Mum sentenced to 28 months in prison for abortion pills

[mumoftwobarnyboys]

Used after the cut off point of 10 weeks.

Regardless of how far gone she was, surely this isn't right?

It is her body, despite me morally really thinking what she did was very wrong.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/12/woman-in-uk-jailed-for-28-months-over-taking-abortion-pills-after-legal-time-limit?CMP=twtgu&utmmsource=Twitter&utmmedium=&s=08#Echobox=1686577294

@Fingerscrossedfor2021HK

why has this case causes for a call for a debate on parliament of there is no moral ambiguity when debating abortions nd generational age. The whole subject is extremely complex. There are actually those that would consider abortion at 12 weeks morally wrong (look to the US). It is an emotive subject but I think the fundamental princiole is that abortion shouldn't be criminalized to an extent where custodial sentence are given.

again where is the line between moral acceptance and rejection?

Sorry gestational

She must have been desperate.
I agree she was wrong and broke the law but I don't agree a custodial sentence was the right result.
I think women can be treated more harshly still by judges and made an example of. So many cases of men committing sexual offences and getting community supervision.
Yes she was guilty but there should have been some more thought about appropriate sentencing.

to say this is only violence against herself is to ignore the existence of the viable foetus, which the law in its current state does not do. If you think it should you need to make a coherent moral case for that, not just glibly state that only one person is involved.
as for the royal college it’s behaviour was beneath contempt. It is grossly improper to attempt to influence a judge as to how to apply the law like this. Imagine how they would react if a religious group had tried to influence him in the other direction. Arrogant and stupid.

Besides which the defendant was represented by counsel. Do a bunch of doctors think they can present mitigation more effectively than her experienced barrister? Absolute fools.

@crew2022

the defendant if she had pleaded guilty would have been eligible for a job custodial sentence and I think the judge maybe would have preferred that but had to act within the law as given.

The archaic nature of the laws from the 1860s is a concern in that the laws were introduced at a point where any abortion was illegal. The law could do with decision and so perhaps it is time for an intelligent debate on Parliament?

given that a non custodial sentence was originally within the judge ' s gift then this does highlight the fact that morally there is no equivalence to deliberate act of harm. I think there was no malice but desperation and a custodial sentence serves no one, not society and not the individual (or their family).

It would have been a custodial sentence, but a suspended one

@SheilaFentiman

at least suspension would have been more proportionate and I think the judge recognised that.

Proportionate to the deliberate killing of a viable human life, at a gestation that the law feels deserves protection?

I personally think she deserves prison time - probably more than she got sentenced.

I never once said it wasn't sad.

I feel desperately sad that this woman was in such a position where she felt that was the best option for her.

If you can't see the reasons why someone may wish to have a late term abortion rather than the alternative of having a baby and then being at the mercy of the father of that child then you're clearly not as aware of the world as you think you are.

Maybe you're happy to live in a world where women aren't trusted with their own bodies, but that's not a world where I want to be, and it's certainly not a world I want for my daughters.

It was not “the last minute”, it was more than a month before the trial

You were originally charged with an offence of child destruction. At the plea and trial preparation hearing on 18 August 2022, you pleaded not guilty to that charge. In a note for that hearing, your counsel asked whether the prosecution had given consideration to an alternative charge under s.58 of the 1861 Act. Directions were given and the case was listed for trial on 26 April 2023. On 1 February 2023, your counsel formally indicated for the first time that you would plead guilty to the s.58 offence. That plea was then taken on 6 March 2023.

Yes, I agree, but I assume from his remarks that the plea came too late for this to be a legal possibility.

There is some discussion currently as to whether the approach to credit for guilty plea was correct. she pleaded not guilty to the original (more serious) charge and continued to maintain what is now admitted to be a dishonest defence. It was later indicated that she would plead to the lesser offence if it was put, which she duly did.

Reported case on this point here. Suggests that judge in this case approached the point correctly?https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2020/1514.html

It was an appropriate sentence, given the history and the repeated lying then failure to admit responsibility with an early guilty plea.

The judge explained it well in the sentencing remarks.

Whichever way I look at this, and I can fully understand why people are abhorred by termination at this gestation, I can’t understand what place the law has in dictating abortions. It’s not like women need the law as a deterrent. It’s not like there would be an epidemic of women running round having late stage abortions just because. It happens so so rarely and these women really don’t need to go to prison. The only purpose of the law I can see is to protect the ‘rights’ of a foetus. But that doesn’t make sense because they aren’t alive, they can’t really have rights. Certainly not more rights than an actual woman. As someone said before they don’t have other ‘rights’ ie. a right not to be subjected to toxic substances in the womb, where as a baby would be protected legally here. It doesn’t make sense to me.

The law constrains medical treatment in many other contexts, not only the reproductive. So I’m afraid I do not understand this argument, unless you believe that women of reproductive age belong to some special class who should not be subject to legal restrictions like mere mortals.
to persuade people of your point of view you will have to convince them there is morally no difference between destruction of a six week and a thirty six week foetus. And in so doing, you will do more harm to the current stable, liberal position we have than any religious nutcase will ever manage to do.

And she was given a reduction in sentance due to that , not as much of a reduced sentance as if she had indicated a guilty plea earlier when directions were given in August instead of leaving it until feb

You could make the same argument for killing a newborn baby. Barely anyone would do it, but that doesn’t mean that the law shouldn’t say that it is illegal and prosecute anyone who does it.

That was to @AgathaSpencerGregson

Sorry I mean to @User98866

Sentence! dont know whats going on with my phone

Prison is absolutely the correct response

She had 24 weeks to decide not to continue the pregnancy - our abortion laws are very clear and allow a significant amount of time to make a decision. She lied. She wasn't coerced or being abused from anything I've read. She knowingly aborted a child which would have otherwise been born healthy even at 32 weeks

For me there are a number of important factors with this case.

She knew she was pregnant prior to lockdown, when medical help and legal abortion would have been available.

She was 44 and had previous experience of pregnancy. This isn't a scared teenager who didn't understand what was happening.

There weren't any reported mental health concerns or fears for her safety.

If she had been honest and pleaded guilty, the custodial sentence wouldn't have been enforced.

Yes, you could, and people would. It would reopen the whole debate around the current law. That would only go in one direction, I expect - towards a tightening, not liberalisation, of the current law.