To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB Messenger or X.
In 2020 New Zealand's Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern scared the nation out of its wits, then smuggled her heinous Abortion Law Act through Parliament under cover of Covid, a bogey largely of her own making. The nation's parents were thereby entitled to kill their own child while still in its mother's womb, right up to birth.
No protection against sex-selective abortions.No protection against disability-discriminatory abortions.No medical assistance for babies who survive botched abortions. No protection against mothers being coerced. No pain relief for babies in post-20 week abortions. No protection for healthcare professionals who make conscientious objection. And for that New Zealand awarded Ardern a Damehood.
Any unbiased observer would tell you that since 2020 New Zealand's fortunes have staggered from bad to worse. Abortion obviously doesn't pay - except literally, for profiteers like Planned Parenthood, and the UK's NHS-contracted abortion providers, who stand to gain taxpayer moneys for back-street abortions up to birth, via pills-by-post.
Lobbying for this reckless proposition, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists eloquently demonstrates the abortion-induced moral destitution of the medical profession. Opposing the motion, Baroness Monckton says that august body omits any mention whatsoever of their smallest patients - the babies they suggest be killed. But she and her cohort in the Lords omit any mention of the salient point of the debate - the intrinsic and undeniable right to life itself, whether it's 24 weeks old or full-term.
Human life is human life, and sacrosanct. Humankind ignores or overrides that pillar of civilisation at peril of its own death. As we see already.
 |
| Jacinda Ardern and Satan's useful idiots |
In one week last June, the House of Commons passed two measures which would radically change the nature of our society.
The first, which I think everyone now knows, was to enable the state to facilitate and even encourage suicide for those diagnosed as having six months left to live.
But the other measure, which is far less well known, decriminalises abortion up to full term, for any reason, if it is performed alone by the mother. I promised readers of this paper that I would fight these in the House of Lords – where both are now being considered – and thus on Monday I put forward an amendment to strike out this radical reshaping of our abortion laws.
The Crime and Policing Bill now being debated in the House of Lords is a lengthy and important piece of legislation, which has been detaining peers, in our capacity as a revising chamber, for the past two and half months.
This law change would, in effect, re-introduce the backstreet abortion, as women beyond the current 24-week legal limit are in effect to be encouraged to abort at home on their own, using pills ordered through the post, which are not designed for use outside of a clinical context beyond ten weeks.
This is a terrifying proposition, which could increase the likelihood of women suffering coercive third-trimester terminations – since an abusive partner could point out there was no longer any legal penalty – and the unspeakable trauma of a late-term abortion without any medical supervision.
As I said in the debate on Monday, there is a supreme irony that those who always claimed to support legal termination on the basis that the alternative would be unsafe – backstreet terminations – are now proposing that women can perform illegal terminations (outside the terms of the Abortion Act) in an unsafe and unsupervised environment.
The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists lobbied for the 'abortion pills by post' scheme, introduced during the lockdowns of the Covid 19 pandemic, which was never supposed to be permanent, though it now seems to be. They are among several Royal Colleges and abortion providers who are lobbying for Clause 191 to become law.
 |
| a premature baby at 24 weeks |
But I received a letter from a deeply concerned healthcare professional pointing out grim medical facts that most MPs seemed unwilling to contemplate in their perfunctory deliberations.
She pointed out that babies over the age of 22 weeks being legally aborted in a medical setting are clinically euthanised prior to surgery by a lethal injection directly into the heart. This procedure is recommended by the Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology to prevent larger sentient babies from being delivered badly injured, but still alive. But babies aborted in a domestic setting, by the mother, alone, cannot be clinically euthanised.
Abortion medication only removes the lining of the womb and starts labour; therefore, late gestation babies aborted at home could be born alive. What happens then? Would the mother have to kill her 'aborted' but living baby? How would she legally dispose of her baby's body if she left it to die? Would she then face a murder charge?
Along with – I assume – all members of the House of Lords, I received a letter from the public affairs manager of The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists urging me to 'Speak in favour of Clause 191'. It quoted the President of the Royal College criticising the existing law for 'affecting women at the most vulnerable times' and said that 'women should not face the prospect of a criminal sanction for making decisions about their own health'.
I find it extraordinary and chilling that there is not a single mention of the unborn child in the statement. It was as if no such person exists.
 |
| The vast majority of abortions occur in the 1st trimester, when many babies look just like this one |
Under Clause 191, it is illegal for any other person – including a medical practitioner – to be present if the pills are taken after the 24-week limit set out in the existing law on abortion.
So, at a time when a mother would be in most need of medical supervision, she is alone.
Analysis of official statistics published by NHS England shows that one in 17 of all women self-managing their abortion at home will subsequently be admitted for hospital treatment. The enactment of this clause will scarcely improve that, as government reports have confirmed how much abortion complications increase later in pregnancy.
Clause 191 is a radical measure, not a moderate one, as its proponents claim. There is a reason the legal limit for abortion is 24 weeks: that is, more or less, the stage at which the baby is considered fully viable when born.
Clause 191 seeks to disapply the Infant Life Preservation Act 1929, which protects viable unborn babies. Its advocates call this progressive; I call it barbaric.
 |
| A pre-term baby reaches for help |
Nor has been there any public demand for such a change in the law. On the contrary, a Whitestone Insight Poll, in December 2023, found that only two per cent of the population supported the abortion time limit being 'extended to birth'.
Yet I have received numerous letters urging me not to oppose this clause – with varying degrees of hostility – and there is intense opposition towards those of us subjecting this measure to detailed consideration in the House of Lords (just as there is to our scrutiny of the Assisted Dying Bill).
I was rebuked for pointing out that Clause 191 would make the moral status of the viable unborn child similar to that of a slave in the American deep South of the 18th century – merely property, whose destruction was no crime by the owner.
In the preamble to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, it is stated that the child 'needs special safeguards and care including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth'.
Removing the offence of a woman self-aborting up to birth would, at a stroke, remove the few remaining legal protections for unborn children, one in three of whom are already aborted in this country.
Is this what we really want, as a nation? That we descend into this moral darkness, protecting neither the mother nor the child?
This is one of the reasons I am fighting to have Clause 191 removed: I do not want it said that I acquiesced in the abandonment of the final defences for these blameless, unborn, viable children.https://x.com/RightToLifeUK/status/2019075208779292865
