The UK government is being called to launch an urgent inquiry after the medical director of one of the UK’s largest abortion providers reportedly used his position at the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) to issue new guidance to pressurise Parliament to support two amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill related to legalising late-term abortion.
Right To Life UK, a charitable organisation focused on abortion, assisted suicide and embryo research, has urged the government to investigate the potential conflict of interest arising from Dr Jonathan Lord, the Medical Director of MSI Reproductive Choices (formerly Marie Stopes International), potentially using his RCOG position to influence forthcoming parliamentary debate on amendments tabled by Stella Creasy and Diana Johnson that would remove offences from the Criminal Justice Bill that make it illegal for a woman to perform a self-abortion at any point right through to birth.
“Dr Jonathan Lord, Medical Director of MSI Reproductive Choices, one of the largest abortion providers in the UK, has admitted that he is behind the guidance, chairing the group that drew it up,” says Catherine Robinson, spokesperson for Right To Life UK. “This is a clear conflict of interest since this guidance is essentially pushing for reduced legal oversight into an area in which he has a significant stake.”
She added: “We are calling on the government to undertake an urgent inquiry into RCOG and the clear conflict of interest in having the medical director of one of the largest abortion providers author and issue this guidance.”
Ahead of the amendments being considered by Parliament, the RCOG has announced that it will be publishing guidelines outlining that medical professionals are under “no legal obligation” to inform police of cases in which they believe a patient may have had an illegal abortion. The RCOG has also claimed that it is “never in the public interest” to investigate a patient suspected of having an illegal abortion.
The RCOG guidance has been released just ahead of Parliament considering Diana Johnson and Stella Creasy’s amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill, and appears to have been released to put pressure on MPs to support what would amount to an extreme change to abortion law, Right to Life UK argues. The new guidance also reduces legal oversight of abortion, an area in which Lord has a stake as Medical Director at MSI Reproductive Choices.
“This guidance is also especially alarming in regard to instances of coerced abortions,” Robinson says. “Illegal abortions can occur as a result of abuse, coercion or sex trafficking. This new guidance appears to create a presumption against disclosing information about illegal abortions to the police, and this could leave vulnerable women in these situations being denied the protection of the law.”
Right To Life UK highlights that neither of the amendments outlines circumstances in which it would continue to be an offence for a woman to perform a self-abortion: the changes to the law would apply throughout all nine months of pregnancy and would not exclude sex-selective abortions.
Speaking on the BBC’s Today Programme on 22 January, Dr Lord, Co-Chair of RCOG’s Abortion Taskforce and FSRH representative on the Guidelines Committee, acknowledged that he is behind the guidance chairing the group that “drew it up”.
Lord is also Medical Director for MSI Reproductive Choices (formerly Marie Stopes International). The organisation is currently campaigning in support of Diana Johnson’s amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill.
Commenting on X (formerly Twitter), Kevin Duffy, former Global Director of Clinics Development at MSI Reproductive Choices, stated: “RCOG knows that a small number of women obtain pills-by-post illegally from BPAS and MSI-RC, and that at least 13 per cent will subsequently suffer an incomplete abortion and need medical help. Now RCOG wants to make sure that NHS staff do not report the illegal abortion.”
He called the move by the RCOG “disgraceful”.
Right to Life UK notes that Dr Lord was previously found to be behind a project, condemned by the Court of Appeal, which involved lobbying judges in relation to a late-term abortion case. He also faced a General Medical Council “fitness to practice” hearing over a series of professional misconduct concerns raised by a group of doctors, which included “harassing” and “scaring” a vulnerable woman in a crisis pregnancy.
A report from the UK’s Care Quality Commission (CQC) accused Marie Stopes International (now MSI Reproductive Choices) of paying staff bonuses for persuading women to have abortions. At all 70 Marie Stopes clinics, inspectors from the Care Quality Commission found evidence of a policy that saw staff utilise a high-pressure sales tactic, calling women who had decided against having an abortion to offer them another appointment.
