AIBU to think throwing a mum-of-four in prison for having an abortion is never the answer?

[therescoffeeinthatnebula]

Spotted this on Twitter and haven't seen it already being discussed.

Apparently, a woman is being sentenced today for having an abortion over the limit during lockdown. I don't know of the circumstances (can't find anything other than the Sunday Times article), only that she already had four children and claims she didn't know exactly how far along she was.

I think most of us would agree making medical appointments during lockdown was bloody difficult and that it's even harder to attend any appointment if you have children, given you're not normally allowed to take them with you.

Whatever the truth, I'm appalled to see a woman potentially thrown in prison for trying to seek an abortion during lockdown, especially when you look at how violence against women is treated. I'd have thought referring her for mandatory counselling would be more of an appropriate outcome than prison because finding out you aborted what could have been a viable baby has got to mess with anyone's head.

It's all very sad - she should have been able to access proper services earlier - but prison, to me, should never have been on the table as a consequence.

I didn't actually realise that abortion in this country was blanket illegal and that our rights to seek abortions up to the limit are actually exceptions to that law rather than a piece of legislation that stands on its own.

I don't understand the Savita Happalanavar comparison. She would undoubtedly have been allowed an abortion in the UK, not least because we have never taken the line that abortion to save a woman's life is icky or immoral.

Yes. That is what I'm suggesting.

It's called being responsible.

Generally though if a pregnant woman is killed, we will say 'and her baby', and view this as a double tragedy.

Except maybe for the pro life absolutists who no doubt say: and the fetus whihc was just parasitically living off her and not really a valued life anyway.

Actual journalists. The sort of publications that are supposed to pass for news outlets.

I've been checking the names carefully, and you can see a clear difference in how she's being treated in the press depending on whether a man wrote the article or not. Bloody awful.

One talks about how she didn't know who the father of her baby was. This is a clear attempt at shaming women for having sex.

This also applies here. When I was at law school, we had to learn cases about child destruction - some like this, and others where men beat and kicked pregnant women to cause them to lose the child.

A fetus/baby isn't a parasite.

There is a big difference between a woman being beaten or murdered to a woman choosing to end her own pregnancy.

@TheHandmaiden if I remember my A level law correctly - if a man kicked a woman and the baby died in the womb then it wasn't homicide but obviously assault on the woman however if the baby was born and then later died due to the impact of the kick then it was murder.

I was 17.5 weeks and I thought I was 6 to 8 weeks. I had a light bleed and thought that was my period. I had no idea I was that far ahead. I didn't get a chance to take folic acid but he came out fine.

Of course but the pro life crew won't see the difference.

This is vile.

And fwiw I disagree with the sentence. I think she broke the law, and I agree with the law, but I think it's a harsh sentence for a sitaution whihc is so understandably complex.

The corpse has the right to all those things too. Shame he now can't practically exercise those rights.

But, the corpse, during life, could opt out of organ donation and refuse a kidney, that he will never use again, to someone who might have lived if given that kidney. The third-trimester pregnant woman isn't allowed to refuse her body, that she has to live with for life including the medical after-effects of the pregnancy and birth, to an unborn baby. If that doesn't bother you, you don't think of women as full human beings.

Completely agree with this position. Pro lifers do not take into account that a woman who doesn't want to have a baby will not have that baby whether that threatens her own life or not. There needs to be protection. Less people being born wouldn't be a bad thing anyway.

I’m on the fence.

Abortion after a certain time is illegal and she knew how far along she was.
There is no point having a law if it’s not going to be upheld.

A few weeks later the baby would have been born and she could have put it up for adoption.

If she had waited until the baby was born and then she or someone else killed it then they would have been charged with murder and put in prison so there does have to be a cut off limit from when it is an abortion vs murder.

These pills are unlikely to kill a baby that age which is why these are only recommended to be taken under 10 weeks and it could have easily resulted in a severely disabled child in care that would never find a permanent home.

She should be made to pay for what she has done but I think the sentence she’s got is very long considering other crimes get less time and her 4 kids are going to be affected by her being in jail (I don’t think kids should be a get out of jail free card because most prisoners have kids but they should be taken into account).
She was obviously in a very difficult situation and it wouldn’t have been a decision she made lightly.

I wonder if she’s got previous convictions.

I need to read this before deciding too

She should be made to pay for what she has done but I think the sentence she’s got is very long considering other crimes get less time and her 4 kids are going to be affected by her being in jail (I don’t think kids should be a get out of jail free card because most prisoners have kids but they should be taken into account).

She's still receiving mental health support due to the effect the stillbirth had on her and her family has "distanced themselves". I think she has already paid.

I agree Mary0nTheHandlebars

There should be consequences for breaking laws otherwise what’s the point in them?

Do we know if her husband was controlling?

The more I read about this case the less sympathy I have.

She found out she was pregnant in late 2019. She had several months where she could have had an abortion but she didn’t. She went back to her ex and didn’t want him to know she was pregnant by someone else so lied. And then took advantage of the pills by post scheme.

She had access to medical services. She could have got an abortion at any point but it’s clear she chose to keep the baby then simply changed her mind.

It is insane to suggest this case shows an infringement on women’s rights. Abortions are permitted up to 24 weeks…she waited nearly 3 months before doing something to ensure the baby wouldn’t be born alive.

Women do have access to abortion in this country. For those who think abortion should be permitted at any time, this case really isn’t one you should be using to further your cause.

I heard it on radio 4 about an hour ago. I saw page 1 and 2 of this thread and have to disagree.

According to r4, she was 34 weeks gone and had told the services she was 7….

im not sure I agree with the sentance and I’m pro choice, but 34 weeks…. Is a baby and beyond all humane decency and regularly survivable if born early.

She has been sentenced to 14 months in prison and 14 on license for killing a viable child. It's a very sad case and if she had pleaded guilty sooner the judge said he would have suspended the sentence.

She had children previously, she would have known she was past 10 weeks.

She's been treated fairly.

And?

In some parts of the US abortion is illegal at all stages of the pregnancy even in cases of rape or incest, including when the pregnant girl is a child. There have been attempts by some lawmakers to ba abortions for ectopic pregnancies and to prosecute women who have miscarriages if it's deemed to have been their fault.

You'd like it there.

We have done, that's why the Abortion Act 1967 was passed.

I was more thinking of the fact that late-term abortion restrictions deter doctors from carrying out 24+ week terminations where the woman's health is at risk but it's not clear-cut that the risk is serious enough to meet the terms of AA67. You can end up with the woman having long-term health consequences that could have been avoided if the doctors had felt confident to abort without ending up in the dock. This differs from Savita's case only in the timing of the denied termination.

However, it's not actually relevant to this thread because the woman self-administered the abortifacients. I shouldn't have brought it up.