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

Expert evidence is admissible only to permit opinion to be given in relation to matters in issue in the case. There were no such matters here. Unsupported and unevidenced conjecture and political views do not count as expert evidence.
it is for counsel to advance mitigation based on his or her client’s instructions. The royal colleges and BPAS have demonstrated how laughably ignorant they are of the court process. Not a great look

It wasn't a medical issue. It was a criminal case. They had no place trying to insert themselves or influence the LAW.

The Judge made that clear. Rightfully so.

This isn't a case about abortion rights. It's a case of a woman who had full access to legal abortion under the law for 24 weeks where she knew she was pregnant and she did not choose to obtain a legal abortion.

She did not do so and then lied to obtain drugs to kill her child after the legal limit. And then lied to paramedics, midwives and the Police.

She committed a crime. It's entirely irrelevant and inappropriate as the Judge stated, for the BPAS or any medical professional to try and influence the outcome of a criminal trial.

As he said, lobby Parliament for a change to the law if they so wish. The law is the law until then.

Yep.

But the plaintiff/her counsel waited for 6 months after the initial suggestion, just 2 months before a costly trial which was already arranged to suggest she would plead guilty to the lesser charge.

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'

@Gettybetty good explanation

Are you suggesting her counsel was at fault? Can’t see any grounds for that myself

I think there must be more to this story. A woman in her who has already had 3 children is too embarrassed to see a doctor about her pregnancy ? Nah. I don't buy it. She wasn't a scared teenager or a first time mother being abused by her partner or parents .

this doesn't add up.

I'm finding it hard to believe there weren't mental health i issues at play or some desperate circumsssues . I'm not saying that I condone what she did. I am pro life and only believe in therapeutic abortions at any age. As far as we know her life wasn't physically at risk. It's a sad story all around. That poor child, the poor child's siblings and father too.

I find your lack of compassion and understanding completely terrifying @BernadetteRostankowskiWolowitz

Out of interest, what is a therapeutic abortion?

It means an abortion that is carried out for medical reasons.

@Foxesandsquirrels a therapeutic abortion would be considered in cases where a mothers life is threatened by continuing of the pregnancy. So grave physical or mental illness. There could well be mental illness here but I'm not sure as to how life threatening it may be in this case . examples where it could be life threatening if someone was suicidal over continuing a pregnancy or someone with bipolar disorder had to stop taking their medication for the baby and they became manic to the point they weren't sleeping or eating and were exhibiting risky behaviours.

Ah i see. I think it's in the judges notes that this wasn't the case here.

*BernadetteRostankowskiWolowitz · Yesterday 16:00

It's not murder if the baby isn't classed as a life.*

of course she is classified as life. That is why this is considered a criminal offence. She is alive, not an extension of someone’s body. This is a baby, who could have lived outside the womb. Another person. Hence, murder.

Whilst I despair at the attitude some on here have towards a viable, nearly fully grown baby, it's not murder. She wouldn't have got such a short sentence for murder.

Some good discussion of what BPAS and others are getting wrong here: https://thesigourneybeaver.wordpress.com/2023/06/14/what-are-bpas-up-to/

Would she have suffocated then due to lack of oxygen? Absolutely horrific and this 'mother' would have known this, given her months of research into how to kill her baby.

Yes. This would've been a pretty horrific death for this baby. Given the lengths this woman went to to research abortion dates, I doubt she didn't know this.

I had a stillborn baby at a similar gestation. I was lead to believe I HAD to agree to a PM, which was very distressing. I hate to think actions like these would put more pressure on unfortunate women at a very vulnerable and distressing time.

How do you think a 33 week gestation baby gets to leave a woman's body?

Teleportation does not exist, they generally come out the same route they got in.

Well they couldn't make her plead guilty, they obviously had to wait for her to agree

One thing I am gathering from this thread if you believe this is murder should the law and sentencing guidelines be changed to reflect this?

Alternatively if you don't believe this was murder then you must feel this is an abortion i.e. a clinical procedure illegally performed due to the time frame

In a way it would be more honest either to treat this as either abortion or murder (depending on your view). If abortion how realistically do you determine the sentence as the degree of criminality is directly linked to your personal feelings about the state of the foetus and how their right to life equates to a born human

I think if we’re looking at semantics it’s murder in the way we view murder - ie taking someone else’s life. Most of people arguing it’s murder are doing so on the basis it doesn’t fit the legal definition.

I’m bemused by this. Murder is a legal concept. There is no definition other than the legal one.
what the people who are saying “it’s murder” really mean is that they think it’s as bad as murder, or that the definition of murder should be expanded to include this. But they are up against the fact that our law has never taken this position, as far as I know, and there are probably good reasons for that.

Initially I thought the use of such archaic law bizarre but now I can understand how difficult it would be repeal of amend it. If you start looking at specific sections on law you open up the whole abortion debate which would be incredibly socially divisive. Are we prepared to have that parliamentary debate?.As a country I don't think we have quite the same range of views as in the US but no one quite knows what strength of feeling could do if we renetered this extremely sensitive subject.

Do you think Ri shi is right to quickly pour cold water on any idea of parliamentary scrutiny of the current abortion balance? I think he is probably right even though the grounding of abortion law is somewhat precarious as the risks of full review could impact women's reproductive rights.

He is 100% right. That debate is only going in one direction, and it’s not a more liberal one.