Criminal or a Health Matter?

We havn’t heard the circumstances that led to the very late abortion and we obviously don’t want to see it repeated. These abortion pills should not be handed out over the internet because they rely on the user being honest, not all are.
A physical check by a doctor should be compulsory, for those wishing to terminate in this way.

I agree Katie. And that could have happened even in lockdown.

I think it's easy to forget how difficult it was to see a doctor in the pandemic, and the woman had other children to add into the mix. They were scary times all round. In itself that is no excuse, but it could explain why she delayed. Also, people often put their heads in the sand in difficult situations and hope that things will sort themselves out somehow. Not wise of course, but maybe not worth going to jail for.

I feel desperately sad for the dead baby, and for the other children, but we don't know whether the woman was under duress from her newly reunited husband.

I can't understand why the judge refused to listen to mitigating circumstances either. I hope there is an appeal. Maybe she does deserve to go to jail (we don't know enough, and that's fair enough - she's going through enough without even more private details being made public), but at first glance it doesn't seem to me that she's been treated fairly.

Apparently this poor woman had been separated from her husband. She was pregnant with another man's child. The couple reconciled and she hid the pregnancy from her husband. All this happened during covid restrictions, and we all know how difficult it was to get medical treatment then. The poor woman must have been desperate.
I know taking abortion pills so late in pregnancy is tantamount to killing the baby but a custodial sentence isn't going to help anyone.
She has 3 boys at home, one with a learning disability who need their mother. Also a husband with whom she needs to repair the relationship.
The 1861 law needs to be repealed.

How would you repeal the 1861 Act?

You can’t possibly be suggesting that doing this should be legalised MiniMoon?

I agree Doodledog

thought about it overnight - mainly the effect on the children.

This is not a wise family decision in their interests at all. quite the opposite. Long term consequence in their lives already.

Germanshepherdsmum

You can’t possibly be suggesting that doing this should be legalised MiniMoon?

Of course not GSM. t's the nature of how to deal with it that needs reviewing.

Are you telling us that legally a suspended sentence could not be given?

When I first heared this I thought it was on the USA, not here?

Surly she should have been more switched on?
If Pharmacist had sold her the meds, they don't just hand them out without question. The Internet a different story.

That baby was probably viable, there was more to this than we have been told, I'm sure.

Apparently this poor woman had been separated from her husband.

And?? She'd been in a relationship with 2 other men, either of whom could have been the father, she just didn't know which one. Only 4 victims in this. 3 children and one dead baby.

Agree with all those who feel a custodial sentence is wrong. My feelings are unduly harsh.

Germanshepherdsmum

We have no information about why this woman did what she did. Had she pleaded guilty at an early stage her sentence would have been suspended. She deliberately destroyed her child. Without knowing more I cannot feel sympathy for her.

Agree. Allegedly she didn’t know which of two men was the father and then lied to get the abortion pills and lied again in court. She killed her baby. She must have known the child might have been viable. Do I have have sympathy for her existing children? Yes, more than I have for her. Having said all that, I can’t see that sending her to prison will achieve anything positive.

Minimoon It seems to me that this -poor woman- is just a spineless individual who couldn’t face up to the consequences of her own actions. In doing so she has killed one child and severely compromised her remaining children. I don’t think prison will help any of them but I have no sympathy for her whatsoever.

Wyllow3

Germanshepherdsmum

You can’t possibly be suggesting that doing this should be legalised MiniMoon?

Of course not GSM. t's the nature of how to deal with it that needs reviewing.

Are you telling us that legally a suspended sentence could not be given?

The sentencing guidelines provide for a custodial sentence only in these circumstances, so far as we know them.
It should be noted that the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 deals amongst other things with assault occasioning grievous bodily harm. Hence she was charged under this Act. People such as MiniMoon who demand the repeal of the Act should try understanding the breadth of offences it covers.

But you can suspend a custodial sentence.

(asked and answered as checked and GSM is right)

However If she had been tried for GBH she could have received a suspended sentence. The CP went in hard and it would be interesting to know what their reasoning was to take a mother away from her children when she presented no threat to them.

Not always. And remember that we don’t know all the circumstances which lead the judge to decide that the sentence given was appropriate. He did know those circumstances. And he would have heard such pleas in mitigation as her counsel was properly able to put forward.

It is not (yet) against the law for a woman to have sex with three different men, but this seems to be what some of you are judging her for.

Probably the only justification for a prison sentence is the deterrent value affecting others who might consider it.

As I said, she had the opportunity to plead guilty to a lesser charge and had she done so would likely have received a suspended sentence.
You can’t possibly say that the woman presented no threat to her other children Wyllow. None of us knows the whole of the story. One has to question whether a woman who had the capacity to deliberately destroy her near-term baby can safely be allowed to care for her other children. There is no answer to that question available to any of us.

I may be mistaken but I thought that pregnancy was often used as mitigation simply because hormonal changes alters perception. That poor woman must have been distraught and desperate. Beside the lawbreaking the risk she was taking to abort a child at that time in her pregnancy is beyond thinking about. As for leaving three children without their mother is an abominable decision or as Dickens claimed “the law is an ass”.

That baby, had it been delivered would have been viable, have seen too many distressing times when a late term foetus has been aborted, and taken a breath.
The Law is there for good reason.

Being discussed on womans hour this morning

Abortion should not be a criminal act. There is no reason at all for it to be so and certainly no reason for it to have a custodial sentence attached to it.
Possible reasons for criminality and a prison sentence.
Prevention-criminality has never prevented women from having abortions
Protection-No one needs protection from women who have had abortions, on the contrary they often need support
Punishment- women who have abortions can and do suffer regrets and may years afterwards still wonder about their decision. No prison sentence could match that.
None of those reasons justifies maintaining abortion as a criminal act with an automatic prison sentence. It should be decriminalised.

I don’t understand why a custodial sentence was imposed. The prisons are full, this woman poses no threat to society. This terrible act will have led to assessments on her ability to provide safe care to her older children.
I need to read more about the evidence, it’s clear she committed a serious offence but I can’t see a custodial sentence as appropriate.