Jacob Rees-Mogg is worse than a Halloween Victorian ghoul – and this is why

I’ll say this for Jacob Rees-Mogg: he’s predictable. Dangerous, disingenuous, arrogant – but predictable. Yesterday, he offered another of his rousing anti-abortion speeches – this time at a Westminster Hall debate about a petition for terminations to be included in the government’s planned Bill of Rights. He never tires of caring for the children, that one.

Given all his talk of protecting babies, you’d expect him to be a staunch supporter of affordable childcare – especially for the most vulnerable families – a fierce advocate for free school meals to make sure no child in the UK goes hungry, and a steadfast proponent of anti-poverty policies.

Not likely.

Remember when UNICEF had to step in and help feed deprived children in the UK during the Covid-19 pandemic – the UN agency’s first domestic emergency response in its history? Rees-Mogg accused them of a “political stunt”. And that time when he said increased food bank usage was “rather uplifting”?

That’s right, the MP for North East Somerset only goes all “think of the babies!” while they’re still foetuses. Once they’re out of the womb and really need the help, his heartfelt “preference for life” appears to suddenly disappear. Funny that. It’s one of the most startling contradictions of those who describe themselves as “pro-life”, that they’ll happily dismiss the needs of children and adults – but foetuses must remain sacrosanct.

To me, it’s almost as if it’s not really about ‘babies’ at all; it’s almost as if it’s about controlling women’s reproductive rights instead. I’m sure that’s not the case with Rees-Mogg, though. He’s got integrity. Oh no, wait, sorry, I’ve got that wrong; I’m just looking at my notes here and it appears to be the exact opposite.

Rees-Mogg doesn’t mind making a mint “in a very roundabout way” from abortion pills in Indonesia, and he’s apparently not too fussed about an unnecessary death or two (or a hundred thousand) through draconian policies that effectively punish people for being poor.

Still, he’s got a way with words. Honestly, his powers of rhetoric during the abortion debate almost brought me to tears (of horror).

He used every trick in the book. Incendiary language? Check: the former Leader of the House of Commons spoke of essential healthcare “killing babies”. Demonisation of supporters of reproductive freedom? Check: he referred to abortion rights as a “cult of death”. But there goes the Moggster – forever serving up 19th century attitudes to a 21st century society.

MP for Walthamstow Stella Creasy was having none of it. On Twitter, she posted a damning indictment of Rees-Mogg’s comments during the debate. “If you think we don’t need to codify in law that women have a human right to choose to have an abortion, Rees-Mogg just argued against women who are victims of rape or incest having a right to have one. Women deserve equal rights. Whoever is in government #trustWomen.” Well, it seems you can certainly trust Rees-Mogg to attack women’s bodily autonomy whenever he gets the chance.

Rees-Mogg’s gutter politics surely put him in a difficult position to take the moral high ground over anyone, but to condemn those who’ve had abortions and those who support reproductive rights is a new low even for him – and there are so very many lows to choose from.

To keep up to speed with all the latest opinions and comment, sign up to our free weekly Voices Dispatches newsletter by clicking here

Remember after the overturning of Roe v Wade, how many women in England breathed a guilty sigh of relief that our reproductive rights were safe in this country? Rees-Mogg’s comments at Westminster Hall should disabuse anyone who still thinks that access to abortion – a form of essential and life-saving healthcare – isn’t at risk here, too.

His impassioned speech – which was effectively in favour of endangering the lives of women across the country – comes just after government documents outlining plans to curb access to home abortions were leaked. It’s unsurprising that such a move would be detrimental to the most vulnerable women – those at risk of domestic violence and those without a fixed address. But then, Rees-Mogg doesn’t seem to care about those lives. Those lives don’t suit his political narrative at all. Not a bit.

How many unnecessary deaths have the Tories caused since they came into power? Never mind. They don’t matter anyway. Not to Rees-Mogg, it seems. He’s apparently more interested in the slitheringly slow but certain erosion of women’s right to bodily autonomy.

This bloke who’ll never get impregnated by a rapist, this bloke who’ll never get pregnant at all, this bloke who’ll never need an abortion. This bloke dares to denounce the women who do experience all those things. This bloke, with his extravagant wealth and all the privileges imaginable, dares to try and make life worse for the most vulnerable women.

You know, we do Rees-Mogg a disservice by sending him up as a Halloween Victorian ghoul; it undermines his – very real – menace. Access to terminations isn’t guaranteed in England, and abortion is still criminalised: under the 1967 Abortion Act, any woman who ends a pregnancy without getting legal permission from two doctors – who must agree that continuing with it would compromise the woman’s physical or mental health – can face up to life imprisonment.

Our abortion laws are as archaic as Rees-Mogg’s mindset and we need to be aware that our reproductive rights are fragile. Rees-Mogg speaks of abortion as the “destruction of life”, but he’s not worried about the destruction of women’s lives. We should be.