Guest Post: "If my amendment is passed, Nicola Packer will go down in history as the last woman in England and Wales to be prosecuted for an abortion"

[RhiannonEMumsnet]

73% of Mumsnet users want abortion to be decriminalised which is why it was included in the GE2024 Mumsnet Manifesto - one of twelve policy asks for the new government, based on the experiences and opinions that millions of women have shared on site.

I agree.

Like many of you I’ve been horrified by the increasing number of women who’ve been arrested by police for suspected illegal abortion.

In the last five years, more than 100 women have been investigated under the ‘Offences Against the Person Act’ 1861. Eight of these women have appeared in court. One has been jailed. Among those arrested have been women who’ve suffered natural miscarriages and stillbirths, and others who have gone into unexplained premature labour.

It’s just wrong. It’s a waste of taxpayers’ money. It’s a waste of the judiciary’s time.

As the Mumsnet Manifesto said, it’s also not in the public interest to prosecute. We know that no woman ends her pregnancy out of malice – only out of desperation.

It was meeting Nicola Packer at her trial for alleged illegal abortion at Isleworth Crown Court in southwest London that strengthened my resolve to push for a change in the law. My colleague Tracy Gilbert MP and I spoke to her days before she was unanimously cleared by a jury.

Seeing Nicola in the dock, afraid and humiliated, my heart went out to her.

Nicola has been hugely traumatised by her prosecution – having maintained throughout her trial that she was unaware she was any more than 10 weeks’ pregnant. She has also spent the last four-and-a-half years waiting for her case to come to court, living in constant fear that she could go to jail.

To me it was obvious Nicola was not the suspect, but the victim. The victim of a Victorian-era law that criminalises women who end their own pregnancies.

That’s why, last month in Parliament, I tabled an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill. A move that has the backing of more than 100 MPs and 50 organisations including Mumsnet, the British Medical Association and five medical Royal Colleges.

My amendment targets the draconian ‘Offences Against the Person Act’ of 1861. This law means abortion is still a criminal offence in England and Wales except under specific circumstances. If you try to end your own pregnancy at any gestation outside the law the maximum sentence is life in prison – the most severe penalty for an illegal abortion in the world.

In 2019 my colleagues in Westminster repealed this archaic law for Northern Ireland. My amendment will simply bring legislation up to date in England and Wales – and in line with 50 other places worldwide including Ireland, Canada, France, Australia and New Zealand.

My amendment will not, however, remove any important safeguards. The Abortion Act of 1967 will be unchanged. This means you can legally access an abortion provided you meet certain criteria: you are under 24 weeks’ pregnant, you meet one of seven medical reasons, and have your abortion signed off by two doctors. My amendment will not change any law regarding the provision of abortion services within a healthcare setting or the provision of telemedicine.

Parliament is expected to vote on the amendment in early summer. If it gets passed, all cases currently going through the criminal justice system will end. And Nicola Packer will go down in history as the last woman in England and Wales to be prosecuted for an abortion.

If you agree that abortion must be decriminalised, support my amendment by contacting your MP using this link: https://www.bpas.org/our-cause/campaigns/abortion-law-reform/

It is already legal to abort up to full term on the grounds of "substantial risk" of disability, see the 2022 Abortion statistics for England and Wales.
www.gov.uk/government/statistics/abortion-statistics-for-england-and-wales-2022/abortion-statistics-england-and-wales-2022#:~:text=The%20age%2Dstandardised%20abortion%20rate,the%20Abortion%20Act%20was%20introduced.&text=The%20crude%20abortion%20rate%20for,per%201%2C000%20women%20in%202022.
Legal abortions performed under ground E
Ground E abortions are those performed because of fetal abnormality at any gestation. There were 3,124 abortions performed under ground E in 2022. This is a slight decrease since 2021, when there were 3,370 abortions performed under ground E. (See table 3a.)
In 2022, 63% of ground E abortions were performed medically and 86% of all abortions were performed medically. This aligns with 2021 when 65% of ground E and 87% of all abortions were performed medically. (See tables 9c and 7a.)
There were 545 (17%) ground E abortions at 22 weeks and over, and 256 (8%) ground E abortions at 24 weeks and over.

Babies may be born with a heartbeat, this is acknowledged in hospital guidance, yet nowhere is it spelled out what happens to that baby born alive or how it's heartbeat is stopped, and by whom. Because that would be infanticide. For example:

www.guysandstthomas.nhs.uk/health-information/medical-termination-pregnancy-over-18-weeks-gestation
Babies born with a heartbeat
If your termination was before 22 weeks you will not have had the feticide procedure to stop the fetal heartbeat. Very occasionally your baby may be born with signs of life. If this happens the baby’s birth and death will need to be registered.

