UK abortion rights face attack from anti-choice Lords

A small set of women in the House of Lords are trying to end access to abortion telemedicine. More commonly known as the ‘pills by post’ scheme introduced during Covid-19 to ensure continued safe access to pregnancy terminations via remote consultations. It was made permanent in March 2022.

MPs tabled a similar proposal to end telemedicine access in summer 2025—however, it was quickly voted down. This time around, Tory peer Philippa Stroud tabled the motion as an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill. This circumvents the Commons, who have already voted the bill through.

Opponents of bodily autonomy

The version of the bill which passed through the Commons effectively decriminalises abortion altogether. As such, Stroud’s motion is an extreme reversal of the bill’s intent, subverting it into an attack on reproductive rights.

Stroud is backed by Kwisher Falkner, former head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and Sharon Davies, an ex-swimmer.

It’s notable that all three women are also known for their transphobia. Stroud founded a night shelter/church which attempted to ‘cure’ transsexuality and homosexuality by driving out demons. However, she denies this characterisation—in spite of victims’ testimonies.

Under Falkner’s leadership, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) took a hard pivot from a trans-positive stance to extreme hostility. Likewise, Davies threatened to sue amateur womens’ sporting bodies that allowed trans people to participate. Davies is also a vocal critic of drag, even complaining when the BBC ran a performer’s obituary.

These points are worth bearing in mind, given that transphobes often claim to be ‘defending women’. However, as this attack on abortion rights demonstrates, it’s never just about trans people. Eventually, they also turn out to be opponents of bodily autonomy itself—whether that be sexuality, gender, or abortion rights.

Anti-choice is anti-choice

In an article on the anti-choice motion, the Telegraph stated that critics claim the postal scheme is “open to abuse”. However, the article could not cite even one case of coercive abortion in telemedicine’s four-year history.

Davies describes herself as pro-choice, although that apparently doesn’t extend to choices she doesn’t want people to make. She stated in the Telegraph that:

being pro-choice does not excuse jeopardising safety or allowing a ‘Wild West’ of abortion pills, where pills can too easily fall into the hands of abusers coercing abortions, traffickers covering up abuse or women whose pregnancies are approaching full term.

The practical effect of the scheme is that women at any stage of pregnancy can get hold of abortion pills by misleading abortion providers on the phone about their gestation, either mistakenly or deliberately as in the case of Carla Foster, who was sent abortion pills by BPAS after pretending to be seven weeks pregnant when actually around 33 weeks.

Reintroducing in-person medical consultations for women seeking abortions is not about reducing access to abortion but ensuring safeguarding and best practice.

Note the turn in Davies’ language here. She starts by talking about coercion, and then quickly pivots to ‘concerns’ about people procuring the pills of their own volition. Again, this is not about safeguarding pregnant people; it’s an attack on bodily autonomy.

Lords’ debate

The British Pregnancy Advisory Service itself has stated that people should not have to visit a clinic for abortion pills. Research has demonstrated the safety of the process from a medical standpoint.

Likewise, vulnerable individuals in abusive relationships can also talk to a professional more easily over the phone than by visiting a clinic in person.

Tomorrow, 18 March, the House of Lords will debate the Crime and Policing Bill. In June 2025, the amendment to decriminalise abortion passed in the Commons with a massive 379 votes in favour, versus just 137 against.

As such, the Lords now have the opportunity to strike a historic blow in favour of reproductive rights and bodily autonomy. Alternatively, they can follow in Stroud’s footsteps, and impose further unnecessary limits to abortion access.

Featured image via Aiden Frazier/Unsplash