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?
The then Bishop of Dunedin, who was a pommie import and has now thankfully retired and returned to the UK, also had been a GP, led opposition to a similar bill in NZ which thankfully passed in a referendum in 2020. It was the last straw for me. I have suffered discrimination as a gay man all my life for which I largely blame the church. Now they want to control my end of life. I have not been into a church except as a tourist since. I regularly attended church until I was in my 70’s. Now aged 81,… Read more »
I’m so sorry re your bad experience of church. However, it’s not the case that all church people oppose assisted dying. Former Archbishop Carey, for example, has been vocal in supporting assisted dying, on the grounds of compassion. I haven’t read the bill which has just passed in the Commons, but I do support assisted dying in principle. I’ve seen too many bad deaths, even in hospices with excellent palliative care, to do otherwise.
not all “church people” oppose assisted dying, by a long way. But all those charged with representing those people in Parliament have consistently done so until now. And, dismally, probably will do so when this Bill is debated in the Lords. They have no coherent theological reason for such a stand. Just toeing the party line (not that all the bishops feel obliged to toe any line, for example on women priests or LLF).
You refer to Steve Benford. Another example of combination of medical and clerical roles is Howard Wyndham Guinness (1903-1979), who had qualified in medicine in London before being ordained. He went to Australia to work in the late 1940s and remained there. His ministry was chiefly among students. His last full-time post was Rector of Vaucluse, a very up-market suburb of Sydney. I don’t think Guinness ever ‘set up shop’ as a doctor. There have of course been medically qualified clergypersons much more recently.
I remember your interesting travel blog in the days when blogging was more prevalent. Your sad treatment at the hands of the fanatics in Sydney diocese was particularly memorable. I’m sad that their mad religion has caused you to abandon the faith altogether.
I find it quite hard to take the Church of England’s rather self righteous ramblings about criminalisation seriously when it still effectively criminalises same sex relationships. Those clergy who engage in same sex activity or choose same sex marriage are effectively criminalised: they lose their jobs and homes. If the Church of England wishes the nation to listen to its ethical pronouncements it needs to put its own house in order.
A serious criticism of the Assisted Dying debates so far has been that they were emotive, over personalised and driven by other agendas rather than based on rigorous ethical and theological thinking. Arguing for it on the basis that you’re indignant about the treatment of people in same sex relationships is a new one, though.
I’m not sure that I am arguing for it. I’m saying that for the CofE to have credibility in ethical debates it needs to treat its own employees ethically.
What would “rigorous theological thinking” on assisted dying look like?
John Paul II’s Evangelium Vitae?
The Primate’s Theological Committee of the Anglican Church of Canada has produced a very good guide to thinking theologically about the issue, from a variety of perspectives.
The Bishop of London did well. I can’t say much more than that.
Two serious issues, but CofE actions are way too late, and in largely secular UK they are pure window dressing as they will have no impact.
The abortion letter is not helped by its heavily male support, & neither North or Warner are good headliners on such a matter as they are both so very single.
I wasn’t aware that having a view on matters of life and death was one of the goods of marriage.
Male Patriarchy ring any bells?
Doesn’t patriarchy require not being single?
Huh?
Is there such a thing as female patriarchy?
I can’t get access to the letter in the Telegraph. But I think Francis’ point is that it’s easy to be dogmatic about an issue when you have no personal experience of the complexities.
Why do you assume that male pastors have no experience of the complexities of these or other matters?
Francis’ emphasis was on their being ‘very single’. Neither has any experience of themselves or their partner being pregnant, of childbirth, or of raising a child. That is what I meant by ‘personal experience of the complexities’.
The Synod debate regarding this took place in July 2022 with 93% of those who voted calling for no change in the law and dramatically increased palliative care funding so there have been nearly 3 years for the Church of England’s view to be made clear The amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill was a back door way of changing the law with little prior notice which now means a foetus can be aborted up to term without fear of prosecution. It remains the case that if a viable foetus is born alive and then neglected and allowed to… Read more »
It isn’t a great service to ‘the vulnerable’ to insist on extending their suffering against their will
No, far better of course for doctors to establish a culture and praxis which of necessity confronts the vulnerable with the choice ‘shall we care for you’, or ‘shall we facilitate your death, which by the way is now seen as an option which society normalises, condones and provides. You really need to be thinking about this.’ Nothing could possibly ever go wrong with this, surely.
is there any evidence that “of necessity” practitioners in the many countries which allow assisted death are now “confronting the vulnerable” with that choice. Or is this just emotional scare-mongering?
Once established, the culture and praxis of assisted death confront the vulnerable by existing, whether or not they are named.
We are talking about people whose main, indeed overwhelmingly significant, vulnerability is mortal disease and intense suffering. That they should be confronted by a culture and praxis that asks them to face their sovereignty over themselves but respects their choice is a good thing
Our bishops seem to see those facing death as surrounded by conspirators and even murderers rather than by friends and loved ones. They see sympathy and approval of a request to die as necessarily malicious when they could in truth be supportive and reassuring. How bishops know these things I don’t know
The choice which confronts the dying is ‘shall I ask for medical attention even if its main effect is to prolong my agony or shall I request a less agonising death’? The existence of this choice is the existence of autonomy. The choice to die looks, on the face of it, to be a reasonable one. It has an unnoticed element of generosity in releasing medical resources for others
You speak of “an unnoticed element of generosity in releasing medical resources for others”. That could very quickly lead to people feeling obliged to take the route of assisted death for fear they be seen as selfish by choosing to live and take up medical resources. How quickly might the right to die become a perceived obligation to die?
