Decriminalising abortion: Why I voted in favour

Yesterday evening NC1, the amendment to decriminalise abortion, passed with a majority of 242 votes. I was among the MPs who voted for the amendment to pass.

This was a free vote — and rightly so. On issues of profound moral and ethical significance, Parliament has long accepted that MPs should not be instructed by party whips but should vote in accordance with their conscience. This is one of those issues. And I approached it with the seriousness, respect and care it demands.

At the heart of this debate lies a simple truth: there are few decisions more personal — or more profound — than whether or not to have a child. For women, pregnancy and childbirth are life-altering in every way — physically, emotionally, psychologically. For that reason, I believe we must start by acknowledging something that transcends politics: that the decision to end a pregnancy is never taken lightly. For many women, it is one of the hardest decisions they will ever face, sometimes in the most difficult of circumstances.

And yet, until yesterday, under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, abortion remained a criminal offence. Those laws carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment for women who end their own pregnancies or for those who provide care outside tightly prescribed legal grounds.

The Abortion Act 1967 created exceptions — allowing abortions in specific circumstances, subject to the approval of two doctors and certain procedural conditions. But it did not decriminalise abortion. It made it lawful only within a narrow framework. That means that abortion has not treated like other forms of healthcare. It remained, at its core, a matter for the criminal law.

This amendment does not change how care is provided. It does not alter clinical standards, professional responsibilities, or the regulation of abortion services. Nor should it. Doctors, nurses and midwives would continue to be held to the highest standards, as they are now. Decriminalisation does not mean deregulation.

What it does mean is recognising that the right place for decisions about abortion is the consultation room — not the courtroom. It means trusting women and their doctors, and treating those decisions with the privacy, dignity and compassion they deserve.

I have listened to concerns that NC1 will increase the prevalence of late-term abortions. Almost 99% of abortions take place before 20 weeks, with late-term abortion only happening in the most extreme cases. Criminalisation does not deter these cases, but may prevent other women, including those who have miscarried naturally, from seeking medical help due to fear of falling under criminal suspicion.

I have also listened to concerns that this amendment will lead to an increase in women being pressured to have sex-selective abortions. NC1 makes no change to the grounds on which abortion can be provided or the current guidance around sex-selective abortion. Rather, under NC1, family members and partners who have coerced, facilitated or procured a sex-selective abortion remain liable for criminal prosecution.  If this is the case, I do not believe it is compassionate to prosecute and stigmatise women in such abusive relationships. Women in these situations deserve compassion, not prosecution.

This is not a radical step. It is a measured and principled one — and it is supported by those who understand these issues most deeply: the Royal College of Midwives, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Royal College of General Practitioners, UNISON, Women’s Aid, and Refuge. These are organisations that work every day to protect the health, safety and well-being of women. Their support for change is grounded in that mission.

I want to speak directly to those in the towns, villages and communities across Buckingham and Bletchley who may feel deeply uncomfortable with this change. I know that there will be many who object to decriminalisation on moral, ethical or religious grounds. I respect that. I understand that this is not just a matter of policy, but for many, a matter of faith or deeply held conviction. And I will always defend the right of people to hold and express those beliefs.

But as your Member of Parliament, I have a responsibility to take account of the well-being and civil liberties of all my constituents — regardless of the choices they might make, or the circumstances in which they might find themselves. My job is not to make judgements about those choices, but to ensure that the law treats everyone with compassion and fairness.

My belief is this: in the 21st century, a woman should be able to make decisions about her own body and her own healthcare — safely, privately, and without fear of prosecution. This is why I voted for NC1, but also why I voted against NC206, an amendment that would require women to have an in-person consultation before accessing abortion telemedicine (commonly referred to as pills by post).

I am satisfied by the current legislation, which requires a woman to have a consultation before accessing abortion telemedicine. I am concerned that the need for face-to-face consultations would pose a very real risk that women could not receive the abortions they need before the 24-week time limit due to service pressures.

Telemedicine offers a vital lifeline to vulnerable women, including those suffering under abusive relationships. Abusive partners who wish to end a pregnancy do so in many ways, and banning access to telemedical abortion care would not protect women at risk. Instead, it would put more women who need to end their pregnancy at greater risk by making it harder to access abortion care.

None of us should pretend this is ever an easy decision. It isn’t. But the law, in its current form, adds fear and stigma to what is already a moment of crisis.

This vote was an opportunity for the House to act with care, with integrity, and with compassion. I believe the time has come to reflect in law the trust, respect and dignity that women deserve — and to bring our legal framework into line with those principles.