Another report showed that nearly 400 botched abortions were carried out in two months at Marie Stopes clinics. The report also outlined that, in another three-month period, 11 women needed emergency transfers to hospital after difficulties at facilities run by the abortion provider.
In 2016, Marie Stopes International was forced to suspend abortion services for a month after an unannounced inspection by the CQC found 2,600 safety flaws at Marie Stopes International abortion clinics in the UK. These included doctors going home and leaving women under sedation to be supervised by nurses and healthcare assistants, foetuses being put in waste bins rather than cremated and staff trying to give a vulnerable, visibly distressed woman an abortion without her consent.
The inspectors also found that almost half of nurses working at the clinics had not been trained to do resuscitation, and that safety incidents including medical blunders and equipment failures had increased by a third in a year, and doctors were signing off up to 60 consent forms at a time when they were meant to be making a thorough assessment. One doctor filled in up to 26 consent forms in two minutes.
When it comes to prosecutions following an illegal abortion, and which those supporting the amendments are citing as evidence of unjust treatment of women in vulnerable positions, Right to Life UK notes that the actual cause of the small increase in the number of prosecutions – and, it notes, as recently acknowledged by Stella Creasy – is because of the so-called pills-by-post scheme, which has led to an increase in illegal late-term abortions, and which was supported by Diana Johnson, Stella Creasy, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) and MSI Reproductive Choices.
Furthermore, Diana Johnson and Stella Creasy’s amendments would likely lead to more women self-administering abortion pills to procure late-term abortions, Right to Life UK argues, causing serious risks to their health and in effect being another manifestation of the “backstreet abortion” that so many pro-abortion campaigners cite as the need for legalised abortion.
“Rather than making the situation worse and making our abortion laws even more extreme, Parliament ought to protect women by seeking the reinstatement of the requirement for in-person medical appointments to verify gestational age and assess a woman’s health before abortion pills can be prescribed,” Robinson says.
In a previous Catholic Herald article, Alithea Williams notes how the tragic case of Carla Foster had been appropriated by pro-abortion activists to argue in favour of the abortion-related amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill being considered by Parliament.
“None of this would have happened if Carla Foster had been seen and examined in person,” Williams says. “In this instance the pills-by-post policy resulted in an illegal and dangerous late-term abortion, exposed a traumatised woman to prosecution and left a fully viable baby dead.”
Despite this, Williams notes, “rather than admitting their mistakes, and calling for women to actually be seen by doctors, pro-abortion MPs are using these cases to push for an extreme expansion of the abortion law”.
Pro-life campaigners such as Right to Like UK are calling on Parliament to protect women by seeking the reinstatement of the requirement for in-person medical appointments to verify gestational age and assess a woman’s health before abortion pills can be prescribed.
Similarly, the system of oversight that governs the formation of UK law around abortion, in particular the risks posed by undue influence backed by financial interests, is being called into question due to mounting concerns.
“It is deeply inappropriate for the RCOG to usurp Parliament by issuing guidance related to criminal investigations,” Robinson says. “Where a crime is suspected of being committed, it is the role of the legal system to determine whether or not a crime took place and whether or not it is in the public interest to prosecute.”
Photo: The state of ‘Boadicea and Her Daughters’ and the Elizabeth Tower, commonly known by the name of the clock’s bell, ‘Big Ben’, at the Palace of Westminster, home to the Houses of Parliament, in central London, England, 8 January 2024. (Photo by Adrian DENNIS / AFP) (Photo by ADRIAN DENNIS/AFP via Getty Images.)
This page is available to subscribers. Click here to sign in or get access.
Areas of Catholic Herald business are still recovering post-pandemic.
However, we are reaching out to the Catholic community and readership, that has been so loyal to the Catholic Herald. Please join us on our 135 year mission by supporting us.
We are raising £250,000 to safeguard the Herald as a world-leading voice in Catholic journalism and teaching.
We have been a bold and influential voice in the church since 1888, standing up for traditional Catholic culture and values. Please consider donating.