Police could search women's homes and phones after pregnancy loss

[IwantToRetire]

Police have been issued guidance on how to search women’s homes for abortion drugs and check their phones for menstrual cycle tracking apps after unexpected pregnancy loss.

New guidance from the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) on “child death investigation” advises officers to search for “drugs that can terminate pregnancy” in cases involving stillbirths. The NPCC, which sets strategic direction for policing across the country UK, also suggests a woman’s digital devices could be seized to help investigators “establish a woman’s knowledge and intention in relation to the pregnancy”. That could include checking a woman’s internet searches, messages to friends and famil y, and health apps, “such as menstrual cycle and fertility trackers”, it states.

Details are also provided for how police could bypass legal requirements for a court order to obtain medical records about a woman’s abortion from NHS providers.

Abortion law in the UK is based on the Offences Against the Person Act from 1861. In recent years, an increasing number of women have been investigated and prosecuted under this law. The Abortion Act of 1967 allows women to end their pregnancies under medical supervision up to 24 weeks, or beyond in certain circumstances, such as if the life of the mother is at risk or if the foetus has a serious abnormality.

The guidance replace s a 2014 document that did not mention investigating stillbirths, but had one mention of investigating women who may have had an illegal abortion. The new guidance, published in January and developed by a sub-group of the NPCC’s Homicide Working Group alongside the College of Policing, National Crime Agency and Metropolitan Police, covers the scenario over several pages.

The lead authors were Ch Sup t Liz Hughes of Avon and Somerset police force; Det Sup t Jon Holmes of Lancashire; DCS David Ashton of Durham; Ch Sup t Fiona Bitters of Hampshire and Isle of Wight; Sonya Baylis, of the National Crime Agency; and D S Robert Simmons of Suffolk.

Article continues at https://observer.co.uk/news/national/article/police-could-search-homes-and-seize-phones-after-sudden-pregnancy-loss

I'd be interested to know the pluses too. The benefits for women to be specific.

However I think the main concern is the we dont't trust the police anymore.

This? Yes. The Police, the Government, everyone needs to get the police to stop faffing around and get the trust back.

ETA: forgot to mention. I am baffled by this constant need to seize devices. Given how easy it is to dump all the data (for the police) and to monitor them (with warrants, i presume) i fail to see how the police or any other authorities seem able to grab people's device (victims in particular) for longer than a couple of hours

As I said, we don’t have to change the criteria under which doctors are allowed to abort to remove this draconian threat from women.

The current law puts them under suspicion for any unexpected miscarriage or still birth.

There will always be those who seek to abuse power.

Which is why to focus on the legislation and try to make it watertight and test it for loopholes etc.

Guidelines that were designed with an eye to uncovering domestic abuse by a partner would be very different to this. These guidelines (at least the bits about illegal use of aborticants and abortions outside current timelines) primarily focus suspicion on the mother.

I assumed that the article was going to be about police in the US.

It’s quite idiotic really - so I assume they are concerned about misuse of abortion drugs which are not hard to get hold of via post and not always subject to having a scan to verify dates ? So the issue is not to give police advice on how to deal with such a situation but actually maybe make access to the service easier, quicker and scan everyone in a timely fashion who requests this option? Or would that be too easy and take power away .

I can’t imagine the trauma of a late term miscarriage or stillbirth and this level of scrutiny.

I bet a lot of people delete their tracking apps

Reminded me of this (posted last year)

US religious anti-choice / forced birth groups are increasingly funding UK ‘right to life’ groups, who are in turn increasing their rhetoric and harassment techniques.

Until the last general election, there were several MPs who were part of an anti abortion APPG whose members also included prominent US-funded religious extremist groups. Some of those MPs have been paid to speak at their fundraising events and actively campaign for reducing abortion term limits to be in more in line with Europe (12-14 weeks).

Prosecutions of women under the OATP Act are at the highest levels in 100 years.

If you’ve not been paying attention to what’s going on right here in the UK, you might think it’s only the US that is going more right wing on women’s reproductive rights. But you would be wrong. Decriminalisation needs to happen NOW.

I'll be watching this proposed amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill with interest.

Abortion decriminalisation plans pushed by Labour MP
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9dqp3dep48o

It's had some cross-party support.

Honestly - what is the point of giving a link to an article that explains the context of the OP?

As the article says:

New guidance from the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) on “child death investigation” advises officers to search for “drugs that can terminate pregnancy” in cases involving stillbirths. The NPCC, which sets strategic direction for policing across the country UK, also suggests a woman’s digital devices could be seized to help investigators “establish a woman’s knowledge and intention in relation to the pregnancy”. That could include checking a woman’s internet searches, messages to friends and family, and health apps, “such as menstrual cycle and fertility trackers”, it states.

First of all it is talking about "child death investigation".

At which point does an embryo become a "child".

So at which point does this come into effect?

Do they have some guidelines about number of weeks pregnant that someone has a still birth it should be investigated or any still birth.

Is this about hospitals having an obligation to inform the police if they suspect a woman has induced labour.

How would the police know if someone had given birth in any circumstances.

The police wouldn't have drawn up these guidelines without context. Was it because of this https://blogs.law.ox.ac.uk/family-and-medical-law/blog-post/2023/07/home-early-medical-abortions-made-permanent-england-and

Obviously it has been in the public eye recently because of this court case https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c93y5gq09x7o (I assume the hospital informed the police.)

Or had this or the last Government say they wanted the police to tighten up on the misuse of abortion pills by post.

Or did the police suddenlty decide to do this, or was it because of the recent court case which dragged on for ages that they wanted their to be agreed guidelines of how they respond.

All in the guidelines I linked to upthread.

'Do they have some guidelines about number of weeks pregnant that someone has a still birth it should be investigated or any still birth'

This bit, I mean.

Indeed. This article last year was very informative.

‘Extreme’ US anti-abortion group ramps up lobbying in Westminster
The UK branch of the Alliance Defending Freedom has increased its spending and is forging ties with key MPs
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/06/extreme-us-anti-abortion-group-ramps-up-lobbying-in-westminster

The scheduled vote on decriminalising abortion mentioned in that article never happened because Sunak called an General Election, but this was what was proposed then:

MPs to get free vote on decriminalising abortion in England and Wales
Amendment by Labour MP Diana Johnson would end prosecutions for terminations after 24 weeks
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/23/mps-to-get-free-vote-on-decriminalising-abortion-in-england-and-wales

Sorry - have been listening to HoC debate.

could you re-post links.

Thanks

“The boundaries of decency” for most people is not to kill late term babies. Most people find the “as soon as possible as late as possible necessary” mantra of the radical feminist pretty indecent and abhorrent actually. Poll after poll shows most people don’t want the limit lifted. It’s the absolutist attitude that is driving women away from “feminism” in droves.

I don’t want women to have carte blanch to abort viable babies after 24 weeks. I actually think 24 weeks is pretty generous given survival rates for babies born at 24 weeks is now between 60 and 80% depending on which study you believe and there are exceptions available to go beyond this.

I think abortion is a necessary thing to have but I want the law around it ri be upheld like I want any law to be upheld.

I think the far more scary thing quite frankly is the radical feminist movement to absolve women responsibility for anything ….. we are being infantilised by this movement that says that we are never accountable for our actions.

I agree. As someone who has had an abortion and lost a pregnancy.

The change during covid means anyone can get abortion pills without seeing a doctor.

I don't believe abortion should be completely decriminalised, because I don't see the moral difference between using abortion pills at 24 weeks and giving birth prematurely at 24 weeks and then killing the baby. The pills themselves won't actually necessarily kill a foetus at 24 weeks; that's why later medical abortions require an injection to stop the heart first.

Do you honestly think any woman who genuinely knows she is over 24 weeks pregnant would choose to take abortion tablets and deliver a stillborn baby at home by herself, risking her own life and a jail sentence too? And on the very small chance that she DID know and took that risk anyway, do you not consider it more likely that she was motivated by abuse, coercion, extreme distress or fear rather than a cruel desire to ‘kill her baby’?

Think of how many women have babies every year having had no idea they were pregnant as they were still having what they believed to be periods. If one of those women finds out she’s pregnant but assumes it’s early as she’s only missed one period, should she go to prison if she was wrong?

To be fair, I think history has shown that if abortion isn't available, women will use whatever methods they need to, despite sometimes high risks to their own lives. So while it's going to be fairly rare in the UK where abortion is fairly accessible pre-24 weeks, there are likely to be a few cases where it happens.

I think criminal law, especially the draconian law we currently have, is totally the wrong way to treat women who do. But I won't deny the idea that it will happen, as avoiding forced pregnancy will drive some women to take significant risk.

Edited to add the point I intended to make!:
The issue is that by criminalising we create a society in which women's fertility can (and is) be used against them, whether they have illegal abortions or not.

So you honestly think no women ever thinks they’ll try an abortion pill as a means to end a pregnancy knowing full well they are over legal limit for an abortion? Or are of the all expectant mothers are angels schools of thought? I think it’s extremely rare …. As in fact murder is extremely rare. But we have laws to protect us from the extremely rare which is what this law does. And it’s not surprising that, given the recent case where a woman was apparently unaware she was 25 + weeks pregnant and aborted her foetus, the guidance on this is clarified and updated. She was found not guilty and regardless of whether I agree or not with that verdict; I believe in the law (although I don’t believe it is infallible) but I’d rather have it than not.

I am sure there are the occasional cases. But is it 2 a week?

And do you not think that in the interest of a foetus that may be expelled alive because she’s “assuming she’s early” - it should be the case that if there is any doubt, women ought to be expected to ….i don’t know …. go to the free doctors appointment and go to the free hospital for scan before they take a pill that might expel a live foetus

It does make me think though - why are they only legally used for under 9 w gestation abortion if they actually do work for later ? Surely it’s a less invasive process to take tablets

Because they work by making you expel the pregnancy. So if you take them later there is far more risk that you either don’t fully expel the foetus and uterine lining due to its size leaving the woman at risk of infection and possible sepsis or because when you get nearer the 24 plus week, you will essentially give birth to a live baby that then dies because it can’t breathe

Thankyou for explaining I was confused thinking if they work then why are they only for less than 9 weeks

Several reasons, one being because if you pass the baby but not the placenta (retained placenta is much more common during abortions, miscarriages and premature births than births at term) it's a medical emergency because you can start hemorrhaging. You don't want to be alone at home in that scenario.