There have been two instances this week of votes in the House of Commons on issues where members have been free to vote in line with their personal opinions. The Church of England has issued press releases in each case.
First, a change to the law on abortion was approved, by way of an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill. As Law and Religion UK explains:
“For the purposes of the law related to abortion, including sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, no offence is committed by a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy.”–(Tonia Antoniazzi.)
This new clause would disapply existing criminal law related to abortion from women acting in relation to her own pregnancy at any gestation, removing the threat of investigation, arrest, prosecution, or imprisonment. It would not change any law regarding the provision of abortion services within a healthcare setting, including but not limited to the time limit, telemedicine, the grounds for abortion, or the requirement for two doctors’ approval.”
The Bishop of London made this comment:
“Women facing unwanted pregnancies are confronted with the hardest of choices. Ultimately, they require compassion and care in order to support them fully in the heart-wrenching decision they must take. They should not be prosecuted.
“However, decriminalising abortion can at the same time inadvertently undermine the value of unborn life. The amendment passed to the Crime and Policing Bill[*] may not change the 24-week abortion limit, but it undoubtedly risks eroding the safeguards and enforcement of those legal limits. Women suffering from coercion, or those who are victims of sexual or domestic abuse, would be the most vulnerable to the proposed change, which does not consider improvements to abortion care, nor address the inadequacies of the ‘pills by post’ assessments. These concerns are well set out in the letter signed by over 200 clergy published in the Telegraph this morning.
“Considering any fundamental reform to this country’s abortion laws should not be done via an amendment to another Bill. There should be public consultation and robust Parliamentary process to ensure that every legal and moral aspect of this debate is carefully considered and scrutinised. We need a path that supports women, not one that puts them and their unborn children in the way of greater harm.”
The actual text of the letter mentioned above can be found by scrolling on this page.
Second, MPs in the House of Commons voted in favour of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, with 314 votes in favour and 291 against, a majority of 23. The Bishop of London’s full comments were contained in this statement:
There is mounting concern over the ‘unworkable and unsafe’ Terminally ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, the Bishop of London has said in a statement issued after the proposed legislation completed its Report Stage and Third Reading.
In a statement issued today, Bishop Sarah Mullally, a former Chief Nursing Officer for England, said the Bill poses a risk to the most vulnerable in society.
She said: “This Private Member’s Bill has received a Third Reading in the face of mounting evidence that it is unworkable and unsafe and poses a risk to the most vulnerable people in our society. These unresolved concerns are demonstrated by the [very close vote[*]]
“If enacted it would come into force amid serious shortfalls in adult social care, a post code lottery in palliative care and well documented pressures on the NHS, multiplying the potential risks to the most vulnerable.
“It does not prevent terminally ill people who perceive themselves to be a burden to their families and friends from choosing ‘assisted dying’, a very worrying prospect indeed.
“And it would mean that we became a society where the state fully funds a service for terminally ill people to end their own lives but shockingly only funds around one third of palliative care.
“Every person is of immeasurable and irreducible value, and should be able to access the care and support that they need – a principle that I know is shared by those all faiths and none.
“We must oppose a law that puts the vulnerable at risk and instead work to improve funding and access to desperately needed palliative care services.”
Law & Religion UK has drawn attention to this comment by Professor Mark Elliott: Would it be constitutionally improper for the House of Lords to block the Assisted Dying Bill?