An update on the abortion policy debate at the BMA Annual Representatives Meeting – June 2026

Abortion policy often develops through somewhat technical motions that can easily pass unnoticed. This year's British Medical Association (BMA) Annual Representatives Meeting (ARM) was one such moment. Here we explain what changed, what did not, and consider what healthcare professionals who support both lives in pregnancy might make of the outcome.

 Abortion is a recurring theme at the British Medical Association’s (BMA) main policy making meeting – the Annual Representatives Meeting (ARM). Over many years, the BMA has developed various aspects of policy around abortion, and at present holds a position in favour of decriminalisation. On Tuesday 23^rd June, the 2026 ARM was asked to debate the following motion:

That this meeting welcomes the medical ethics committee’s review of BMA policy and supports:-  

i) the removal of the requirement for two doctors’ signatures for an abortion within the first 24-weeks of pregnancy, and its retention for abortions post 24 weeks; 

ii) the removal of criteria for an abortion within the first 24-weeks of pregnancy;  

iii) the existing criteria in the 1967 Abortion Act in relation to abortions post 24- weeks but believes that the language used needs to be updated to remove potentially discriminatory terminology;  

iv) the removal of the legal requirement mandating the sharing of patient data with government;  

v) no personally identifiable data on abortions being collected and any data being collected having clear justification and potential utility, such as to improve patient care;  

vi) the medical ethics committee’s recommendation that the BMA should support a change which would legally permit healthcare professionals other than doctors to prescribe abortifacients and perform surgical abortions, but that this should be limited to appropriately trained, accredited, and competent nurses and midwives. (This part fell, and as such is not part of BMA policy) 

At first sight these proposals appear deeply concerning. However, the picture is more complicated.

Given that the BMA had already adopted a policy supporting decriminalisation this motion was largely an attempt to clarify how that policy should be understood in practice. Some elements are less of a shift than they first appear and in a few respects the motion represents a modest improvement on the position that could otherwise have been inferred.

After a short debate and votes cast by up to 310 doctors and medical students, the motion was accepted apart from part six (vi). Table 1 gives a breakdown of the results of voting.  

The Co-Deputy Chair of the BMA Medical Ethics Committee (MEC) presented the motion and explained it was mostly a tidying-up of existing policy. The MEC had prepared a briefing paper for the motion which was circulated a few days in advance. To understand this motion, it was crucial to be aware of a previous ARM motion which was accepted into policy in 2025, which left some ambiguities, particularly around time-limits for restrictions on abortion. Similarly, the 2025 motion could be interpreted to prevent any data collection or sharing of data on abortion. Therefore, this 2026 motion was set to clarify the scene based on the observations of the BMA Medical Ethics Committee, consultation with other BMA committees, and its review of existing BMA policy.   

Taken in isolation, several elements of this motion would represent concerning policy. However, they can only be properly understood in the context of the BMA’s existing policy. The Abortion Act already permits widely accessible lawful abortion sometimes described as being de facto on demand up to 24 weeks. Within this framework the requirement for two doctors’ signatures is an important safeguard and allows some scrutiny of decision making. Likewise, mandatory sharing of patient data allows careful monitoring to identify inequity, safe practice, and any areas for improvement. Data privacy is important, but complete removal of mandatory reporting seems too far.  Absolute anonymisation may not be appropriate in all settings, as some data sharing is important for patient care. There is a significant difference between carefully controlled access versus a fully anonymised data system.   

However, even when taking all of these points in consideration, the 2026 motion allowed some more sensible restriction/data sharing than could have been interpreted from the 2025 motion. So, whilst the policy would be very different to policy that would be proposed by many supporters of HBL, this is a marginal improvement in the BMA position, by at least accepting some additional criteria and two doctors’ signatures should be required from 24 weeks, and that some data may be justified to be collected. Prior to voting, the BMA leadership explained that whether or not the motion was accepted into policy, existing policy about decriminalisation would still stand.

