Member's statement: Protection of Life
Member's statement by Ms Diane Forsythe on .
- MLA
- Ms Diane Forsythe
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 23 June 2025
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Protection of Life
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5045699
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I rise today with profound sadness to reflect on last week, which was a sad week for anyone in the United Kingdom who values life. Having imposed laws on abortion in Northern Ireland, campaigners were successful in getting such legislation introduced across England and Wales. The introduction of new clause 1 to the Bill means that abortions that are carried out at home, either through the taking of pills that are purchased online or any other method, will be decriminalised. That clause is not about cases involving a medical diagnosis that affects the mother or the baby; it relates to any abortion for any reason at any point, right up to birth. DUP MPs voted against the amendment, and others have explained their position, but the Alliance Party's Member of Parliament, who previously signed the amendment, has been silent. You might think that, having added her name to such a significant amendment, she would have found the time to explain her position, especially when she found the time to tweet about virtually every subject that was discussed in Parliament last week, with the singular and notable exception of an amendment that permits late-term abortion up to the point of birth. On Friday, MPs voted to permit assisted dying in England and Wales. The Bill is significantly different to how it was when it was originally proposed; it is even worse. Judicial involvement in the process has been removed, and legal safeguards have been watered down. The Bill requires the founding principles of the NHS to be altered, all to create a system of private provision that will profit financially from the ending of lives. The Bill does not offer a dignified path for those who are facing the end of life; it opens up the prospect of vulnerable people being coerced to end their lives, without the proper safeguards to stop that from happening. It was a sad week for anyone who values the protection of life. It was especially dark for some of the weakest, frailest and most vulnerable in society: unborn babies; women who are experiencing crisis pregnancy; people living with a disability; or those with a terminal illness who are at risk from coercion or abuse. We are taught in Proverbs:
"Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy."
We must be a voice for the voiceless in society. There is no ambiguity over our position. The DUP is firmly a pro-life party. I repeat: last week was a sad week for anyone who values the protection of life.
444 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.37 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.67).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.91).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- The overall probability was low and the text did not adopt any identity-based framing.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.15 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.07 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.19 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.25 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.67 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.37 | Between thresholds |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.91 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.09 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.99 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 12:48 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.