Acknowledged the complexity of abortion rights and the importance of protecting women's autonomy. Highlighted concerns over the proposed Bill of Rights, which would weaken protections for women's rights under the Human Rights Act 1998. Does the Minister foresee an early opportunity for the House to make a decision on whether abortion should be decriminalised?

Abortion is a basic healthcare right that must be available to all women, and it is vital for those considering an abortion to receive impartial information. The Government should consider enshrining abortion rights in the Bill of Rights or another legislative fit if not appropriate. The women's health strategy needs to address safe abortions. Asked whether the right to abortion should be acceptable in cases where it is necessary to save a woman's life from conditions such as fatal foetal abnormality syndrome or ectopic pregnancies.

Lockhart argues that hijacking Bills leads to bad law, as seen in Northern Ireland where life-affirming laws have changed to some of the most liberal abortion laws in Europe. Ms. Carla Lockhart supported Mr. Benton's speech by stating that 82% of all abortions last year were for single women, commending men who take responsibility for their partners and children. Mrs. Lockhart argued that those lobbying to repeal abortion laws do not speak for all women or the unborn, focusing on cases where pregnant women were assaulted by partners who wanted them to have an abortion. She cited three instances of violence against pregnant women and highlighted how existing laws protect these women from violent men.

Challenged the comparison made by the hon. Lady between a vasectomy and abortion, highlighting that while both involve personal choices, they carry different implications due to the potential for a second life in pregnancy.

Clarified that while the hon. Lady highlighted certain points, it also indicated that some people choose sex-selective abortions, which can be seen as factors beyond healthcare alone. The hon. Member for Bolton West disagrees with the hon. Lady, arguing that certain rights such as freedom of speech are also not uncontested and subject to judicial interpretation.

The hon. Member expressed concern that the public feels threatened by a potential erosion of rights similar to what has happened in America, citing the presentation of a petition with 166,498 signatures as evidence. For many women, the issue is about protecting other women and young women's ability to make a decision on abortion if necessary. The right hon. Member mentions the 1967 Act, which sparked a social revolution in this country and established women's rights. The sentiment reflected by Roe v. Wade is felt to be a threat to these rights in the UK. Decriminalising abortion or including it in a Bill of Rights could re-establish that social change.

The hon. Member argued that altering abortion laws would require primary legislation and questioned the logic of handing decision-making to judges rather than keeping it within democratic provisions. Asked the hon. Lady to explain the effect of having a general right to abortion in statute, noting judges are constrained by existing statutes and cannot set them aside. Responded to Edward Leigh by arguing that a balance of rights is necessary due to another life involved and that proper means of parliamentary legislation should be used rather than handing decisions to judges. Responded to Julian Lewis by stating that rights come to a child based on viability outside the womb. Mr. Swayne intervened to clarify that while many US women may have lost federal abortion rights, state legislation could still provide them with such rights, reflecting on the hon. Member's earlier statement.

Edward Leigh criticized MPs seeking to introduce buffer or censorship zones in abortion clinics, arguing that it would restrict freedoms of speech and expression. He also mentioned that the UK currently has some of the most liberal abortion rights in Europe and questioned whether supporters of more abortion rights would prefer to be under European Court of Human Rights control. Inquired why despite restrictive abortion rights in this country, we have one of the highest abortion rates in the world.

Ms. Fiona Bruce argued against including abortion rights in a Bill of Rights, citing international law and potential legal complications. She noted the petition's backing by a well-coordinated campaign to classify abortion as a human right and discussed how such a move could undermine existing protections for unborn children. Would the Minister also convey that the majority of colleagues who have spoken in this debate have expressed considerable concern about extending abortion rights?

The hon. Gentleman acknowledges the importance of discussing Caitlin's petition but disagrees with my view, emphasizing that misinformation is not a significant issue and highlighting the need to avoid echo chambers.

Ian Paisley Jr questioned the petition's basis on fear and misinformation, suggesting it lacks factual grounding. He also highlighted that only 17 people have been brought up on charges related to abortion in recent years. Asked how the hon. Member would propose to deal with difficult cases such as Sarah Catt's case under her proposed new dispensation, questioning how the law might handle such situations. Ian Paisley Jr. expressed concern about the misinformation surrounding the petition and argued that abortion laws should not be enshrined in a Bill of Rights due to their negative framework. He highlighted the number of abortions, stating there were 214,869 in 2021 alone. He also criticized the liberal legislation in Northern Ireland leading to an increase in abortions.

Mr Rees-Mogg argued that the petitioners' request to protect abortion rights is misguided, as any Act of Parliament can change existing laws. He highlighted that over 214,869 abortions occurred in the previous year and emphasized the moral tragedy of such high numbers. Mr Rees-Mogg also questioned when life begins, suggesting that conception marks the start of a new genetic entity with potential for life.

Jim Shannon expressed concern about the imposition of abortion laws on Northern Ireland by Westminster, despite polls showing majority opposition. He highlighted that there is no right to abortion in international law and questioned why funds were available for energy price increases but not for issues like abortion. Shannon cited a constituent's daughter who was born at 26 weeks and emphasized the importance of protecting both women and unborn children equally. Supported the hon. Lady's position and mentioned concerns from 1,000 midwives regarding the direction of abortion laws. The Government consulted with the people of Northern Ireland on abortion changes and 79% were against any changes. If there is no intention to acknowledge or take on board these opinions, why bother?

The hon. Member acknowledged the overturning of Roe v. Wade but argued against suggesting judges interpret laws instead of Parliament making decisions based on policy. Asked both sides of the debate to recognise that a fertilised egg does not have human rights, while an unborn baby about to be born is viable and has rights. Mr. Julian Lewis expressed sympathy for Mr. Benton's argument but disagreed that the number of abortions equates to a significant population issue, especially since many are at early stages and involve barely fertilised eggs. Corrected the view that abortion involves the destruction of potential life rather than actual life, unless one believes in conception as the beginning of life. Rejected the use of the term 'quibble' and acknowledged uncertainty about when potential life becomes viable human life, suggesting that a fertilised egg is only a potential human being without the same rights as a viable foetus.

The hon. Lady raises valid points about aftercare for women who choose or choose not to have a termination, emphasizing its importance in years down the line when support is needed.

She welcomed the debate on legal access to abortion and highlighted that change is needed, advocating for decriminalisation rather than enshrining rights in a Bill of Rights. She pointed out that current abortion laws are outdated and inconsistent with modern medical practices. Maria also noted the lack of clarity around the 1967 Act's limitations and the piecemeal approach to reforming abortion legislation. Questioned the hon. Member for Congleton about her stance on the expertise of royal colleges of doctors regarding a change in abortion law. Ms. Maria Miller agreed with Mr. Antoniazzi's point about avoiding misinformation and added that decriminalisation in Northern Ireland has not led to deregulation, highlighting the importance of distinguishing between the two concepts. Underlying all our legislation is regulation, which ultimately is how the law works. The Minister is making a really important case but English women are treated as potentially criminal when they access abortions while Northern Ireland women are not treated as criminals.

Asked the hon. Lady at what point she feels an unborn child gains human rights, questioning her stance on the timing of such rights.

The hon. Member raised concerns over women's aftercare post-abortion, including mental health support, and questioned the impact of changing abortion laws on these services.

Mr Girvan mentioned the issue of decriminalising abortion and raised concerns about murder charges being extended to include the lives of unborn babies, as seen in cases like the Omagh bombing.

Sally-Ann Hart interjected, suggesting that while there is little disagreement on the right to protect freedom of speech, the issue of abortion is much more nuanced and cannot be compared to basic freedoms like freedom of speech or religion.

Mr. Scott Benton argued that decriminalising abortion could lead to late-term abortions on demand and sex-selective abortions, which are not supported by public opinion. He cited a Savanta ComRes poll showing only 1% of women wanted the 24-week gestational time limit extended. Mr. Benton also mentioned evidence of sex-selective abortions targeting baby girls in cases where partners or families coerce the mother.

The right hon. Gentleman questions the foundation of abortion legislation in Northern Ireland and highlights his concerns about the potential for sex-selective abortions under a human rights approach.

The hon. Member stated that discussions about a Bill of Rights should include the right to choose an abortion, emphasizing it as a human rights issue. Creasy asks for clarification on how protecting freedom of speech from interference is different from interfering with someone's right to have an abortion. She questions why the legislation protects one human right but not another. The hon. Gentleman and I have debated this issue in many different ways, and Stella Creasy argues that his position suggests it is acceptable for a man to tell a woman she must have the baby but not support her choice to have an abortion. She also points out that legalisation in Northern Ireland included regulation laws such as the Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2020 which cover late-term abortion and sex selection issues. Asked if Julian Lewis would support women's right to choose an abortion in cases of rape or incest given his train of thought. Challenging the point that including these rights would lead to litigation, noting existing litigations and questioning why women's rights are considered complicated while other matters like freedom of speech can be resolved through parliamentary processes.