This month, Nicola Packer was found not guilty of illegally terminating her pregnancy after taking abortion medication past the 10-week limit. She’s been navigating the legal ramifications for over four years, and it’s been, well, just miserable. In 2020, Packer was arrested right after she left Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, still recovering from a major surgery and bleeding.
She is one of six women charged under a 1861 law in England that has rarely been enforced. In some of these cases, women faced harsh consequences, even losing contact with their children amid ongoing investigations. One teenager, who had a delayed miscarriage, was arrested in front of her entire neighborhood, ruining her privacy and peace.
If someone falls into this unfortunate situation, the repercussions can be serious. While there are efforts in Congress to remove such laws, it’s concerning how women continue to face invasive charges.
According to Jonathan Lord and Haley Webb, co-chairs of the Royal Obstetricians and Gynecologists and Physicians for Choice, there’s a confusion among some midwives and nurses regarding women’s responsibilities. Organizations like the UK Pregnancy Advisory Services are pondering whether emergency regulations from COVID could permit remote prescriptions of abortion medications. It’s a complex issue.
Last December, the National Police Chiefs’ Council issued a guideline regarding “Child Death Investigations,” suggesting that authorities should check women’s devices for period tracker apps and internet searches related to pregnancy. This was highlighted when Hampshire Police discovered a human placenta in a woodland, prompting an investigation that led to requests for details on women who had been previously investigated, which caught many off guard.
In Packer’s case, despite initial reluctance, the Crown Prosecutor’s Office ended up pursuing the charges after an appeal from the Metropolitan Police. This raises eyebrows about the growing trend of prosecuting women under new anti-abortion measures. If investigations are rising, one has to wonder why, especially when such laws have been around for over 150 years.
Two years ago, I spoke with Max Hill KC, who had been the Director of Public Prosecutions at the time. His response was typically standard, emphasizing the need to enforce existing laws. Now, with Stephen Parkinson in the position, campaigners are urging a more thorough assessment of public interest in such cases like Packer’s. Many women’s groups are questioning whether there should be any public interest at all in prosecuting women under these circumstances.
What drives these prosecutions remains unclear. There could be several overlapping factors at play: the heightened scrutiny post-COVID, a resurgence of cultural misogyny affecting reproductive rights, and perhaps a disconnection among healthcare providers regarding their obligations. Whatever the reason, it feels like a crucial moment to push for reform. Lawmakers need to take significant steps to decriminalize abortion while ensuring that justice finds its balance and rationale.
