Britain's Week of Death

The Grim Reaper comes to Parliament

The past week in Britain has raised serious concerns about the spiritual heart of the country. MPs have opened the door to allowing mothers to abort their full-term babies and encouraging the old, infirm, and vulnerable to shuffle off their mortal coils.

On Tuesday 17 June, MPs voted to decriminalize abortion up to the moment of birth in England and Wales. This means that women cannot be investigated by the police or prosecuted for ending their pregnancies at any stage, whatever the reason. Swig down a cocktail of abortion pills ten minutes before you are due to give birth and the law cannot touch you. The amendment, however, does not decriminalize medical professionals who assist with late-term abortions.

The Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi tabled the amendment (NC1) to the Crime and Policing Bill. It passed last week with a landslide of 242 votes: 379 MPs in favor, 137 against. Westminster is out of step with public opinion here. A poll by ComRes shows that only 1% support pro-choice campaigners’ aim to legalize abortion up to birth; 70% of women would like to see a reduction of time limits. 89% oppose sex-selective abortions, which these amendments would make possible.

Regulations are already permissive in England and Wales. Abortion is allowed up to the first 24 weeks of pregnancy. The Abortion Act 1967 – the primary piece of legislation on this in England, Scotland, and Wales – stipulates that two registered medical practitioners must agree that the baby would pose a greater risk to the physical or mental health of the woman than the termination. There is no time limit if the mother’s life is at risk, or there is a chance of “grave injury” to her mental and physical health, or there are signs of fatal fetal abnormalities.

Julia Lopez MP says she was “deeply disturbed” by the debate:

“The biggest change to abortion law in fifty years passes the Commons after a two-hour debate. It is a profound change that leaves the unborn child and women themselves extraordinarily vulnerable. […]
The rushed amendments on decriminalisation are very dangerous. A woman will now be able to end her pregnancy herself – at any stage including up to birth – without legal consequence. She will also have the means to do it – with tablets that can be obtained by post. These should only be taken before a baby in the womb is at ten weeks gestation, and ought to be available only after a phone or video call with a medic.”

To put it in perspective, MPs had another two-hour debate this week – on Pride. Surely something as serious as a human life deserves more time than this.

In the Telegraph, Miriam Cates warns of the danger of medically unsupervised late-term abortions:

“The consequences of full decriminalisation will be grim, with inevitable increases in coercion and medical complications. The experience of Victoria, Australia suggests we will see more babies born alive after failed “DIY” late-term abortions, and a rise in sex-selective abortions. […] MPs must not allow the unpopular obsession of a handful of activists to change the law.”

To decriminalize abortion up to birth not only risks the mother’s health, it shows a total disregard for the value of the child. Why is ending a baby’s life considered a “reproductive right” just before birth, but infanticide straight after? Those who support the status quo have flinched at the extremity of this amendment – to “terminate” a fully-formed child in the womb with no legal consequences is extreme, even by pro-choice standards. These babies are viable. At this point they smile, kick, and respond to familiar voices. Ending their lives is not a win for women. It is murder dressed up as feminism.

Priests for Life have online galleries which illustrate the brutal reality of abortion: these photographs show aborted children at every stage, many of them late. The images are profoundly disturbing. Tiny dismembered bodies. Little scrunched up hands that will never get to hold anything – or anyone. A baby’s delicate face, discarded like rubbish. Can the MPs who supported this amendment stomach looking at these?

A pro-life lobby group called Abort73 believes graphic abortion photos can change the debate:

“Most abortion advocates decry the use of graphic abortion photos as unfair and manipulative. “Shock value” has no place in the abortion debate, they might argue. In reality, abortion images are no more shocking than the act of abortion itself. The pictures, in fact, are far less shocking than seeing an abortion take place in person. It is understandable why those who support abortion do not want people seeing what abortion actually looks like.”

It continues:

“there are some realities which are so grim that they simply cannot be adequately communicated through words alone”

We are fallen into a moral abyss if we think this is something to be celebrated. MPs weaponize the language of “vulnerability” to appeal to our emotions. But we must consider the most vulnerable and voiceless of us all, who deserve the chance to live.

The UK media has taken pains to portray the amendment as a victory for women. Take this disingenuous article from the BBC, for example:

The image is profoundly misleading. It shows a woman holding a positive pregnancy test and a single pill. The implication is clearly that the amendment mainly affects women who have just become pregnant, but this is not the case; they can already obtain an abortion with ease. The headline, though technically correct, is also obfuscatory. It glosses over the most shocking aspect of the amendment. The breaking news story concerns abortion until birth.

Other media outlets focus exclusively on women’s rights without sparing a second thought for the late-term baby. The Guardian celebrated the decision as a “step forward for reproductive rights”. Stella Creasy, who proposed an even more extreme amendment, also wrote about “anti-abortion extremists” in the same paper. Anyone who voices a whimper of dissent about killing a child moments before its birth is now an “extremist”.

In line with the death theme of the week, MPs also backed Kim Leadbeater’s Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, also known as the assisted dying bill, by 314 votes to 291. According to the BBC, Leadbeater is “over the moon”. The bill offers the choice of assisted suicide to “terminally ill adults with mental capacity if they are expected to die within six months”. Two doctors must independently confirm the person is eligible and a High Court judge has the last word.

Quite apart from ethical concerns about the power of the state to end lives, the bill leaves worrying space for mission creep. Consider Canada’s “Medical Aid in Dying” (MAiD). Assisted suicide was legalized in June 2016 following a ruling by the Canadian Supreme Court that allowed terminally ill adults to take their own lives with medical help. In 2021, Canada expanded euthanasia laws to include those who are not dying, but who have “grievous and irremediable” conditions which cause physical or psychological suffering. The government now plans to open MAiD to adults with mental illnesses by March 2027.

The first official report into assisted dying in Ontario found that vulnerable people are subject to “potential coercion or undue influence”. The Telegraph reports:

“Data shows that a disproportionate number of people who died by assisted dying when they were not terminally ill – 29 per cent – came from Ontario’s poorest areas. This is compared to 20 per cent of the province’s general population living in the most deprived communities.”

Some of the findings are unsettling. While it is still illegal for doctors to help the mentally ill kill themselves, the review found that this had indeed happened.

In the Spectator, Dan Hitchens points out the specific flaws of Leadbeater’s bill, arguing that it has been “hectically rushed, then frantically delayed, and somewhere along the way has lost its biggest safeguard, the inclusion of a High Court judge”. He continues:

“Even the bill’s most basic aspects do not hold up to scrutiny. Applicants need a six-month terminal prognosis, but such predictions are notoriously unreliable: a fifth of those given six months to live are still around three years later. The bill forbids ‘coercion’ – but in a world where only five per cent of recorded domestic abuse crimes result in a conviction, how many vulnerable people will slip through the cracks?”

Simon O’Connor, Chairman of the New Zealand Parliament’s Health Committee, echoes this feeling of alarm, warning that “everywhere assisted dying is introduced, the safeguards never prove effective”.

The medical profession is supposed to look after the ill, vulnerable, and elderly. It is a doctor’s duty to do no harm.

With both abortion and assisted suicide a step closer this week, there has been a fearful symmetry of life and death. Thanks to Labour, the Grim Reaper will soon be waiting for us at every turn.