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

I am pro-choice within the limits of the law as it currently is. We aren’t talking about some shitty backward country here. There were options long before Covid lockdowns in late March.

If you don’t want a baby or pregnancy “would not be a happy occasion” you can abstain from sex. Use contraception. Double up on contraception. If that fails use a MAP. If that doesn’t work you have 24 weeks to seek an abortion. If you can’t get your act together then the alternative isn’t that we allow you to just kill your baby. It might be “handmaids tale” but I do think in those cases where someone knew they didn’t want the baby then they should give birth to it and the baby be placed for adoption. At some point we have to consider that destroying a viable baby, a human life, is not right just because it’s located inside the mother.

I don’t mean where the baby has a condition incompatible with life or the mothers life is at risk - at that point the mother’s life and wellbeing given that she’s already living her life would take precedence. But after the point that it’s realistic a baby could survive outside the womb, if the reason for wanting to abort it is that you just don’t want it - well you should have done something about it earlier before the baby grew to a point where it is a fully formed and viable baby.

Yep! Not sure where people are getting desperation from when she had knowledge of pregnancy, had access to contraception and abortion.

The letter seems to have been very stupid and ill-judged. If anything, this case sends a clear message about the importance of acting promptly to secure abortion lawfully. Aside from that, it is improper and arrogant to seek to influence the judge in how he applies the law, as the judge made clear.

Why are people still blaming lockdown and saying she must be 'bereft'? She was 5/6 months pregnant before lockdown even began, and had been googling ways to terminate from early on, but did nothing!

Agreed. The only message this sends to the public is it is a crime to abort your child post 24 weeks and you can go to prison for it.

The women in question was Googling 'can I go to prison for aborting at 30 werks' on the day she'd killed her baby. Now she definitively knows the answer is yes.

Exactly.

The law should be kept away from abortion.

Also, some things can be wrong but aren't illegal. Other things can be right, but are illegal. We take a mix and match approach in this country. The important thing is that women feel they can get medical help.

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/fury-after-thug-who-attacked-27073998#amp-readmore-target

This man got a lesser sentence than the woman and he is far more dangerous to the public.

As awful as that case is, the baby didnt die. The woman was also 8 weeks pregnant, not 8 months. If the baby had died, it would have no/minimal awareness, no pain, no suffering (as far as we are aware).

Its a very different type of crime. Both are offences of violence, but what this woman did resulted in death.

If, as you require, the law is kept away from abortion, that would make it wholly exceptional, as the law governs all medical treatment currently. Can you explain what you actually mean, and why you think this?

Well, if we decide not to undergo a medical procedure, it's not forced on us. It's not a criminal offence. If we choose to have a limb amputated for no reason, that's not a criminal offence. Medical professionals have to work within a regulated environment, but as people we are allowed to do what we like with our bodies.

There are different types of law: Criminal, common, contractural, tort.

I agree with this tbh.

Absolutely.

I agree with this too.
I also hope that her three other children will be placed with permanent foster care with no contact so that they are safe. She should not have any contact with babies or children at all.

https://www.unison.org.uk/news/article/2022/07/unison-backs-abortion-rights-and-decriminalisation/

Abortion is only allowed with 'permission' from two doctors in the early stages, who have to give reasons.

False equivalency. You can't say but this and this...

The Judge made it extremely clear in his sentencing remarks that he could not suspend this woman's sentence because she refused to enter an early guilty plea and only agreed to a guilty plea to a lesser charge 2 months before a planned trial. Otherwise, she would have received a suspended sentence.

From the sentencing remarks:

"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. In my judgment, you are entitled to 20 per cent credit for your plea. I will, however, round down the sentence in your favour and the appropriate sentence is therefore 28 months’ imprisonment.
For the offence of administering poison with intent to procure a miscarriage, I sentence you to 28 months’ imprisonment. Among the many tragedies in this case is that you did not indicate your guilty plea at the earliest opportunity in the magistrates’ court. Had that been done, the sentence of imprisonment that I am now obliged to pass would in law have been capable of being suspended'

No-one has said she is a danger to the public, you don't have to be a danger to the public to rightfully and legally be sentenced to prison.

She killed her child, lied repeatedly to everyone around her, then the BPAS, then paramedics, midwives and then the Police. And after being charged she refused to take responsibility and enter an early guilty plea.

THAT is why she's in prison and not serving a community sentence. Reoeated lying and refusing to take responsibility till the last minute when she negotiated a plea deal as likely advised to be her legal counsel.

Not read the full thread, so this may have been answered already.

She delivered at 32-34 weeks 7 weeks into the covid restrictions being implemented.

She was already past 24 weeks by the time of the first lockdown. Why didnt she access abortion care during those 1st 20 weeks when no restrictions to service were in place?

Not true.

As this recent trial is highlighting:

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/31/man-admits-freezing-leg-of-alleged-eunuch-maker-website-owner

All the people involved were consenting and wanting 'extreme body modification'.

As members of society we are "not just allowed to do what we like with our bodies"

Same goes for:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Brown Where men willingly engaging in extreme BDSM and made no complaint to Police, resulted in criminal charges.

The letter explaining to the judge issues he has not even the remotest awareness of in his line of work, and offering a medical professional to appear as an expert witness is entirely sensible. Expert witnesses are common in cases relating to medical issues.

It already is in the UK. Abortions after 24wks are still available and are done (but only in the case of severe fetal abnormalities).

Very few abortion providers in the UK would voluntarily offer abortions post 24wks to a viable, healthy pregnancy. Changing the law to allow this would actually significantly reduce access to abortion for women as you would find very few staff willing to work in those circumstances.

Should we force women to give birth to a baby that they don't want.

At 32-34 weeks gestation, how else can the foetus be removed from the woman's body, other than by giving birth, wanted or unwanted? Several people have asked this, but I haven't seen any reply.

your counsel asked whether the prosecution had given consideration to an alternative charge under s.58 of the 1861 Act.

So it was defendant's own counsel who brought up the 1861 Act, as a lesser charge?

Something else which was asked several times in the other thread, which filled up before it was answered: what was baby Lily's cause of death?

At 32-34 weeks gestation, how else can the foetus be removed from the woman's body, other than by giving birth, wanted or unwanted?

@CeliaNorth good point

"Something else which was asked several times in the other thread, which filled up before it was answered: what was baby Lily's cause of death?"

Mifepristone blocks progesterone supply, so the uterus would no longer have been able to support the pregnancy and the placenta would have failed. It can also soften the cervix and cause contractions.

Misoprostal (the drug taken 48hrs after Mifepristone) softens the cervix and causes contractions.

It was the Mifepristone that caused the fetal death (as Miso alone would just have induced labour) as the placenta would have stopped functioning as intended.

I’ve practiced law for 25 years, so I’m aware of this. It simply isn’t right to say we can do as we like with our own bodies; the administration of controlled drugs (such as the abortion pill, but obviously including a huge range of other medications) is not something we can lawfully do for ourselves and we would commit offences if we attempted to do so. In any event, you glibly ignore, as others have, the existence of another body here.

It is very normal for defence counsel to ask the prosecution to consider a lesser charge. Happens every day in courts throughout the land.