Last time there was a move in the Commons to make abortion law more restrictive, it actually become looser. Yes, the limit was lowered from 28 weeks to 24 weeks, but an exception was made for either deformity to the child of danger to the mother. In those cases abortion could happen up to full gestation.
Whether this has actually happened ort not I don\’t know, but at least in theory a 30 or 32 week foetus has less protection under the law than it would have done before that "tightening" of the law.
I thought that this might also be true of the current attempts to change the law. Looks like I was right:
During the second reading of the Bill, Mr Lansley told MPs that, as part of the debate, he would support an amendment to allow "abortion on demand" by scrapping the two-signature requirement.
He told MPs: "If a woman needs an abortion…then it must be better for that to be an early and medical abortion, rather than later and surgical.
"Therefore, the House should consider whether the request for two doctors to provide approval, and the restriction on a nurse providing a medical abortion require to be maintained." Early medical abortions are performed through the use of drugs.
Mr Lansley added that he favoured a corresponding reduction in the abortion time limit to 22 weeks.
The vote will be a matter of conscience, meaning Tory MPs will not be required to follow his lead. But most Labour MPs are expected to back the move, which is supported by the British Medical Association and nurses\’ leaders.
Whatever your opinions on what should or should not be the law in this area, still worth noting that attempts launched to "tighten" seem to have the opposite effect.