Regarding (iii), the motion expresses concern that the wording of the disability ground in the 1967 Abortion Act uses language that many would now regard as outdated, referring to a child who would be "seriously handicapped". Of course we should be careful with our language and terminology. However, if we are truly concerned to tackle discrimination within the Act, then there is a further issue which warrants serious reflection. When a condition like Down syndrome is identified in the fetus, abortion is permitted right up until birth. This raises profound questions about discrimination against disabled people, and warrants serious reflection, not a perfunctory amendment to terminology.  

Part (vi) would have been new policy, and it is no surprise that this fell, when BMA messaging has elsewhere been consistently raising concerns about the substitution and safety of other practitioners undertaking doctors’ roles. Before 14 weeks, surgical abortion can be performed using vacuum aspiration. Between 14-24 weeks using dilatation and evacuation – D&E. It was surprising that the BMA’s own ethics committee would recommend nurses and midwives be trained to perform these invasive procedures, when they would also need to be competent to deal with any possible complications such as bleeding, infection or uterine perforation. There were no gestational limits proposed for this part of the motion (despite them being included elsewhere in the motion).   

The briefing paper explained the rational for this was due to ‘the lack of doctors trained to carry [out surgical abortions]’. This in itself is challenging - the issue is not necessarily a lack of training available, but rather a reflection that many doctors do not want to be trained because they are not willing to carry out abortions. Perhaps abortion is different to other surgical procedures?  

The 2026 BMA ARM debate illustrates how professional policy often develops incrementally through motions that can appear technical but have significant implications. While this year's debate brought some welcome clarification to ambiguities created by previous BMA policy, it also demonstrated a continued move in a direction that many healthcare professionals find concerning. Those who believe that both mother and child deserve compassionate, evidence-based care cannot afford to ignore these discussions. Continued thoughtful engagement with our professional bodies remains an important way of helping to shape the future of medical practice.

If you have any thoughts about the BMA debate, then we would love to hear from you - please get in touch at connections@healthcareforbothlives.org  

 Table 1 - Breakdown of results of voting 

	For	Against	Abstain
That this meeting welcomes the medical ethics committee’s review of BMA policy and supports:-	n/a	n/a	n/a
i) the removal of the requirement for two doctors’ signatures for an abortion within the first 24-weeks of pregnancy, and its retention for abortions post 24 weeks	58%	35%	7%
ii) the removal of criteria for an abortion within the first 24-weeks of pregnancy;	50%	40%	10%
iii) the existing criteria in the 1967 Abortion Act in relation to abortions post 24- weeks but believes that the language used needs to be updated to remove potentially discriminatory terminology	67%	23%	10%
iv) the removal of the legal requirement mandating the sharing of patient data with government	62%	30%	8%
v) no personally identifiable data on abortions being collected and any data being collected having clear justification and potential utility, such as to improve patient care;	61%	30%	9%
vi) the medical ethics committee’s recommendation that the BMA should support a change which would legally permit healthcare professionals other than doctors to prescribe abortifacients and perform surgical abortions, but that this should be limited to appropriately trained, accredited, and competent nurses and midwives.	20%	75%	5%

‘That this meeting reaffirms the BMA's support for the decriminalisation of abortion across the UK. Whilst this has been achieved in Northern Ireland, the rest of the UK continues to lag behind. This meeting recognises that current UK abortion law is outdated, fails to protect patient privacy, and does not adequately serve patients or providers. This meeting therefore calls on the BMA to:- i) reiterate that criminalisation of abortion is not in the public interest and that abortion should be treated like other comparable medical procedures, free from unnecessary legal barriers; ii) condemn the record number of criminal investigations, proceedings and prosecutions against those seeking to end their own pregnancies in recent years; iii) lobby all UK governments for the removal of the requirement for two doctors’ signatures to authorise an abortion; iv) lobby all UK governments for the removal of 'clauses' that set out specific grounds patients must meet in order to access abortion; v) lobby all UK governments for the removal of legal requirements mandating the sharing of patient data, including identifiable information such as postcode and date of birth, with governments when accessing abortion care.'