Debate contribution: Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Timothy Gaston on 7 April 2025.

MLA

Mr Timothy Gaston

Party at the time

Traditional Unionist Voice

Date

7 April 2025

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill: Second Stage

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4890981

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Like all other Members, I welcome the intention behind the Bill. The loss of a baby at any stage is a devastating blow to any family and something that the mother will feel particularly deeply, having carried the child. In many instances, the loss of the children is mourned privately. For those of us who have faith in Christ, we have the consolation expressed in 2 Samuel 12. On the loss of his infant son, David said "I shall go to him". Even then, however, the experience is a sad one, as David immediately followed that statement by saying:

"but he shall not return to me."

It is therefore right that, for parents who wish to have them, we make provision for the issuing of certificates that recognise the loss of a baby. I commend those who have campaigned to get us to this point. However, I want to make some observations about the Bill and the language that it employs.

The title of the Bill is the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill. Throughout the Bill, the word "baby" is used. In the Bill, a baby is never referred to as anything else. For example, it is never referred to by the cold term "fetus", nor should it be. I put it to the House that the language used in the title of the Bill and its clauses is an acknowledgement of the personhood of the unborn children who tragically never get a chance to live outside the womb. It acknowledges their value. It acknowledges their potential to have brought love and joy into the world. It acknowledges their potential to have contributed to society and to have grown up to become a great leader, a great writer or a great scientist. It acknowledges that, although they may not have become any of those things, they would still have been loved as a daughter, a sister, a wife, a mother, a son, a brother or a father. The fact that the Bill acknowledges all those things is right, just and good, but — here we come to the uncomfortable truth contained in the Bill — if all those things are true of the child who, sadly, is stillborn, they are equally true of the 8,093 babies who have been aborted since our abortion laws were changed.

I thank the Member for her intervention. I feel a moral duty to speak out for the life of the unborn. I am pro-life, and I will take the opportunity in my brief remarks to make some of those points. I remind the House that the floodgates on that tidal wave of the slaughter of the innocent opened only because of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2022, which is the legislation that brought us devolution for two years.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will continue with my remarks. Although I regret the fact that the Bill is not wider in its scope and will not even, I believe, provide scope for tabling amendments that would address the threat to unborn babies, I welcome the fact that it does address an important issue. Shame on those who brought us back to Stormont, however. The price certainly was not worth paying for the installation of the Executive Formation Act. In closing, I welcome the fact that Members across the House today, by the very act of voting in favour of the legislation, will be accepting, whether they care to acknowledge it, the central tenet of the pro-life argument, which is that an unborn baby is just that: an unborn baby.

598 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Second assessment

Jev’s answers did not settle this record, so a second model, claude-opus-5-5, read the same text (without the MLA’s name or party) and gave its reasons on 21 October 2026. How the second assessment works

Verdict

Not flagged

Public interest or divisiveness

Mixed

Against the published rubric

The contribution supports the Bill, then uses its wording to argue that calling a lost pregnancy a "baby" concedes "the personhood of the unborn". It extends this to the abortions carried out since the law changed. That is a position on abortion law, a contested moral and legislative question, argued through what the Bill actually says rather than framed as a contest between communities or groups. The language is heated ("tidal wave of the slaughter of the innocent", "Shame on those who brought us back to Stormont"), but it targets legislation and a political deal, not women, pro-choice people or any community as a group.

Public interest or divisiveness

The speech deals with real substance: the Bill's purpose, its terminology and the speaker's view of abortion law, which is a legitimate matter for legislators. It also turns a consensus debate on baby loss into a vehicle for a wider abortion argument and an attack on those who restored devolution. That adds a substantial element of point-scoring and inflammatory rhetoric. Both elements carry real weight.

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:20 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification