In an article on Mercatornet, Dr Helen Watt, a senior research fellow at the Bios Centre, looks at the case of “Laura”, a victim of domestic abuse who was prosecuted in Britain for an illegal abortion.

After Laura’s abusive boyfriend told her to take abortion pills obtained on the internet, she delivered a stillborn baby at 30 weeks. Laura, who lost a lot of blood, called an ambulance, and the police were alerted.

Laura was afraid to disclose the abuse on the part of her boyfriend, who had responded to news of the pregnancy “like he was a rabid dog”. He threatened to kill her if she revealed his role in the abortion. With no abuse cited in her defence, Laura was convicted and served a sentence of 2 years.

The judge said in sentencing that while courts try to deal with such cases with empathy, they were unable to suspend her sentence due to the severity of the offence.

Late-term abortion will harm more women

In her article, Dr Watt emphasises that many of us will feel compassion for Laura on hearing of her dreadful ordeal (including facts of which the court was unaware). Faced with such cases, though, it is always necessary to ask if a proposed change to the law will make things better or worse. Expanding access to the “harrowing” practice of late abortion would, Dr Watt says, “harm and traumatize more women… Late abortion would become more ‘thinkable’ for vulnerable women and their sometimes violent partners.” 

Dr Watt continues:

“Laws against harmful actions, like abortion at 30 weeks, help prevent such actions taking place… Are women to receive no such protection from pressure whether internal or external to self-abort? And their developed, sentient babies: do they get no protection either?”

In contrast, Dr Watt says, having the baby in hospital, unlike a home abortion, can “force the issue”, alert social workers and get vulnerable women the support they need: “More than one life can be saved in this way.”

If coercion is found with either abortion or infanticide, Dr Watt continues, “the coercer should meet the full force of the law.” Tele-abortion has made abortion coercion easier: “the abuser can… manipulate the woman throughout the process including any remote screening for abuse that may be attempted.”  Medical checks, e.g. of the stage of gestation are also not possible with tele-abortions.

The article concludes that the way to protect a woman like Laura is not decriminalisation, “leaving her facing her abuser and the searing memory of an abortion that need never have happened.” In particular, supplying abortion pills by post is “a dangerous replacement for in-person human contact” and should be a criminal offence no matter who the supplier.  

Abortion lobby puts women at greater risk

Alithea Williams, SPUC Public Policy Manager, said:

“With abortion advocates increasingly pushing for full decriminalisation, including abortion up to birth, Dr Watt's article is timely and important. Decriminalisation will not help vulnerable women. On the contrary, the vast majority of those sentenced under abortion laws are men who have caused an abortion, either by brute force or by secretly administering abortion drugs. The 1967 Abortion Act, bad as it is, at least provides some safeguards for women. The abortion lobby wants to take even these remaining protections away.

“It is also appalling that abortion providers are now calling for law change to clear up their own mess. They campaigned for abortion pills to be sent to women in the post, which SPUC said from the beginning would have horrific consequences.

“Now that that policy is leading to babies being killed well past the legal limit, and women suffering the consequences of that at home, they want to cover up their gross negligence by removing abortion from the law entirely. We must not allow this to happen.”