the provisions of the 1967 Act should instead be both tightened up and enforced.

Phyllis Bowman of the Right to Life group said she expected the Government would push through abortion on demand in spite of Health Secretary Alan Johnson telling the Commons last Monday that "the Government has no plans to change the abortion laws and regulations".

But Mrs Bowman expects otherwise and thinks that Mr Johnson and Dawn Primarolo, the Health Minister, will do everything they can to allow pro-abortion reforms to pass into law.

She said she believed the Ministers were working "hand in glove" with pro-abortion activist Evan Harris, the Lib Dem MP for Oxford West and Abingdon who is the joint secretary of the All Party Parliamentary Pro-Choice Group.

"We are working on reducing the upper limit but Evan Harris is pushing like mad to get abortion on demand," she said, "which would change the grounds for abortion so that medical abortions can be carried out by nurses and the doctors can only talk about the gestational period instead of asking what the grounds for the abortion are."

Pro-life amendments include proposals to lower the upper time limit for abortions from 24 weeks to either 20, 18, 16 or 13 weeks.

A four-week reduction could result in 2,500 lives being saved each year, while a 16-week upper limit - a reduction of almost two months - would see more than 6,000 lives saved.

Tory MP Nadine Dorries, a former nurse, believes she has the support of more than 200 MPs for her amendment for a 20-week upper time limit.

But it is likely that many pro-abortion Labour MPs will either oppose any change or support a minor reduction of just one or two weeks that would result in a small number of lives being saved. Any minor reduction in the upper limit could come at the cost of wholesale deregulation of first-trimester abortions through a range of pro-abortion amendments, which could include the possible extension of the 1967 Act to Northern Ireland.

John Smeaton, the director of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, said that his organisation had been concerned about a scenario in which abortion on demand might become a possibility. "We are very worried about the issue of the abortion amendments," he said. "We pointed out that the majority of MPs are in favour of abortion a while ago."

Andrew Lansley, the Shadow Health Secretary, does not support changing the legal grounds on which abortions are allowed but has indicated that he is in favour of relaxing consent rules for early abortions.

He said in the Commons on Monday: "If a woman needs an abortion in terms sanctioned by the Abortion Act 1967, it must surely be better for it to be an early, medical abortion than a later, surgical one. I therefore hope that the House will consider whether the requirement for two doctors to consent to an abortion being performed and the restrictions on nurses providing medical abortions, needs to be maintained."

Mr Lansley further clarified his position in a letter to the Daily Telegraph in which he wrote: "I believe that where the grounds have been approved, an earlier abortion is preferable to a surgical one later on. The current requirement of approval from two doctors is essentially a practical issue. By granting the authority to other qualified healthcare professionals, women who meet the criteria could secure an abortion earlier.

"Of course, this is my personal opinion and as with all matters of conscience during the passage of this Bill, the Conservative Party will give a free vote."

He hopes that the upper limit for late term abortions will be reduced to 22 weeks.

Some pro-life MPs, however, have signalled that they are ready to fight for meaningful changes to the law in spite of overwhelming support for abortion in the Commons.

Geraldine Smith, a Catholic and one of the four Catholic Labour MPs who rebelled against a three-line whip during the Second Reading of the Bill on Monday, said that she hoped that the coming debates "will bring some positive things".

Miss Smith, MP for Morecambe and Lunesdale, said: "The state of affairs is already such that we basically have abortion on demand. As it is, women are using it as an alternative form of contraception. But I think public opinion is changing thanks to the work of Professor Campbell. His 4-D images of foetuses have made a significant difference."

Abortion is traditionally treated as a conscience issue and will not be subject to party whips. The Bill is silent on the issue of abortion but will be a means to open the 1967 Act for amendments because it will involve reforms of legislation which first altered the controversial 40-year-old law.

Charles Wookey, the assistant general secretary of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales, said the Church was not going to instruct Catholic MPs how to vote.

"The bishops would rightly stand back from political judgments MPs have to make about what is achievable in the circumstances, while encouraging them to get stuck in on achievable adjustments to an unjust law," said Mr Wookey.