I nursed my mother full time in the eight months leading up to her death, including getting up in the night to turn her to prevent bed sores. She was entirely bed bound and so there were mountains of laundry each day. I never saw her as someone who was inconvenient who ought to be ‘tidied’ away. We were holding hands as she took her last breath. It was a beautiful moment that I will never forget even though it makes me cry when I remember it. This Bill will encourage the old and sick to see themselves and to… Read more »
The assisted dying bill reinforces what we know to be the case in the UK – life is cheap. Scotland has the highest rate of drug deaths in Europe; our mental health services are woefully underfunded and we have cut the number of acute mental health beds resulting in a higher suicide rate; when Covid hit, the elderly in care homes were seen as expendable; the rate of suicide in women’s prisons is alarmingly high. Good mental health care is labour intensive and we as a society are not willing to invest in it. I think this piece of legislation… Read more »
People dying are normally in a predicament that better mental health services could not have avoided – it’s too late for that. Respecting autonomy in the great choices of life is a way of showing the equal value of each life
Shouldn’t the State provide suicide services to everyone who wants to end their life then, if ‘autonomy’ is such an obvious human good?
Indeed, the Secretary of State for Health has said that there is no money for this service. If forced to find the money he would have to take it from elsewhere in the already scanty palliative care budget. It sounds like those who opt for an assisted suicide will be denying resources to those hoping for help from hospices and hospice at home services. Are they going to provide regional centres where you go in the front door and leave out the back in an undertaker’s van?
OK, I’m just an Ignorant Yank here . . . but aren’t the first two clauses CRIMES? As such, what do they have to do w/ this change to the abortion law? In the States, we call this kind of whinge “Concern Trolling.” You disapprove of abortion, we get it. But spare us the trolling…
Yes they are crimes, but people get away with them. And are more likely to do so under this change in the law.
Why does the proposed change in the law make people more likely to get away with coercion or domestic abuse? Does the current assessment for a termination really help flush these perpetrators out…. It’s rather like the chicken has two legs man has two legs so man is a chicken argument
If there is a possible crime (by the mother) implied by a late-term maternal abortion, a police investigation gives opportunity to shed light on the wider circumstances and bring coercion into the open. If there is no crime (as per the shockingly inadequately debated commons amendment) there’s no prima facie rationale for police enquiry into the situation. And therefore less likelihood of sinister actors involved in the process being revealed.
Wouldn’t it be lovely if it worked like that? But if you look at the statistics around the ‘success rate’ of convictions following reports of DV and rape the likelihood is that the wretched woman suffers another level coercion- or even two more. These would be the perpetrator redoubling efforts to keep her quiet and if she is unlucky the police thinking it’s much easier to stick it on her than do a proper investigation
Threatening a woman with criminal penalties is of its nature a threat directed at her, not at those around her. It’s the role of sympathetic, not threatening agencies – social services and the like – to find out how to support her. They may of couse involve the police if the woman is being criminally ill-treated.
None of this is a reason for denying the autonomy of a woman in sexual and reproductive matters
Of course that makes sense if you think that the destruction of another human life is something that the ‘autonomy’ of a woman should allow. The fact that ‘autonomy’ is being used to justify the penalty-free murder of humans who if they were born would have everything done to help them live as well as possible simply demonstrates what an evil and corrupting ideal ‘autonomy’ is. We’re not made to be autonomous. We’re made to live in obedient communion with our creator.
And what of those ‘who if they were born would NOT have everything done to help them live as well as possible’?
The letter re abortion law referenced above is copied in this PDF file https://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/letter.pdf
The latest count reported on X/Twitter:
In the @Telegraph today – signed by 255 clergy of the CofE including the bishops of: Blackburn, Fulham, Rochester, Horsham, Oswestry, Beverley, Richborough, Chichester, Kensington, Lincoln, Aston, Birmingham, Lewes, Lancaster, Dorking, Islington, Hereford, Bolton, Wolverhampton. 21 serving and 5 retired bishops
The Society and Forward in Faith issued this statement https://www.sswsh.com/fullposts.php?id=384
Is a woman seeking abortion committing the extremely grave sin of murder?
Is a terminally ill patient seeking assisted dying committing the extremely grave sin of suicide?
Who cares? Not the Bishop of London.
On my reading, the Bishop of London cares very much on both counts. She has laid down very clear and firm caveats, especially in relation to ‘assisted dying’. I can’t follow your thinking expressed in such extreme terms.
But she has not stated that a person opting for assisted dying is committing a very grave sin, nor on the other hand has she clearly articulated that the Church’s stance over the centuries was wrong and that, actually there is no moral obligation to remain alive if one prefers not to.
Those who believe, and are faced with the decision whether to terminate a life, will surely want to understand the teaching of the Church on these matters.
It may be presumptuous to say this, but both pieces of legislation as drafted arguably have shortcomings. I think it’s to her credit that the Bishop of London has pointed this out.