Well, the Constance Marten and Mark Gordon case resulted in their convictions under s.60 of the Offences Against the Person Act for the death of their infant daughter. Highly relevant.

The prosecutions are in the public interest because they offer legal protection to full term babies who have the right to life .

The jury will decide if there are mitigating circumstances which means a desperate woman should not go to jail.

Without legal protection a full term baby could be left to suffer and die without any legal consequences.

Why is any prosecution in the public interest. Because the deed is deemed to be a crime or potential crime.

But that was not in any way a situation where abortion was involved. The Offences Against the Person Act covers a lot of things. And all of it should reviewed against the standards of today.

The bottom line is whether we think this law change will make more women undertake late term desperate abortions. We pretty much agree that women don't do this sort of thing lightly or for fun, so why would you think hordes of women would suddenly start taking abortion pills at 36 weeks just because it means they won't be arrested? It boils down to whether or not you trust women with their own bodies. I do. Why don't you?

I trust most women. But I wouldn’t make laws based on my trust or lack of trust.

It’s got nothing to do with whether you trust all women .
It’s about whether a full term baby’s right to life should be protected by law .

That's very simplistic. We prosecute and jail people because they are a threat to society. Thieves, burglars, rapists, fraudsters, muggers are all a threat to others. A desperate pregnant woman isn't a threat to the general public. And unless you feel the unborn should have personhood (be careful, bestowing that will kill women), there is only one living person involved here.

Of course prevention is better than cure. Someone on here quoted coercion, as in women coerced to abort by their partner. The only piece of research on this, dating back to 2021, suggests that this happens; however, the number of women coerced into keeping a pregnancy they do not want is greater, albeit by a small margin. Of course the forced birthers would rather nog discuss that.

It shouldn't. That would involve giving the unborn personhood. The right to life begins at birth. In real terms that makes little difference, but the moment you give the unborn equal status with pregnant women, you are on a path to many more Savitas. It's already happening in the US and Poland.

The unborn who are full term should, of course, have personhood. They are exactly the same baby after they travel through the birth canal as they were in the womb a few hours/ days before.

Do you think a week old baby who was born at 37 weeks has a right to life? What makes that baby different from a 37 week old baby in the womb? Both are equally vulnerable and dependent.

My answer to this is the same as above - The unborn who are full term should, of course, have personhood. They are exactly the same baby after they travel through the birth canal as they were in the womb a few hours/ days before.

If it never happens, unless medical professionals support it, then we don’t need to change the law.

We would prosecute a woman harming her own children.

It’s not about risk to the general public. It’s about breaking the law.

There are people who argue that abortion ( or infanticide) should also be permissible after birth - since there is no difference between a baby in the womb at a late stage and a new born baby.

It’s a chilling point of view - late term abortions and after birth abortions are both abhorrent and no different to infanticide.

https://jme.bmj.com/content/39/5/261

We do, so that people like Nicola Packer don't have to face court. A trial is an ordeal. I know the people I am arguing with here don't believe she wasn't aware of the stage of her pregnancy. A jury thought different, and it doesn't take more than a quick Google to ascertain that not all pregnancies manifest in the same way.

With both my pregnancies I was not visibly pregnant until 22 weeks. My pregnancies were both planned and I was sick as a pig both times, but there are many women who have no nausea, nothing visible and who may have what look like light periods throughout. Life isn't simple black and white.

Well, I am from the Netherlands, where it is permissible, under very strict guidelines, to perform euthanasia on newborns where there is clear suffering, no prospect of recovery or quality of life and where both parents agree. You would call that infanticide. I call it mercy.

The jury thought differently. Fine. But that isn't a reason to legalise DIY abortions up to term. I will never be convinced this is acceptable.

If we were not in lock down, she would have got a face to face appointment and been able to see how far along in the pregnancy she was.
I believe the investigation into her was the right thing to do. Not knowing you’re committing a crime still means you are investigated and potentially prosecuted.

The Netherlands is culturally very different to the UK.
I don’t believe we should be following your example.

The proposal we are discussing is not about the ending of the life of a full term baby where there is “no prospect of recovery or quality of life” .
This is about an extension to the current abortion law so that a viable baby can be legally terminated.

It’s actually about decriminalisation not legalisation

Yes - apologies. That was absolutely wrongly worded.

I should have said This is a a change to the current abortion law ( Decriminalisation ) so that a viable baby can be legally terminated “

Decriminalising it doesn’t actually change the law. The abortion act will remain unchanged.

It simply means that women won’t be criminally prosecuted. There’s a huge difference

No, it's about taking abortion out of criminal justice and placing it in healthcare law. It's about dealing compassionately with women in heartbreaking and traumatic circumstances. It's about putting women first. Consequences should come in the form of counselling and support from healthcare, not court and prison.