Behold! The grand architects of Britain’s moral demolition crew are at it again — this time armed not with bulldozers, but with ambiguity, euphemism, and a breathtaking level of legislative naivety.
Enter stage left: my own MP, Chris Bloore (Labour), a man of apparent good intentions who has, in a tragicomic twist of parliamentary theatre, voted for a law he seemingly doesn’t grasp.
Let’s be absolutely clear. New Clause 1 doesn’t “modernise” abortion law, it obliterates one of its last legal guardrails.
By removing criminal sanctions for women who perform their own abortions at any stage of pregnancy, this amendment has — de facto — legalised abortion up to birth, as long as the mother acts alone.
Yes, up to birth. As in: while the child’s lungs are developed, heart beating, hiccupping, stretching, capable of survival outside the womb. Gone. Erased.
All it takes now is a pill, a lie, and a few clicks on a website that doesn’t check dates.
I wrote to my MP, Chris Bloore, this week and he tried to assure me — in a tone of paternal calm — that the “time limit hasn’t changed.” Well, yes, technically, for abortions performed by doctors. But this is sophistry of the highest order. It’s like claiming the speed limit still applies, while simultaneously legalising joyriding — as long as it happens on back roads. Surely, as an MP, he should grasp the full implications of what he voted for? If this is his argument… he doesn’t.
Mr Bloore’s earnest claim that “no woman will be criminalised in desperate circumstances” sounds reasonable — until you realise what it actually means in practice: that a woman can end the life of a fully viable baby at 8 or 9 months’ gestation with zero legal consequences.
Not “desperate,” necessarily. Not coerced. Not medically justified. Just… chosen.
Carla Foster. Sarah Catt. These are no longer tragic outliers… they are now the legal template. One lied about her gestation and took pills at 32 weeks. Another imported abortion drugs and terminated at 39 weeks to hide an affair. Both women were rightly prosecuted at the time. But under the brave new world of Labour’s NC1? They walk free. No charges. No deterrents. No justice for the unborn.
And all of this in the name of “compassion”? Spare us the Orwellian doublethink, Labour. My friend, political commentator Leilani Dowding put it well: “Evil monsters like this will now get away with it.”
Labour’s cheerleaders insist this law protects “vulnerable” women. But in reality, it exposes the most vulnerable of all — the voiceless child in the womb, who could technically survive outside of it, to a legal vacuum. There are now zero protections between week 24 and delivery if the mother chooses to act solo.
Worse still, it invites grotesque abuses. Want a boy instead of a girl? Do it yourself. Don’t want your ex to know you were pregnant? Do it yourself. Got the pills online and lied to the provider? You’re immune. And under NC1, Parliament just shrugged and said, “Well, that’s her business.”
It’s legislative cowardice dressed up in the clothes of progress.
The polling is clear. Only 16% support this extremity. Seventy percent of women want stricter, not looser limits. This isn’t liberation. It’s lawmaking by ideology — logic, evidence, and morality be damned.
Chris Bloore tells us he voted with compassion. But if this is compassion, it is compassion severed from consequence — a woolly-minded fog that drifts above the real-world implications like a balloon with no string.
He claims this law reflects “modern medical practice.” It doesn’t. It reflects legal abandonment, the state backing away from the final frontier of human life and saying, “Whatever happens, we’ll look the other way.”
It is the philosophical equivalent of SpaceX building rockets without landing gear. It is reckless, cruel, performative, and doomed to crash.
Let’s be honest: Chris Bloore may not be evil. But he is dangerously naive. And in matters of life and death, naivety is a form of complicity.
In a sane society, we protect those who cannot protect themselves. In Britain, post-NC1, we’ve legalised their destruction — as long as the person doing it swallows the pills themselves.
Progress? No.
This is regression disguised as reform.
And our MPs should be ashamed.
By Claire Bullivant
This is the full email my Labour MP sent in response to me. Is it double-speak — or does he genuinely not understand the implications of what he voted for?
Dear Claire,
Thank you for taking the time to share your views with me on New Clause. I appreciate the seriousness with which many of you approached these issues, and I’m grateful for the thoughtful messages I’ve received.
I supported New Clause 1, which was passed, as it ensured that no woman would face prosecution for ending her own pregnancy in desperate circumstances. This amendment did not change the time limit for abortion, the requirement for two doctors’ signatures, the legal grounds for access, or any other part of abortion provision. It simply removed the threat of criminalisation for some of the most vulnerable women in extremely difficult situations.
To clarify some common concerns raised about New Clause 1:
This is not abortion up to birth. The time limits and all other laws and regulations around abortion care remain in place. No doctor will provide an abortion beyond the 24-week limit without it meeting one of a very small number of exceptional criteria, such as a serious threat to the life or health of the woman. The amendment simply removes the threat of criminal liability for women who end their pregnancies, enabling them to get the care and support they need.
This does not allow ‘sex-selective abortion’. New Clause 1 makes no change to the grounds on which abortion can be provided, the current guidance around sex-selective abortion, or the requirement for two doctors to certify that a woman meets one of the grounds for abortion. The concerns about sex-selective abortion often focus on women from some cultural backgrounds who may face control or coercion by family members. There are no circumstances where a woman in an abusive relationship should be criminalised for being forced to end a pregnancy outside the law. New Clause 1 would continue to allow criminalisation of partners or family members who coerced, facilitated, or procured a sex-selective abortion.
Cases like that of Carla Foster highlight the urgent need to update Victorian-era laws that are no longer appropriate and fail to reflect modern medical practice or compassion. I believe this was a proportionate and humane change.
With regards to the amendment proposed by Caroline Johnson MP, which sought to restrict the use of telemedicine for early medical abortion, I did not support it. I know that many of those who contacted me supported that amendment, and I want to acknowledge the sincerity with which these views were expressed.
As a father myself, I understand how emotionally complex and morally challenging this topic is. Parenthood gives us a deep respect for life, but it also makes clear how important it is that women have access to safe, timely, and compassionate healthcare.
Telemedicine was introduced during the pandemic to preserve access to early medical abortion. Since then, it has been shown to be safe, effective, and often preferred by women. Significantly, the availability of legal telemedicine has also led to a reduction in the number of women turning to unregulated online providers to obtain abortion pills—helping to keep women safe and supported.
As Professor Ranee Thakar, President of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, said:
“It is also absolutely right that the amendment laid by Caroline Johnson MP was rejected. This recognises the wealth of evidence showing telemedicine for early medical abortion is safe, enables women to access treatment sooner, and is preferred by women… it is now time for this attack on abortion provision to stop.”
I appreciate that this is a deeply personal and difficult issue on which people hold sincerely held and differing views. My hope is that we can continue to have respectful and constructive dialogue as we seek the best outcomes for women’s health and wellbeing.
Thank you again for sharing your thoughts with me. I remain committed to listening carefully to all perspectives and to making decisions guided by evidence, compassion, and respect for all involved.
Best wishes,
Chris Bloore MP
Chris Bloore MP
Member of Parliament for Redditch and the Villages
chris.bloore.mp@parliament.uk
