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/

Sorry but this just stupid. Read what you’ve just written, please. Don’t insult our intelligence with such nonsense

https://www.rcog.org.uk/media/ny1pc5ml/position-statement-coroners-guidance-no-45.pdfRCOG (2023)
Position statement following Chief Coroner’s Guidance no. 45 (December 2023)
4.1 Likelihood of signs of life in the second trimester
Signs of life can occur from the second trimester onwards and become more likely as gestation advances, both following medical abortion without feticide and if birth were to occur prior to completion of surgical abortion (e.g. after cervical preparation). A UK based registry study reported on livebirths following medical abortion for fetal abnormality between 1995 and 2004. Of n=3189 abortions there were n=102 (3.2%) livebirths. Of those delivered at 16-20 weeks, 3.5% were born with signs of life, compared to 5.4%, 6.4%, 9.7% by 21 weeks, 22 weeks, and 23 weeks, respectively. Since this data has been published, reporting of signs of life has increased. To ensure that signs of life do not occur, women can be offered feticide.

So 102 live births, aged 16-23 weeks.

@RhiannonEMumsnet a lot of questions have been asked on this thread. Perhaps mnhq or Tonia could come back and answer them? To do otherwise suggests a lack of confidence in your own proposition.

Yes - thank you @Sandysandyfeet
I second that.

In fairness, if you’re not familiar with the current law, the letter above does NOT explain this very well. It references it, but doesn’t make it explicitly clear.

lots of post are misunderstanding this.. and it’s important that any misunderstanding on the current law and changes proposed ARE clearly understood by all women

Too many women in England/wales do not even realise abortion is a potential criminal offence even under the current limit of 24 weeks, UNLESS you have met the criteria and two doctor has signed off. Yep, there was some temporary relaxation around dispensing of pills to homes during Covid…but the starting point remains that abortion is still illegal in England and wales, UNLESS you meet the exemptions.

does your average 17 year old girl know that? Do all the women you know, know that…I suspect the fact that abortion is not usually denied under 24 weeks now, that they don’t.

it needs to be made much clearer , if they want this change to happen in
Law, that abortion services under nhs will not change their criteria, it is “merely” eliminating a law where a women can be prosecuted for terminating a pregnancy outside of the current “legal” framework. That she no longer requires 2 doctors to verify that the reason she wants an abortion is “legally valid” based on laws passed by men, on faith based logic, or patriarchial control, or misogynistic views that the “women can’t be trusted to make logical and moral decisions” .

The 1967 act was a compromise, hard fought. It was best that they could do at time to get it passed, to ensure that abortion was still illegal but a women could not be prosecuted if she’d got those two doctors (whod have most likely been men back then ) to say it was needed on grounds the law gave.

we can do better than that 1967 compromise. It never was fit for purpose.

we HAVE to do better. The current law means that any women suspected of a procuring abortion without 2 GPs who know nowt about her and her circumstances deeming it ok, can be imprisoned. And any women with unexplained spontaneous abortion could be investigated by the police.. as we are seeing …we are leaving ourselves wide open to the dismantling of rights we’re seeing in USA . Not many people back in 1973 in USA could have ever considered that ROE vs Wade could be ripped away as is now happening. It doesn’t take a lot but a poorly written law. We need the law to be water tight and sound to ensure women never can be prosecuted, can never be investigated on vague suspicions .

but the providers of abortion need to continue to be regulated and controlled. I think we still need abortion pills to be prescribed by a GP or clinic even under 24 weeks…it ensures abortion remains a NHS care provision and not something only available “over the counter” to those that can afford pills. It also ensures supply chains are secure and not buying crap quality pills privately. It ensures that women who need support for things like mental health issues or welfare concerns are potentially picked up, those where contraceptive methods might need improving etc . it’s about reproductive care that women need.

we need to change the oversight doctors provide from one of a primary legal oversight, to one of a purely care oversight. Which is what most do currently because they’re compassionate, but it’s not what law states .

“. I think we still need abortion pills to be prescribed by a GP or clinic even under 24 weeks…it ensures abortion remains a NHS care provision and not something only available “over the counter” to those that can afford pills. It also ensures supply chains are secure and not buying crap quality pills privately. It ensures that women who need support for things like mental health issues or welfare concerns are potentially picked up, those where contraceptive methods might need improving etc . it’s about reproductive care that women need.”
I agree with this but I don’t agree that abortion should be allowed over 24 weeks except for the most extreme cases that the law already allows for ( serious fetal abnormality/ serious risk to mother )

Same 😊

This bill is about decriminalising women, not about encouraging late term abortion or changing the medical and ethical protocols around that. Sad to see how far the right wing right to lifers have infiltrated U.K. feminism.

