Conservative MP Caroline Nokes has called for a debate in Parliament on abortion laws.
Parliament should debate revising abortion rules after a woman was jailed, the chairman of the Commons’ equality committee has said.
Caroline Nokes MP told the BBC that the 1861 law used to prosecute Carla Foster, a mother of three, was “out of date”.
Activists urged reform after he received a 28-month sentence, 14 of which he will spend in custody.
Foster was between 32 and 34 weeks pregnant when she took medication acquired through the “pills by mail” scheme introduced during lockdown, the Stoke-on-Trent Crown Court heard.
Abortion is legal up to 24 weeks and the procedure must be done in a clinic after 10 weeks.
Foster was initially charged with destruction of children, which she denied, and later pleaded guilty to an offense under Section 58 of the Offenses Against the Person Act 1861: “administering drugs or using instruments to cause abortion.” .
Nokes, who chairs the House of Commons Women and Equality Committee, said MPs should “decide in the 21st century whether we should trust legislation that is centuries old.”
The Tory MP told BBC Radio 4’s World Tonight programme: “This is not something that has been discussed in great detail for many years.
“And cases like this, while tragic and, thankfully, very rare, show that we are relying on legislation that is seriously out of date. It is a case for Parliament to start looking at this issue in detail.”
Carla Foster obtained abortion pills after a remote consultation during confinement
Labor MP Stella Creasy also called for urgent reform, telling BBC Two’s Newsnight: “I don’t understand whose interest it was in this case.”
Madeline Page, director of the Student Pro-Life Alliance, agreed that the case was a “sad situation” and said she would welcome a parliamentary debate on abortion, though she wanted to move the law generally in a different direction than of Nokes.
Britain’s Pregnancy Advisory Service said it was “shocked and appalled” by the “archaic law” that had been used to prosecute Foster.
A spokesman for the Crown Prosecution Service said cases such as these were “exceptionally rare… complex and traumatic”.
They added: “Our prosecutors have a duty to ensure that laws laid down by Parliament are properly considered and applied when making difficult charge decisions.”
The prime minister’s official spokesman Rishi Sunak said he was “not aware” of any government plans to change abortion laws.
The CPS argued in court that Foster had been aware of the limits of abortion and had provided false information during a remote medical consultation.
Her defense said the lockdown and minimization of face-to-face appointments had changed access to healthcare, adding: “This will haunt her forever.”
Foster went into labor on May 11, 2020, and the baby was confirmed dead 45 minutes later.
- If you have been affected by the issues raised in this article, help and support is available. via BBC action line
The 44-year-old Staffordshire woman had moved back in with her estranged partner at the start of lockdown while carrying another man’s baby, the court heard.
In passing sentence, Judge Edward Pepperall accepted that Foster had been “in emotional turmoil” while trying to hide the pregnancy.
He said she was a good mother to her three children, one of whom has special needs, and that a suspended sentence might have been possible had there been a prior guilty plea.
But it rejected appeals by women’s health organizations to hand down a non-custodial sentence, saying it was the court’s duty “to apply the law as provided by Parliament.”
Ahead of Monday’s hearing, a letter co-signed by several women’s health organizations calling for a non-custodial sentence was sent to the court.
However, the judge said that it was “not appropriate” and that his duty was to “apply the law as provided by Parliament”.
He told the defendant that the authors of the letter were “concerned that his imprisonment might deter other women from accessing telemedical abortion services and other women in late pregnancy from seeking medical attention or from being open and honest with medical professionals.” “.
But he said it also “has the ability to be seen as a special plea by those who favor broader access to abortion and is, in my judgment, as inappropriate as it would be for a judge to receive a letter from one of the groups that do campaign for more restrictive laws”.