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/

I think that the people who provided the medication would be criminally prosecuted, but am not sure.

Thanks for that. A thought provoking article

The motivation for this bill might be laudable but it is important to consider the possible consequences as Janice Turner’s article points out.
Your dismissal of “the same old rhetoric about why it’s cruel to abort a baby” confused me. Are you referring to the discussion about the need to provide pain relief for the foetus during the trauma of a D and E abortion procedure in late stage pregnancy ? Do you think that is not an important issue to consider?

I understand why you are concerned about possible cruelty to traumatised women but you don’t seem to have any concerns about impact this bill could have on a viable full term baby who will no longer have any protection in law.

How is women being investigated for late term miscarriages cruel but women being investigated for their baby dying suddenly not cruel?
I’m not mistaken about the impact.

I WANT parents to be investigated when their children/ babies suddenly die. It’s an absolute necessity. I WANT them to be cleared when their children evidence proves their innocence. I WANT them to be charged if the evidence suggests they killed them.

What you’re quibbling with me about is whether the baby has been through the birth canal yet.

It will raise all sorts of issues. What about terminations because a baby isn't the sex the parents want. At the moment that isn't allowed in the UK AFAIK. These incidents of self administered late abortions need to be investigated.

Just listening to Stela Creasy on newscast (who has a different proposed amendment). She mentioned Constance Marten and said that if abortion law is changed, a woman could still potentially be charged with GBH in some circumstances, obviously using different laws.

Excellent point

She said they shouldn't be criminalized and put through the justice system. She actually said that the doctors who performed them should be criminalised. Which is right - no woman is going to terminate at that viability without severe distress but the doctors should not be performing a procedure like that.

That's what Tonia said in the interview. No changes for doctors who perform abortions after 24 weeks who can still be prosecuted.

Can anyone provide any written evidence that this is the case …

So how would the women access the abortion if the doctors could be prosecuted?

They call up the abortion clinic and ask for abortion medicine to be posted to them. When asked they say that they are under 10 weeks pregnant (or she could get them in early pregnancy and not use them until a lot later). No further checks done, the abortion pills are delivered to the woman.

The increase in prosecutions is directly because of the new ability to remotely access abortion medicine. Before that it was frankly quite difficult to successfully self-terminate a later stage pregnancy. It means that all the talk about how the legal limit of 24 weeks will remain is a complete red herring. Women will no longer need medical professionals to terminate late stage pregnancies, they just need to be willing to tell a little white lie.

Thank you.
So no legal protection for viable heathy babies from 24 weeks to 40 weeks

I thought the reason why abortion pills were not suitable after 10 weeks is because they do not reliably result in the death of the Fetus. Additional procedures are required .. ( injection to heart / Dilatation and Evacuation)
Surely there are health risks for the mother to be aborting a late stage pregnancy without medical care?

We can see from Nicola Packer et al that it is certainly an effective way of ending a late pregnancy. The first pill essentially causes placental detachment, even if contractions started straight away (which are normally triggered by taking the second pill) it's highly likely that the fetus would suffer oxygen starvation and death before being born.

I don't know the specific reason why they normally use other methods for ending late term pregnancies, but would guess it is some combination of trying to be humane to the fetus (oxygen starvation isn't a pleasant way to go) and the need for a fetus to definitely be dead and beyond resuscitation before delivery to avoid an awkward need to then resuscitate it.

You're right, there are absolutely health risks for women in being given backdoor access to late term abortions with no medical oversight. Stella and Tonia both fudge this issue - perhaps they are so deeply convinced by their own "trust women" propaganda that they genuinely believe it will never happen.

Having heard Tonia on r4 just now it’s clear that this legislation would remove protections for vulnerable women and make harm more likely due to accessing medicines without the nesecarry advice. The risk of coercion is high. I urge @RhiannonEMumsnet to withdraw support and Tonia to listen to HCPs - she failed to answer any of the doctors questions just now.

This is so dangerous! I can’t see how anyone could support this.

Difficult to believe these pills are freely available by post. When you can't even buy more than 2 packets of paracetemol at a time. However, I can see why women would choose this to end a very early pregnancy of 10 weeks or less. It's when they are grossly misused the problem arises. These cases should remain open to investigation. So really taken late those pills cause a still birth or maybe even the delivery of a live baby. And people are calling this health provision?? Utter madness. IMHO.

Hi all,

Thanks for your comments and questions on this post. We're happy to share a response from Tonia below.

