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

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

if you read the sentencing remarks, there are comments on her emotionally unstable personality traits and also her trying to conceal the pregnancy from the man she was living with (not the man who co-created this pregnancy)

This.

You make a very good point about men poss taking advantage. In the USA, when women sadly leave babies at birth, this is never factored in, or the lack & failure of any support network. ‘String ‘em up’ seems to be the prevailing sentiment.

Poss not relevant here but it takes two to make a baby.

Covid was an extraordinary time too not only in the practical sense of whether you could or couldn’t access medical support.

Thanks, had read it already.

To be clear, despite reporting the "emotionally unstable personality traits", the judge remarks she was not suffering from any mental illnesses at the time.

There was no report of the partner being a danger to her. Just that she sought to conceal it from him.

Pretty well every defendant who appears in the crown court could be described as having emotionally unstable personality traits. that won’t get you very far in terms of mitigation.

For me, the issue of rights shifts at viability. I don’t accept no rights for an unborn, but viable pregnancy.

If the baby had been born at 34 weeks and her mother hadn’t fed her or kept her warm etc, she would have died. How would we feel about that?

Babies are dependent on others to be alive whether in utero or born.

It's complex.

Yep. IMO that's why the BPAS and some clinicians decided to wade in when as the Judge said, it was not their place to attempt to influence a criminal case.

When remote prescribing of abortion drugs was suggested absolutely correctly during COVID, one of the arguments against this was the risk that individuals may lie and secure the drugs to terminate pregnancy after the legal limit for those drugs. The BPAS undoubtedly said that was extremely unlikely to happen for X, y and z reasons.

But it did happen. We only know of this case as she used the drugs to abort a 32-34 week foetus which became a criminal investigation. We don't know how many, if any, women used the lack of supervision to abort foetus' at earlier but illegal gestation and just disposed of the foetus.

So of course they're shitting themselves now as it's been proven that people will lie and did.

I would argue the law is much stricter now than than throughout most of history. We are starting from a legal position based on a law drafted in the 1800’s, hardly a bastion of womens and childrens rights, and what happened to unwanted/ babies that couldn’t be kept because of circumstances then? They would probably have staved to death in a workhouse. Abortion was always legal here until ‘quickening’ which essentially leaves it up to the woman to decide upon doesn’t it? It was considered a private matter between a woman and her midwife, men would rarely if ever be involved. Legislation around abortion, drafted in the 1800s, is about one thing only. Controlling womens reproductive rights. These laws have no place in modern society. If they understood it pre 1803 you’d think we could understand it now.

Genuinely dumbfounded that anyone would attempt to describe the current legal position without reference to the 1967 act. Staggered. Gobsmacked. Blown away.

@AgathaSpencerGregson I agree with you that re-examining the law (especially using this case as a basis) is likely to result in more restrictions on access to terminations- that's the trend globally at least. At the moment, women have free access to terminations with a relatively broad timeframe to make a decision compared to many European countries. To me at least, it seems wise to leave things as they are instead of opening the issue up to debate that could end up restricting the freedoms we already have.

I'm also not sure that this case would have the impact of suggesting to women that seeking a legal termination could somehow be criminal, as a PP seemed to be suggesting (apologies if I've misunderstood the point). That's infantilising. It's perfectly clear in this case that the act of terminating a pregnancy well beyond the legal limit was criminal, not terminations as a whole. Furthermore, it's clear from the sentencing remarks that there was already a precedent for this type of prosecution- as far as I'm aware, the prosecution that the judge used to help inform sentencing in this case didn't lead to restrictions in accessing terminations.

It's perfectly clear in this case that the act of terminating a pregnancy well beyond the legal limit was criminal, not terminations as a whole.

We have a strange legal position though that actually, ALL abortions are still criminal. The 1967 Act allowed exceptions to it - namely that it takes place before a certain number of weeks (I think this has changed over the years) and that other requirements have been fulfilled in terms of consultations and the two doctor thing. The legislation is antiquated and not fit for purpose.

There should be a wholesale overhaul of the legislation, decriminalising abortion in its entirety, at any stage, and then putting in place rigorous professional standards and regulations to control late stage abortions, as with other healthcare matters.