Sad to see you haven’t really followed the debate on this thread so have had to resort to the old “far right” rhetoric 🙄

I have followed it. That’s what I’m referring to. Same old ill-informed arguments driving the debate.

Can you enlighten us on what we’re “ill informed” of?

I believe that a healthy, viable baby is a human life. Whether that is 3 weeks before the birth or three weeks after the birth. There is no difference for me.
For that reason, I am deeply uncomfortable with taking their lives except for life limiting medical conditions etc.

You can call me “ill informed”, “right wing”, “vindictive”; it won’t affect me. I believe it is killing a healthy baby who feels pain and could survive in the world if they had not been killed. You’ll notice I’ve refrained from calling any of you names. From resorting to insults. I wonder why I’m able to do that but you’re not?

I think a better campaign would be for pain relief for foetuses after a certain stage to protect them from pain.

I think for babies who have been diagnosed with life limiting illnesses etc absolutely but no healthy, viable baby should be killed.

But, you’re entitled to your opinion and I respect that you view it differently to me ☺️

It would help your argument if you could identify and rebut at least one of the “ill informed arguments” you’re objecting to.

It very much reminds me of the “trans women are women” argument.
Just insults and being told I’m stupid for thinking women don’t have penises.

Well, those tactics didn’t work on me then and they seem to still not be working now.

I do think the limit should be dropped from 24 weeks . Babies now survive from 22 weeks and we need to reevaluate

Absolutely

but the providers of abortion need to continue to be regulated and controlled.

this is where I am unclear - could they still be criminally responsible if they don’t obey the law?

Also In a situation where a mother gave birth without medical assistance and the baby died, but there was no evidence of deliberate abortion, would she be potentially subject to criminal investigation?

Do you think there will be a rise in men trying to avoid their financial responsibilities if abortion is decriminalised?

I just have a horrible feeling that that is what will happen. Men will say “I wanted an abortion and but you chose to keep it” (forgetting the fact that they aren’t the ones that actually have to go through with the abortion and the psychological impact that might have).

Inwithpeace- just because some of us find the idea of killing healthy full term babies reprehensible doesn’t mean that we are ‘right wing pro lifers’ who have infiltrated feminism. Personally I believe that up to 12 abortion should be easily available, with medical supervision to 24 weeks and after that only in exceptional medical circumstances (affecting either the mother or baby). And I’m not right wing. I haven’t‘ ‘infiltrated’ feminism- I’ve always been a feminist.
I don’t think I’m likely to ever think that killing a nearly term healthy baby should be legal. I do think such instances should be investigated.
Am I ill informed? Maybe, but that’s because I’m not entirely clear how these late term abortions are carried out and what level of pain and distress the people in favour of this bill think is acceptable for a nearly term foetus. Or what the chance is of late term abortions resulting in the birth of a living baby and what happens then. Are the babies just left to die? Or are they put into someone’s arms and cared for as any other baby. How are HCPs supported? Those in favour of this bill seem to resort to name calling instead of answering these questions. I’ll suggest again that @RhiannonEMumsnet or Tonia answer these important questions.

So a late term abortion carried out by a non medical person. Would that be illegal and a crime. I absolutely hope this doesn't go through. These cases need to be investigated.

Yes me too @RhiannonEMumsnet
I found this post and then the replies as I was trying to understand why BPAS and others are all backing Tonia’s amendment. (And not Stella Creasey’s…)

if anyone else can explain why it will be ok to have an abortion after 24 weeks at home but not in a hospital please explain!

Janice turner got Nicola Packer’s name wrong here but otherwise I found everything she said a bit alarming.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/6354fc89-2c78-47bd-a610-92550986e9a8?shareToken=ab7fc1c065112580d7461d1671352fc0

yet in Tonia’s post for mumsnet she says the same safeguards will be in place including not beyond 24 weeks. Still confused!

Arguments mistaking the purpose and impact of this bill. Trotting out the same old rhetoric about why you think it’s cruel to abort a baby. This bill isn’t about changing medical guidelines / increasing the number of abortions / encouraging abortions. It is about decriminalising women who have gone through enough trauma as it is. Women who have late term miscarriages are being investigated by the criminal justice system, it’s cruel.

Agree.

I don’t currently understand whether these situations would be treated differently, or, if they are, what the reason would be.

What would happen/currently happens in the following situations?

A woman gives birth and smothers the baby at 38 weeks

A woman gives birth at 38 weeks and leaves a baby to die.

From what I know, when a baby is found it’s assumed the mother was in distress, but I don’t know what happens next.

I don’t know if I oppose or support the proposals, because I lack the information to understand what is being proposed and how it would change the law.