Thanks,
MNHQ

NC1 simply disapplies women from the underlying criminal law related to abortion to solve the urgent problem of women being investigated on suspicion of ending their own pregnancies: including those who have suffered miscarriage, stillbirth or given birth prematurely. It changes absolutely nothing about how abortion is provided or the conditions set out in the Abortion Act, including the time limit, the need to meet certain criteria and to obtain the approval and signature of two doctors, and the need for women to meet one of the grounds laids out in the Abortion Act. It retains existing punishments for both medical professionals and violent partners who end a pregnancy outside of the law.

To be clear, if NC1 passes, it will still be illegal to provide an abortion after 24 weeks without it meeting one of a very small number of exceptional criteria such as a serious threat to the life of health of the woman, but women themselves will not face prosecution. NC1 is about recognising that the small number of women who end their pregnancies outside of the law are acutely vulnerable and what they need is compassion and care, not criminalisation.

NC1 is the only amendment that has been developed in consultation with abortion providers, which is backed by abortion providers, as well as the Royal Colleges of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Midwives, GPs, Psychiatrists, and Nursing, as well as countless violence against women and girls groups, women's rights groups, and unions. It has been crafted to solve the immediate problem of increasing numbers of women facing criminal investigations under suspicion of illegally ending their own pregnancies.

The campaign in support of NC1 is led by abortion providers themselves, all of whom support wider decriminalisation of abortion and are currently exploring the right model for England and Wales, and Scotland. In the meantime, doctors, nurses, midwives, medical bodies and abortion providers have come together in support of this simple, targeted amendment because women are facing investigations which have a devastating impact on their lives, with women separated from their children, having their names made public, and receiving death threats. Those investigated include domestic abuse survivors, possible trafficking survivors, and women who have experienced miscarriages and stillbirths.

This is a specific, urgent problem and it is simple to fix right now through NC1. Wider reform can and should happen at a later date - but in detailed consultation with the sector to ensure it is done right

NC1 is about recognising that the small number of women who end their pregnancies outside of the law are acutely vulnerable and what they need is compassion and care, not criminalisation.

I'm still confused about how/whether this would interact other legislation.

transcript from News Agents yesterday:

"Emily Maitlis: When people talk about taking pills at 37 weeks, I had a baby at 37 weeks. There wouldn't be a custodial sentence, is that right?

Stella Creasey: No, no, no. We're talking about two different things.

EM: I'm just asking to clarify

SC: Yeah, there are separate criminal offences which would apply in this instance. As I say, Constance Martin has been done under grievous bodily harm. There are attempted murder offences.

If you talk to the academics who work on fetal laws like this, the ones at Durham, they are very clear. The offences we are talking about repealing serve no purpose in that respect."

I know Stella Creasey's proposal is different, but is her interpretation correct? That a woman who took an abortion pill at 37 weeks might be prosecuted under different legislation? This seems very relevant. If this is the case you end the default of having to prosecute a women who has had an abortion outside the time limit, but still leave open the possibility of a criminal prosecution.

Stella is wrong. Alarmingly so.

Constance Marten was charged with a variety of offences, but not GBH. Her case has nothing at all to do with abortion as there is no question that her baby was born (and subsequently mistreated).

GBH requires the perpetrator to inflict the act on another person. You can't GBH yourself. And a fetus is not a separate person in law until it has been born. Same for attempted murder - doesn't apply until after birth.

Stella and Tonia both want to repeal to Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 (for background, they have each proposed different ways of amending abortion law. The Speaker will decide which version the House of Commons votes on, given the backing that MPs have given it's likely that Tonia's will be chosen and Stella's will fall away). So that legislation won't be an option for prosecution.

There is no other legislation that would step in to prosecute women with a full-term pregnancy who self-administer abortion medicine. And that is the whole point of both of these proposals. They don't want these women to be prosecuted at all, regardless of the circumstances.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-35125394.amp

This case suggests that there is applicable legislation.

Have I missed something?

I also thought that the legislation they want to change is the ‘offences against the person act ‘ 1861

So in summary my understanding is that they want to change the 1861 act - the act that specifically criminalises abortion, but that the 1929 act stays, and that is the one that defines the offence of ‘child destruction’

But it would be helpful if Tonia could confirm this.

Here's the text of Tonia's amendment - https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/59-01/0235/amend/crime_policing_rm_rep_0520.pdf

It specifically changes both pieces of legislation.

The other case you've linked to is where a third party violently attacked a pregnant woman. That will remain GBH. Tonia's amendment is specific to "a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy". Someone acting in relation to themselves is not, and has never been, GBH.