Why a British woman was sentenced to 28 months in prison for abortion

Karla Foster, 44, a mother of three, admitted she received abortion pills through the “medicine mail” system introduced during the war. COVID-19 Pandemic. The scheme was introduced by the government on 29 August 2020 as a two-year interim measure, after UK MPs voted to “force ministers to make it permanent” rather than abolish it entirely. was extended indefinitely in March last year. reported the Guardian.

According to the plan, women up to 10 weeks pregnant will be offered medication after a remote consultation. The decision aimed to benefit women by giving them two pills to terminate their pregnancies in privacy at home rather than in a clinic or hospital.

The woman in this case obtained abortion pills legally, but ended up exceeding the 10-week deadline for abortions. At an earlier hearing in the case, information came to light after she admitted to taking her medication past the due date.

The incident was first discovered on May 11, 2020, when an emergency call was made that she was in labor. However, the baby was pronounced dead about 45 minutes later, according to the BBC. A post-mortem examination revealed that the baby died from abortion drugs, adding that the fetus was between 32 and 34 weeks old.

On June 12, the woman appeared in court seeking a sentence that could carry up to life imprisonment.

What is Crown Court?

The Crown Courts, based in England and Wales, handle the most serious criminal offences. There are currently about 70 such courts in the UK. There is usually a jury to decide if someone is guilty or not guilty and a judge to decide the punishment or sentence for a particular crime.

Criminal cases, including crimes such as murder, rape and robbery, are often heard in Crown Courts. However, we also deal with appeals against magistrate court convictions or “judgment cases handed down by magistrate courts”.

District courts can hand down a variety of sentences, including regional sentences, imprisonment, and life imprisonment. However, a judgment or conviction rendered by the Crown Court may be appealed. Furthermore, anyone can request a review of their sentence, even if they were not involved in the case.

What exactly was the crime for which the woman was executed?

In March, the woman pleaded guilty to obtaining an abortion-causing drug, a charge that remains a crime under Britain’s Human Trafficking Act 1861.

Section 58 of the Act of 1861 states that “every woman who has children” may unlawfully administer poison or other harmful substance to herself or unlawfully use any instrument or other device for the purpose of “abusing herself”. It is stipulated that when means are used. If she had similar intent, she would be found guilty of a felony and could face “life imprisonment or imprisonment for not more than three years, or imprisonment not exceeding two years” after her conviction. With or without hard labor, with or without solitary confinement. This section also penalizes miscarriages caused by prescribed means by persons other than pregnant women.

A similar provision of the Act of 1861 is section 59, which states that no drug, device or poisonous substance, knowing that it is intended to be used unlawfully or is being used to induce miscarriage in a woman, is prohibited. , or the act of obtaining other harmful goods. Convicted of a “misdemeanor” and found guilty, the punishment is 3 years imprisonment or 2 years imprisonment, at the discretion of the court, with or without hard labour.

Essentially, this means that abortion is not fully decriminalized across the UK. In 1965, however, a compromise was reached that allowed a woman to have an abortion if she obtained the signatures of two doctors.

Currently, abortions are generally legal in England, Scotland and Wales up to 24 weeks, but must be done in a hospital or clinic any time after 10 weeks, The Guardian has revealed. Meanwhile, in Northern Ireland, the UK government passed a law to decriminalize abortion in 2019.

What happened at today’s hearing?

At today’s hearing in the Stoke-on-Trent Court, prosecutors argued that the woman was aware she had missed the deadline and that she knowingly provided false information during a telemedicine.

Prosecution attorneys said the police had gathered evidence of the woman’s web browsing history and messages, knowing that the woman had been pregnant for about three months, and that they were involved in inducing a miscarriage and hiding the pregnancy. He told the court that it showed there was “careful planning”.

Additionally, the British Pregnancy Advice Service (BPAS), which provided her with abortion medication, informed her that the medication was being administered on the belief that she had provided accurate information that she was seven weeks pregnant. According to the BBC, the court was said to have investigated “how to hide a pregnancy lump”, “how to get an abortion without going to the doctor” and “how to lose a baby at 6 months”.

However, according to the newspaper’s Hannah Al Osman newspaper, the woman claimed to have “in effect filed a complaint with the prosecutor.” She added that the case would never have gone to court if she hadn’t consulted the police, and that she will live with her decision to terminate her pregnancy in this way for the rest of her life. she said. A lawyer representing her argued that she had to look for information online because lockdowns had cut down on face-to-face meetings.

what did the court say?

Judge Edward Pepperroll said he had “unusually” received letters from various medical institutions and the presidents of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Royal College of Midwives seeking a non-custodial sentence in the case.

But the court found the letter “inappropriate,” arguing that only Congress could change the law, and that opponents of the law must abide by their demands in Congress. The court has made it clear that judges can only apply the law as it stands. The court called it a “tragic incident” and said the woman admitted she was mentally disturbed. The court also said that if she had pleaded guilty sooner, it could have considered a suspended sentence for her sentence.

But the court found the woman’s guilt more serious because she intentionally exceeded the legal limit of abortion and lied to procure drugs. For this, the court sentenced her to imprisonment for more than two years.