I have always promised to be honest and open about the decisions I have taken as your MP and my reasons behind them. I know how personal and deeply felt the subject of abortion is for many people and, as such, I’d like to explain the vote that took place last night and the decision I made to actively abstain.
Some of you may have noticed that I voted in both lobbies - 'Aye' and 'No’. This is a parliamentary mechanism known as an active abstention. This means I was present and engaged, but made a conscious decision not to support either side. This was because I believe the process and proposal before us was flawed.
There are three factors every MP must weigh on an issue of this significance: principles, practicalities and process.
On principle, I do not believe it is right to criminalise the most vulnerable girls and women - particularly survivors of the most horrific crimes, such as those subjected to rape gangs - who find themselves pregnant and in need of an abortion. The law must never compound the trauma they have endured.
At the same time, I have deep concerns about the amendment’s wording, which would decriminalise abortion up to birth. I believe this pushes the issue too far, too fast, and risks unintended consequences around later-term terminations that have not been adequately considered or debated.
Perhaps most concerning of all is the process. MPs were asked to vote on a fundamental change to abortion law after just 46 minutes of debate, with no prior scrutiny, no committee stage and no opportunity for wider public engagement. That is simply not good enough. On a matter of such moral, medical and societal importance, the country deserves a proper national conversation, not legislative change rushed through by amendment to another Bill.
That is why I could not, in good conscience, support either option last night - and why I chose to register an active abstention.
I know this decision may not please everyone. Abortion is one of the most complex and emotive issues we face, and there are strong views on all sides. I hold strong views too. But in this instance, I felt my responsibility was to signal the need for a more thoughtful, inclusive and transparent process.
If anyone would like to write to me to share their thoughts privately or to arrange a meeting to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to get in touch (my email is [email protected]) – my door is always open.
Even if you disagree, I hope you can now understand my reasons for abstaining in this way.