Unfortunately, she was dealt with correctly, as the law as it stands today requires. But that law needs to be changed and for abortion to be recognised as a healthcare matter, which it absolutely is.

Awful case and awful outcome, prison is not the right thing for this woman. What now happens to her children, one of whom has special needs of some kind.

She needs immediate release, mental health support and a non custodial sentence. Note I didn’t say “no sentence”.

1967 act legalised abortion under certain conditions. From a starting point of them being illegal, which should never have been the case as it was never in the interests of women (and children or babies for that matter). Just what some men decided in the 1800s. Abortion is still illegal in the U.K. It’s easy to forget that. Access isn’t actually that easy. You can be denied aftercare treatment by HCPs who morally object to abortion (it’s happened to me in the U.K.). making it illegal gives weight to these viewpoints, who knows where we could end up? Would you ever think that the US would repeal Roe vs Wade?

There should be a wholesale overhaul of the legislation, decriminalising abortion in its entirety, at any stage, and then putting in place rigorous professional standards and regulations to control late stage abortions, as with other healthcare matters.

Exactly this.

Roe v wade was not legislation and thus could not be, and has not been, repealed. It was capable of being and has been overruled. Our clear, stable, durable statutory settlement, which affords extensive rights to obtain abortion legally, is infinitely preferable and the people who seek to argue for a more extreme liberalisation risk undermining it, to the disadvantage of all women.

Yes all abortions are illegal for “social reasons”. In one way it protects the mother from being pushed into and abortion by a man. But if abortions are Only allowed for mental health reasons if not anomalies how can we split the difference in gestations. Its pretty obvious her mental health was affected and you could say the nhs failed her for not assessing her properly and sending her tablets through the post. Something i have been very much against from the start of covid.

It’s also common in English law for certain acts to be defined as illegal save for where they take place within certain parameters. Where those parameters are widely defined, as they rightly are in relation to abortion, I’m afraid I don’t see what the problem is.

Abortion is still illegal in the U.K. It’s easy to forget that. Access isn’t actually that easy. You can be denied aftercare treatment by HCPs who morally object to abortion (it’s happened to me in the U.K.). making it illegal gives weight to these viewpoints,

Exactly. The bottom line is that all women seeking an abortion are reliant on an exception to its default illegality. While in the vast, vast majority of cases this poses no problem, we should all be aware of the precarious nature of that position for the future. You only have to look at what is happening in the US to see how quickly things can change in the wrong hands. Women need much better blanket protection enshrined in law.

I agree.

But when you say control,what do you mean? Say I’m 32 weeks pregnant and request an abortion. What if I don’t ‘meet’ the guidelines and regulations? Am I refused one?

im sorry, but can you explain why you think the statutory position you advocate is less likely to be changed than the current one (which has endured for almost 60 years); and why you think our current statutory position is as insecure as the US position (which was never enshrined in legislation)?
both propositions seem like legal nonsense to me, but perhaps I’m missing something …

i also don’t think prison was the right thing here

im wondering if it’s more in response to the deception and the trauma inflicted on the medical staff as a result of that , terrible and sad all round

im sorry, but can you explain why you think the statutory position you advocate is less likely to be changed than the current one (which has endured for almost 60 years); and why you think our current statutory position is as insecure as the US position (which was never enshrined in legislation)?
both propositions seem like legal nonsense to me, but perhaps I’m missing something

I don't think you're missing anything - they're just different perspectives. The bottom line for me is that there is currently a law which states abortion is illegal, apart from certain exceptions. I would far rather that there was no law criminalising abortion, and that it was just widely accepted that it is a healthcare issue and nothing to do with the law at all. To me, it seems it would potentially be easier for a bad actor government to amend the 67 Act to remove the exceptions, than to re-criminalise it after full decriminalisation, but perhaps that's just my gut instinct.

Maybe you should go look at that law “some men” decided on in the 1800s and see what it actually covers

From what I gather, ( looking at various news outlets) it was her lies and deceptions- and pleading “ Not guilty “ that antagonised the Court.

Judge specifically mentioned this.