ulCynical bid to make England home abortion rules permanent

An attempt to make dangerous home abortion provisions ushered in during the pandemic permanent has been mounted in the House of Lords.

Tory Peer Baroness Sugg has tabled an amendment to the Health and Care Bill seeking to make a so-called "pills by post" scheme available indefinitely.

She hopes to change the Abortion Act 1967 to allow medical abortions to take place in a woman's home, without any face-to-face contact with health professionals.

The amendment will be considered tomorrow alongside another cynical amendment seeking to force action on the issue of assisted suicide.

Last month, the government refused to rule out an extension to the home abortion scheme in England. A spokesman admitted it was only ever meant to be temporary but added:

"We have looked at whether this should continue to be temporary or become permanent, and we are still weighing up this difficult decision."

Doctors and campaigners warn that the relaxed rules are putting the health of women across England and Wales at risk. Baroness O'Loan raised this issue in the House of Lords:

"My Lords, is the Minister aware of a recent study, based on FOI requests to NHS trusts, which revealed that in 2020 more than 10,000 women who took at least one abortion pill at home, provided by the NHS, needed hospital treatment for side-effects?

"That is equivalent to more than one in 17 women, or 20 women a day, needing hospital treatment. Does the Minister agree that such reports indicate a serious and disturbing lack of understanding by its advocates of the dangers of the telemedical abortion policy?"

CARE is deeply concerned about the prospect of the new rules being extended. Speaking in January, a spokesman commented:

“Under the new framework, there is the heightened danger of women being forced into having an abortion by a coercive partner. It is hard to establish meaningful and informed consent for medical abortion to take place, given the lack of in-person consultation. There is also the very obvious risk of dangerous medical complications occurring outside a medical setting.

“To prevent these harmful outcomes, we should insist upon the highest possible standards of safety. The safeguards that existed for access before the pandemic were there for a reason. The new framework is simply incompatible with the level of care that should be expected under normal circumstances."