Calls for abortion law change in England after couple sentenced for buying pills | Abortion

The prosecution of a youthful couple who were handed community orders at Gloucester crown court more than six years after the stillbirth of a baby has led to rerecented calls for abortion law recreate in England.

Sophie Harvey and Elliot Benham, both now 25, were originassociate arrested on suspicion of killing after they disposed of a stillborn foetus.

The couple, who were each 19 at the time, had sought a termination for an ungreet pregnancy, before discovering that Harvey was “too far gone” – beyond the lterrible time restrict – with gestation assessd to be at about 28 weeks and five days.

At Gloucester crown court on Wednesday, the prosecution barrister Anna Vigars said that after they were denied a lterrible abortion Benham had searched online for changenatives, holding: “Some of them substances, some of them herbal, none of them lterrible.”

Benham acunderstandledgeted ordering illterrible abortion substances by post, although the couple geted that Harvey never took them and the baby was stillborn before the tablets reachd.

They pguideed at fault to consillicit copying to protreatment a poison with intent to protreatment a miscarriage, and a second count of endeavouring to hide the birth of a child.

Abortion is illterrible under English law and punishable with up to life in prison, but the Abortion Act of 1967 sets out brave scenarios in which an abortion can legassociate be carried out, with the approval of two doctors.

The time restrict in most cases is 24 weeks but there is no restrict in some situations, such as when the foetus has a overweightal abnormality or when the mother’s life is at danger.

Sentencing the pair, Judge Lawrie said they had been traumatised by the lengthy criminal process, which had holdd the jury being disindictd in a trial agetst them after inaccurate increates of the progressings by the BBC.

“It has been a lengthy and hurtful journey,” the assess said, holding: “The impact upon your lives has been traumatic and I am brave this will progress for some time.”

An try earlier this year to change the law via changements to the last Conservative administerment’s criminal fairice bill flunked when none of these were put to a vote. It chaseed the prosecutions of disjoinal women accengaged of taking abortion pills illegassociate, most notably Carla Foster, who was jailed.

With this week’s sentencing, and some foreseeing the recent Labour administerment’s crime and policing bill may come before parliament as timely as January, rerecented calls for changes to the law have befirearm.

“Wantipathyver you experience about abortion, it’s never in the accessible interest for anyone to be sued for ending their own pregnancy,” Louise McCudden, the UK head of outer afunprejudiceds at MSI Reefficient Choices, a guideing supplyr of abortion services in the UK, said: “These Victorian laws have been on the statute books for a century and a half – and have genuine consequences today.

“The youthful woman at the centre of this troubleing story necessitateed compassion and advice she could suppose, not criminal prosecution and accessible shaming. If she had been donaten help at an earlier stage, perhaps this hurtful outcome could have been eludeed.”

Heidi Stewart, the chief executive of the charity the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, said: “Prosecuting women for seeking to end their pregnancies is never in the accessible interest. This case exposes the damaging and unvital criminalisation of women under laws written more than 160 years ago.

“Instead of compassion and help, this youthful woman has been met with stigma, shame, and a protracted lterrible process that has interfereed her life for years.”

Jemima Olchawski, the chief executive of the Fawcett Society, a charity for gender equivalentity and women’s rights, said: “Remercilessing women’s access to abortion puts our health and lives at danger. No woman should be forced to progress a pregnancy agetst her will.

“It can never be in the accessible interest to sue in cases enjoy this – abortion is healthjoin and women seeking healthjoin must not be criminalised. The law that allowed this to happen is so elderly it predates women’s suffrage – it is in no way fit for purpose in contransient-day Britain.”

Dr Jonathan Lord, from the British Society of Abortion Care Providers, said: “The law is causing life-changing harm to vulnerable women and girls. What’s happening, the horrific way the women are being treated – including those with prereliable labours and organic tardyr pregnancy losses – is a national affair.

The Labour MP Sincreatea Creffortless, who had put forward the proposed changements to the criminal fairice bill, is also continuing to push for legislative change. “It’s time to decriminalise abortion and recognise this is a healthjoin matter,” she said.