Scotland’s political landscape is ablaze with controversy following the release of an explosive government-commissioned review that proposes sweeping changes to abortion laws, including the potential legalization of sex-selective abortions. The 165-page report, led by Professor Anna Glasier and unveiled on November 15, 2025, argues that current restrictions under the 1967 Abortion Act are “not fit for purpose” and recommends decriminalizing terminations entirely, granting women an automatic right to abortion up to 24 weeks without needing to meet specific grounds like health risks. More alarmingly, it dismisses explicit bans on sex-selective abortions (SSAs)—currently illegal across the UK—as “unnecessary and potentially harmful,” suggesting they could lead to intrusive questioning of women or racial profiling in ethnic communities where such practices might occur. SNP ministers, including Public Health Minister Jenni Minto, have signaled they are “considering” the recommendations as part of a broader evidence-gathering phase, but the mere discussion has ignited a firestorm from conservatives, women’s rights advocates, and pro-life groups who brand the ideas “morally repugnant” and a slide toward a “dystopian nightmare.”

The review, commissioned by former First Minister Humza Yousaf amid growing calls for modernization, paints a picture of outdated legislation that stigmatizes women and burdens healthcare providers. Under existing rules, abortions are permitted up to 24 weeks only if two doctors agree the procedure is necessary to prevent injury to the woman’s physical or mental health, or if there’s a substantial risk of fetal abnormality. After 24 weeks, they’re limited to extreme cases like saving the mother’s life or fatal fetal anomalies. Glasier’s panel, which included input from Abortion Rights Scotland and medical experts, proposes scrapping these “grounds” for early-term procedures, requiring only two professionals’ approval for later ones. They advocate treating abortion as routine healthcare, with buffer zones already in place since June to shield clinics from protests. On SSAs specifically, the report acknowledges a “lack of robust evidence” of widespread practice in Scotland but concedes it happens in some ethnic minority groups due to cultural pressures favoring male heirs. Enforcing a ban, they argue, would be “unworkable,” potentially compelling women to continue unwanted pregnancies or facing discriminatory scrutiny. Instead, the group urges education and support services to address root causes like gender inequality.

Critics, however, see this as a dangerous concession to appease minority sensitivities at the expense of ethics and equality. Former Home Secretary Suella Braverman blasted the proposals as “barbaric,” accusing the SNP of prioritizing “certain minority groups that prefer boys over girls” over moral standards. “Scotland slides further into the moral abyss under the SNP,” she declared, evoking comparisons to practices in parts of Asia and the Middle East where female infanticide skews sex ratios dramatically—India’s 2020 census showed 108 boys born per 100 girls, partly blamed on SSAs. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch echoed the sentiment, labeling it a “totally disgusting idea from a party that has run out of ideas,” while Scottish Tory leader Russell Findlay warned it would allow abortions “because of their sex,” undermining gender equality efforts. Pro-life organization Right To Life UK called it an “utter disgrace,” citing polls showing 91% of Scottish women support explicit SSA bans, and fearing it paves the way for “abortion on demand up to birth.”

The backlash extends beyond politics into civil society. On Mumsnet forums and X (formerly Twitter), users decried the review as prejudiced against ethnic minorities while ignoring fetal rights, with one viral thread arguing it “punishes women for structural inequality” rather than tackling it head-on. CARE, a Christian advocacy group, warned that decriminalization could entrench one of Europe’s most permissive regimes, contrasting Scotland’s potential path with France’s 2024 constitutional enshrinement of abortion rights—but limited to 14 weeks. Even some SNP members expressed unease; in September 2024, party delegates voted to embed abortion rights in an independent Scotland’s constitution, but moderates like former candidate Kim Marshall defended it as safeguarding against “regression” while acknowledging pro-life voter alienation. Back Off Scotland, which successfully lobbied for clinic buffer zones, distanced itself, emphasizing support for access without endorsing SSAs.

Supporters of the review counter that it’s a progressive step toward bodily autonomy, aligning with global trends. Glasier emphasized women’s agency: Denying an SSA would mean “compelling a woman to continue a pregnancy she wanted to—or was being pressured to—end,” potentially exacerbating coercion in patriarchal communities. Abortion Rights Scotland hailed it as removing “criminal threats” that deter women, noting Scotland’s low SSA rates compared to England’s estimated 100 cases annually. Internationally, countries like Canada and parts of the U.S. (pre-Roe v. Wade overturn) have grappled with similar debates, with Canada’s lack of gestational limits drawing SSA criticism but prioritizing choice. Minto affirmed the government’s commitment to “safe and timely” services, promising stakeholder consultations before any legislative push—likely in 2026, post-SNP conference.

The proposals arrive amid SNP soul-searching. Yousaf’s ouster in August 2024 over scandals left the party reeling, with new leader John Swinney vowing policy resets but facing independence fatigue—polls show support dipping to 40%. This review, inherited from Yousaf’s tenure, risks fracturing the pro-independence coalition; Green allies like Patrick Harvie back decriminalization but tread lightly on SSAs. Unionists seize the moment: Tory equalities spokeswoman Claire Coutinho quipped it’s “more suited to Communist China than Britain,” invoking the one-child policy’s legacy of 30 million “missing girls.”

Social media amplifies the divide. #SNPAbortionScandal trended with 1.2 million posts by November 16, blending feminist cheers (“My body, my choice—no exceptions!”) with horrified memes of “SNP’s gendercide gateway.” A Change.org petition against SSAs garnered 50,000 signatures overnight, while pro-choice rallies popped up in Edinburgh, chanting for “autonomy without apology.” Data from the Scottish Government shows 13,000 abortions in 2023-24, up 5% from pre-pandemic levels, with 98% under 20 weeks—suggesting demand won’t explode, but critics fear a “slippery slope” to late-term norms.

Implementation hurdles loom large. Decriminalization would require Holyrood legislation, potentially clashing with reserved UK equality laws under the Equality Act 2010, which bans sex discrimination—including indirect forms like SSAs. Enforcement woes persist: How to monitor motives without “racial profiling,” as Glasier warned? The review floats funded counseling for pressured women, but skeptics like Right To Life’s Catherine Robinson argue it ignores “heartbreaking consequences” for late-term procedures, which carry higher risks—maternal mortality triples post-20 weeks, per WHO stats.

As consultations kick off, the SNP treads a tightrope: Championing women’s rights risks alienating moderates in a post-Roe world where U.S. reversals embolden global conservatives. Braverman’s “moral abyss” jibe resonates with 2024 SNP conference votes embedding abortion in a hypothetical constitution, seen by foes as entrenching extremism. For Scots, it’s a referendum on progress: Does autonomy trump ethics, or does lifting SSA bans normalize discrimination? Minto’s pledge for “engagement” buys time, but with Westminster eyeing devolution limits, this overhaul could redefine not just wombs, but the nation’s soul. As one X user summed: “Choice is sacred—until it’s selective.” The debate rages on, unyielding as the Highland winds