The average punishment for a violent crime is about 18 months in prison. Yesterday, a 44-year-old woman was sentenced, under a law dating back to 1861, to 28 months for procuring an abortion beyond 24 weeks. Now in jail and separated from her three children, one of whom has additional needs, it is difficult to see how such a prosecution was in the public interest.
Yet this case is not unique. Many other women are being investigated under the same statute. Those who say that what is happening in the US, El Salvador or Poland to women’s rights could never happen here are wrong. To protect the freedom of all UK women to choose what happens to their own bodies, these antiquated laws must be urgently reformed.
The case raises strong emotions, especially because of the late stage of her pregnancy, at 32 weeks, and her decision to lie to service providers to secure medication. Those who wish to ban access to abortion altogether argue late-term procedures are normal under our “extreme” laws. Contrary to the coroner’s report, they allege that the baby was “sentient and viable”. This, they argued, is why allowing women to access abortion medication by post during the pandemic was a disaster. But it wasn’t.
As a result of this policy, thousands of women were freed from carrying a baby against their will. This case was tragic, but it was also rare. Most abortions take place at 10 weeks or less; the few late-term procedures often involve heartbreaking cases of fatal foetal abnormalities or serious disability. Parents in this position deserve our compassion.
Abortion is a healthcare matter. Yet accessing it in England and Wales rests on matters of criminal law. The 1861 statute places having an abortion at any stage of pregnancy on the same scale as committing murder or using gunpowder to blow up a building. It can carry a sentence of life imprisonment, and an average sentence of five years for those convicted.
The 1967 act didn’t remove this criminal basis for abortion, but simply gave circumstances in which women could be exempted from such a prosecution. As this new wave of investigations shows, the threat of police intervention is not theoretical but actual, despite the overwhelming public support for women’s right to choose.
Medical professionals fear this case could have a chilling effect on abortion access. Their fears are justified. Those who defend this framework fail to recognise the real world consequences that can arise when abortion is not enshrined as a legal right. The lord chancellor could send a signal that the government accepts that this needs to change by using the royal prerogative of mercy to commute this woman’s sentence and return her to her family. Her continued incarceration serves nothing but to punish her remaining children and highlight the need for reform.
We also need to address the inequality between women in the UK. In 2019, Northern Ireland revoked the 1861 statute, and a human rights-based framework for medical access was put in its place. Issues remain about ensuring local service provision, but what is happening to this woman and other women in England, Wales and Scotland would not be possible there because it is not a crime to have an abortion.
It cannot be right that women in Northern Ireland have rights – and so protection from prosecution for exercising them – that women in Southampton, Sunderland, Swansea or Selkirk do not.
For too long, abortion reform was a subject politicians refused to touch. Many feared that opening this debate at all would only serve those who wanted to reduce women’s access to abortion. This case shows that such a stance is not tenable.
Those opposed to abortion are mobilising anyway, funding campaigns and targeting MPs. They will only be emboldened by convictions such as this to make more and more lurid claims and demands. As the Crown Prosecution Service dusts off this arcane legislation, those who know that equality means women should be equally free to determine for themselves what happens to their own bodies need to speak up. The judge told the court that it was for parliament to act if the sentence was unjust. We must do so before more women end up behind bars for exercising their right to choose.
Stella Creasy is the Labour and Cooperative MP for Walthamstow
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
