Wikimedia Commons: House of Lords 2011
A proposal to establish an annual report into abortion complications in England is set to be blocked despite being approved at its second reading in the House of Lords.
The Complications from Abortions (Annual Report) Bill was approved during its second reading in the House of Lords last week. However, it is now expected to be blocked by Parliamentary procedure.
The Bill, proposed by Lord Moylan, would provide more accurate abortion risk data, following up on a groundbreaking 2023 study by the NHS which found that post-abortion medical complications were much higher than official statistics had previously shown.
The Government currently relies on risk data mostly from independent abortion providers, even though many of the complications and follow-ups do not take place at abortion facilities – they are instead handled by NHS and emergency care services, which record their data separately.
By combining independent providers’ data with NHS follow-up data, the 2023 study showed that the number of abortion complications – such as cervical tears and sepsis – trebles from 1.2-1.4 per 1,000 to 3.5-4.4 per 1,000 between 2017 and 2021.
If the data were to include the number of “incomplete abortions” – for example, when part of the unborn baby’s body is left inside the mother – then complications leap to 17-19 per 1,000, per year.
Bill opponents cite conspiracy theories during debate
During its second reading, the Bill was supported by Parliamentarians including Baroness Sheila Lawlor and Lord David Frost.
Baroness Lawlor said that all patients should have access to accurate information. “It is important to know the full picture and statistics”, she said. “This is a simple bill to provide a fuller picture. It would also strengthen the channels of information to help address complications.”
Lord Frost added: “I find it hard to see why we would not provide patients with as much information as we can get, especially when there is clear evidence for at least a potential anomaly. It is in the interests of all women to have the best possible information about potential risks.”
However, several pro-abortion Lords publicly opposed the Bill during the debate.
Baroness Sugg (Conservative) claimed that the combining of existing NHS data sets could affect patient privacy – a point disputed by Lord Moylan.
Baroness Barker (Liberal Democrat) said that she thought the move to more accurate risk reporting was part of a wider “conspiracy” of “far-right nationalist” groups who want to “restore the natural order” or “a select interpretation of Biblical order”, citing campaigns in Poland and Hungary. She said it was part of an anti-abortion agenda which was also “anti-LGBT and anti-trans”.
Lord Moylan decries “world of conspiracy”
The debate also heard that independent abortion providers had issued campaigning statements that opposed the Bill. Provider BPAS, for example, disliked the “exceptionalisation” of abortion with a separate piece of legislation governing risk data.
More pro-abortion Green and Lib Dems members of the Lords spoke against the Bill.
Lord Scriven (Liberal Democrat), a former NHS manager, opposed the Bill despite conceding that “the reliability of statistics is important”.
Responding, Lord Moylan said: “What is so strange is that they [Bill opponents] are so defensive. They feel they are surrounded by a conspiracy. If I felt that I lived in a world of conspiracy, I would want to surround myself with facts and that is what this Bill does.”
He added: “I am grateful to the minister (Baroness Merron, Labour) for taking the Bill seriously. She said that she opposed a statutory option and said that there are other non-statutory means – but she doesn’t say she will take them.
“I am disappointed that the minister hasn’t committed herself to that.”
Despite being recommended for discussion in a Committee of the Whole House, Lord Moylan’s Bill is now considered to be in effect dead because amendments will be tabled to block it, and no Parliamentary time is expected to be given to a committee.
