‘The fact is, I probably disagree with most of the members who have spoken so far about this question. They think that women have an absolute right to bodily autonomy.’

While many in the 21st century might consider women’s rights to bodily autonomy as a basic and indisputable human right, it appears the same cannot be said for the author of this quote. Despite this language resembling recent debates in the US political scene, you may be shocked to learn that this statement is actually from Danny Kruger in the House of Commons. Kruger is one of the several defectors to Reform UK who have previously expressed anti-choice sentiment when addressing the topic of abortion, alongside the likes of Anne Widdicombe, Maria Caulfield, and Nadine Dorries. 

On this note, let’s throw into the mix: ‘I am pro-choice, but I think it’s utterly ludicrous that we can allow abortion up to 24 weeks.’ A quote from – you guessed it – Nigel Farage himself.

Despite Mr Farage seemingly welcoming anti-abortion attitudes into Britain’s poll-leading party, recent data suggests that any Christian-nationalist style anti-abortionist visions are unlikely to become a reality. YouGov polling shows that only 6% of the UK population support an abortion ban, and a Reform UK spokesperson confirmed the party has no intention of making changes to the abortion laws.

Instead, these comments all point to a wider issue with the direction Reform is taking UK politics. Medical law professor Emily Jackson told The Independent, ‘Abortion has been largely depoliticised in the UK. It’s been medicalised and relies on doctors’ discretion – who largely allow patients to exercise the right to choose.’ This medicalisation of abortion – which has stood since 1967 – is exactly what Farage puts at risk. 

Now, I’m not a doctor (or, I feel I should point out, a woman). I’m not going to pretend that I could scientifically explain why the abortion limit is currently 24 weeks, or for that matter, what the arguments are for lowering it to 22 weeks. But I highly doubt that Nigel Farage could either – and this is exactly the point. If expert medical consensus is settled on 24 weeks, then I agree, and any decision to lower it should be taken medically by experts, not by the individual beliefs of politicians. 

Reducing topics as complex as abortion to casual political passing statements is wrong, and disrespects the trust we rightly place in science and medicine as a society. To avoid this US-style culture war takeover of British politics, politicians should listen to medicine, medicine should not listen to politicians. Particularly when they are, frankly, completely wrong – as Reform UK politicians often are.

Without getting too entangled in the right-wing party’s scientific hot takes, let’s quickly listen to the greatest hits. Deputy leader Richard Tice has claimed that achieving net zero will make zero difference to climate change and that we’d be better off adapting to warming rather than attempting to stop it. A mainstage conference speaker has blamed Covid-19 vaccines for giving King Charles cancer. Farage said he had ‘no idea’ whether President Trump was right to link paracetamol to autism.

We may find these claims laughable, but what sort of example does this selective trust in science, and in some cases, disregard for indisputable truth, set? What consequences will it have for the generation tasked with fighting climate change, negotiating AI risks, and managing antibiotic resistance?

With a US political scene where the president makes misleading claims by the dozen, and the security of the planet at its greatest ever risk, trust in science has never been more important. However, if there is a realistic chance that the next UK government will oversee a transition to a culture in which empirical science becomes contentious – where will they draw the line on what is and isn’t a debate? How would they deal with another pandemic, for example? Would they trust a new breakthrough cancer treatment? Will vaccine rollouts change? What would the consequences be for our health system?

Farage’s blatant disregard of fact is disturbing to an almost Orwellian extent (‘the party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears,’ et cetera). When asked if he would side with medical experts who attempted to dispel Trump’s nonsense regarding paracetamol-gate, Farage replied ‘I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t. When it comes to science, I don’t side with anybody, right?

I don’t know what my top five requirements for a suitable Prime Minister candidate would be, but trusting scientists on matters of science would probably be up there somewhere. And does he really side with no one? Even the doctors who treated his testicular cancer at the age of 21, or those who provided his two-month hospital care after he was ‘smashed to bits’ in a car crash in 1985?

With Farage’s non-committal approach to science and apparent lack of genuine plans to alter the abortion laws, one could assume his entire approach is simply an attempt to (     successfully) create headlines and widen the party’s appeal to a more far-right voter base. But even if this is the case, we cannot rely on the hope that Reform UK suddenly changes course to one of common sense if they enter government. Their dangerous politicisation of objective truth reveals the party’s lack of integrity, trustworthiness, and pragmatism, and should serve as a real warning for the type of governing which may lie ahead.  

If you liked this, read more from Redbrick Comment:  

Trump and Venezuela: Living the Vida Loca

What Actually Happened in the Liberated Zone?

UoN Course Cuts: Is UoB Safe?