The March for Life UK’s pro-life health summit this year centered on the theme “Abortion isn’t Healthcare,” a message that echoed throughout the event as various pro-life groups gathered at the Emmanuel Centre in Westminster. These groups expressed perspectives aligned with the broader pro-life movement, emphasising ethical, moral, and religious arguments. The core message was clear and unwavering: “Life begins at conception, no exception!”
I attended the summit undercover to understand the perspectives of British abortion opponents and assess whether, like in the US, the pro-life movement is gaining momentum in the UK. Until now, I believed there was little political traction for pro-life legislation, especially after the Conservative government was voted out in July, taking prominent pro-life MPs like Jacob Rees-Mogg with it. While the US pro-life movement is often seen as extreme, it’s crucial to recognise that rights can be reversed in the UK as well. We cannot afford to be complacent; understanding the influence of these political minorities is essential.
Upon arrival at the summit, I was met by shouting counter-protesters and heavy security, which initially reassured me that I was entering a small subsection of a minority mindset. However, this sense of reassurance quickly faded once I stepped inside. The crowds far outnumbered the protesters, and the event exceeded my expectations in size, budget, and organisation. What I had assumed to be a fringe gathering turned out to be a well-funded, professionally coordinated movement that could be more influential than I had previously thought.
In the event’s organisational space, tables were set up around the room, each occupied by various pro-life associations. I stopped to speak with a young man from ‘Abortion Resistance,’ a smaller, youth-led group focused on mobilising younger generations. A young male spokesperson for the group expressed frustration over the lack of strong pro-life stances among UK right-wing figures, remarking that “in an Andrew Tate culture, too many on the right are pro-choice because they think they can get laid more.” Although his comment seemed absurd at first, it highlighted a valid point: right-wing politics in the UK tends to focus on issues like immigration, leaving reproductive rights largely sidelined.
As I continued exploring the room, I was invited to participate in a segment on a pro-life-focused radio station, presumably seeking guests to boost their dwindling audience. I also engaged in a conversation with representatives from ‘Students for Life,’ a group particularly focused on supporting students like myself.
At every table, the message to pro-choice individuals was clear and consistent: “there are other options.” The organisations I spoke to implied that many in the pro-choice camp are unaware of alternatives, believing abortion is their only option. The pro-life representatives aimed to reassure women that they were there to support them in choosing life. Curious about the specifics behind these claims, I asked what support they would offer if I, as a student, became pregnant. While they mentioned financial aid, their answers were vague, stating that the amount would be determined on a case-by-case basis.
What stood out to me, and felt disappointing though not surprising, was the language used to describe the motivation behind their initiatives. One volunteer explained that the financial aid was meant to help the woman “keep the baby” rather than support her in continuing her education. This was striking because, although the ‘Students for Life’ website claims, “We aim to support pregnant students and parents on campus and believe that no student should have to choose between education and having a baby”, it became clear in our conversation that their primary goal wasn’t about empowering women to pursue both; it was about ensuring they kept the baby.
Many organisations, particularly those run by Catholics, emphasised that their pro-life stance extended beyond abortion to include opposition to suicide, IVF (in vitro fertilisation), and assisted dying (euthanasia). In conversations with the Catholic Medical Association, which helps healthcare professionals integrate their faith with clinical practice, and the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), which advocates for the defence of “life from conception to natural death,” this broader perspective was clear. Both groups, along with others, shared the belief that life is sacred and divinely ordained, viewing practices like IVF and euthanasia as unnatural and contrary to the will of the Christian God. This alignment reflects a broader pro-life ideology that could influence healthcare policy beyond reproductive rights.
When it came to IVF, Fiat Fertility was the only group at the summit specifically focusing on alternatives. Represented by key speaker Ira Winter, they presented a different approach to fertility treatments. During our conversation, a young man and woman tailored their pitch to me, correctly assuming that I wasn’t currently seeking pregnancy. What stood out was how the woman avoided mentioning fertility, IVF, or “natural conception” until the very end. Instead, she focused on how tracking menstrual cycles could aid conditions like polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and endometriosis. Only as the conversation was ending did she bring up her belief in “fertility windows,” suggesting that ovulation tracking could resolve fertility issues for couples. It was clear to me that she likely hadn’t experienced fertility struggles first-hand, which made her approach feel somewhat detached from the reality many couples face.
After visiting the various stalls, I attended a pro-life talk aimed at ages 13-17, led by Dr Liz Corcoran, chair of the Down’s Syndrome Research Foundation, titled “The Truth About Life with Down’s Syndrome”. Despite being 21, I can often pass for a teenager, so no one questioned my presence as I quietly joined the circle of chairs next to Dr Corcoran. Based on what I had read on her website, I knew her advocacy for individuals with Down’s syndrome was deeply personal, rooted in her love for her brother with the condition. I expected the talk to be a heartfelt reflection on life with Down’s syndrome, filled with personal stories and insights into both the challenges and joys of loving someone with the condition. However, Dr Corcoran focused almost entirely on the technical history of prenatal screening for Down’s syndrome, missing an opportunity to humanise the issue for her young audience. Instead, the talk centred on demonising pregnancy screenings for the condition.
At one point, Dr Corcoran asked us to visualise 100 pregnant women, each carrying a baby with Down’s syndrome, gathered in the centre of the circle. She then asked how many of them would choose to abort, using exaggerated language and imagery for emotional impact. I correctly answered 90%, but her response felt judgmental, as she critiqued those who opt for termination without addressing the complex realities behind such decisions. The discussion lacked balance and compassion, turning into moral condemnation. Despite the talk being titled “The Truth About Life with Down’s Syndrome”, there was little focus on the actual experiences of people living with the condition, perhaps because no one present had it. It would have been far more insightful to hear from her brother or someone else with Down’s syndrome, either in person or remotely.
This tone felt especially troubling given the young, impressionable audience. There was no exploration of the societal support needed to make raising a child with Down’s syndrome more feasible, no inclusion of voices from individuals with the condition, and no emphasis on the broader need for societal acceptance and resources. The talk became yet another platform for guilt-driven rhetoric, devoid of compassion or balance.
My main takeaways from the March for Life UK summit were that it was a well-organised and financially robust display of the pro-life movement in the UK, revealing a level of sophistication and structure that surprised me. While the summit’s organisation was impressive, its messaging lacked the nuance and empathy necessary to foster real dialogue on such a complex issue. Nevertheless, the event highlighted that, while reproductive rights in the UK may seem secure, the overturning of Roe v. Wade in the US has emboldened pro-life activists and sparked renewed concern about the potential for similar shifts in the UK. Key subthemes such as opposition to IVF and assisted dying underscored the movement’s broader agenda, rooted in religious beliefs about the sanctity of life from conception to natural death.
Despite the veneer of offering support and alternatives for women, many interactions revealed that the primary goal of these groups remains focused on preventing abortion rather than genuinely empowering women to make their own choices. The summit left me with a sobering reminder: although the pro-life movement in the UK may not dominate headlines, it is increasingly organised and persistent, and its influence should not be underestimated.
Rights that seem settled are never entirely secure, and continued engagement and vigilance are necessary to ensure they remain intact.
