What she told her constituents
Three claims. Three contradictions.
In June 2025, Christine Jardine wrote to constituents defending her vote. She made three specific assurances. Each one is contradicted by evidence now in the public domain.
Her claim
"The time limits and all other laws and regulations around the provision of abortion care remain in place."
The evidence
By 2023, approximately 72% of abortions in England and Wales took place at home through telemedicine — a woman telephones a provider, states her gestational age, and receives pills by post. No ultrasound. No in-person examination. No identity verification. The clinical pathway Jardine cited in her reply is bypassed entirely. Her vote removed the last remaining criminal sanction on the woman. The 24-week limit exists on paper and nowhere else.
Source: Department of Health and Social Care, Abortion Statistics, England and Wales: 2023 (2026). Full evidence →
Her claim
"No doctor will provide an abortion beyond the 24-week limit without it meeting one of a very small number of exceptional criteria."
The evidence
For three quarters of abortion procedures, no doctor is involved at any stage. Women have obtained pills under false pretences and self-administered them at 26 weeks and between 32 and 34 weeks' gestation. In every documented prosecution, the telemedicine system was exploited by misrepresenting gestational age. Jardine's claim is technically accurate in the narrowest sense — and substantively meaningless.
Sources: R v Carla Foster (2023); R v Nicola Packer (2025). Full evidence →
Her claim
"This does not allow 'sex-selective abortion'."
The evidence
Six months after Jardine wrote those words, the Department of Health and Social Care published its birth ratio analysis under Section 84 of the Serious Crime Act 2015. The Government's own researchers found approximately 400 baby girls were sex-selectively aborted between 2017 and 2021. The reports — due in October/November 2024 and 2025 — were published late, meaning MPs voted on the amendment without access to data that contradicted the case being made for it.
Source: DHSC, Birth Ratio Analysis under Section 84 (2025). Full evidence →
The response
Confronted with the evidence, she chose silence.
On 10 February 2026, a constituent wrote to Christine Jardine setting out the evidence above in detail, with full references to government data, court cases, and parliamentary proceedings. The letter asked her to retract her characterisation of constituent concerns as "misinformation," to justify or withdraw each of her three claims, and to state whether she continued to support Clause 191 in light of the evidence.
- 10 February 2026 — Detailed, evidence-based letter sent to Christine Jardine MP
- 22 February 2026 — Follow-up sent requesting a response
- 2 March 2026 — Second follow-up sent requesting a response
- As of 3 March 2026 — No reply received
For Edinburgh West constituents
Ask her yourself.
If you are a constituent of Edinburgh West, you are entitled to ask your Member of Parliament to explain her voting record. The questions below are drawn directly from the evidence. They are factual, specific, and reasonable. Not in Edinburgh West? Find your MP in the full list of 379 who voted for Clause 191.
Contact Christine Jardine
Email: christine.jardine.mp@parliament.uk
Parliament: House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA
Write to your MP: WriteToThem.com
Questions you might ask
1. Given that 72% of abortions now take place at home via telemedicine with no in-person verification, how do you reconcile your assurance that "time limits remain in place"?
2. The Government's own birth ratio analysis found approximately 400 sex-selectively aborted baby girls between 2017 and 2021. This data was published after you voted for Clause 191. Does this change your position?
3. Do you continue to support Clause 191 as it proceeds through the House of Lords? If so, how do you reconcile that support with the evidence set out above?