162-Year-Old Law Used to Jail Woman for Taking Abortion Pills Beyond Legal Time
1–9 of 9 posts
Re: 162-Year-Old Law Used to Jail Woman for Taking Abortion Pills Beyond Legal Time
#2[deleted]
Re: 162-Year-Old Law Used to Jail Woman for Taking Abortion Pills Beyond Legal Time
#3Old laws like murder aren't bad just because we've had them so long.
Re: 162-Year-Old Law Used to Jail Woman for Taking Abortion Pills Beyond Legal Time
#4To save you a click, because its only memtioned in passing…Section 58 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 [0]
This is the same act that deals with murder, rape, bodily harm, child abandonment and more.
The main issue behind this conviction appears to be intent, not that this was simply an ‘accident of ignorance’.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offences_Against_the_Person_Ac...
Re: 162-Year-Old Law Used to Jail Woman for Taking Abortion Pills Beyond Legal Time
#5Old laws like murder aren't bad just because we've had them so long.
I think they're just using the age of the law and the illegal action as proxies for saying "conservatives are oppressing women".
Whether it's disingenuous or just a writer being creative, I can't decide.
Re: 162-Year-Old Law Used to Jail Woman for Taking Abortion Pills Beyond Legal Time
#6> They wrote: “It is our strong belief that in the 21st century, in the shadow of the overturning of Roe v Wade, it is never in the public interest to prosecute women in these circumstances.”
Well this is in the UK so I don't know what the US situation has anything to do with this.
But anyway, there was a fairly similar case about a decade ago after a 38-week abortion.[1] For reference, 38 weeks is the expected duration of a pregnancy.
Would it be okay to have an abortion during delivery? Right after the onset of labour? 1 minute before? A day before? Where exactly do you put the limit here?
[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/12/appeal-jail-te...
Re: 162-Year-Old Law Used to Jail Woman for Taking Abortion Pills Beyond Legal Time
#7She took the pills at 9 months pregnant. I support the right to abortion, but only the most unhinged people are okay with aborting a baby that is fully formed and capable of surviving on its own if delivered.
Re: 162-Year-Old Law Used to Jail Woman for Taking Abortion Pills Beyond Legal Time
#8> They wrote: “It is our strong belief that in the 21st century, in the shadow of the overturning of Roe v Wade, it is never in the public interest to prosecute women in these circumstances.” Well this is in the UK so I don't know what the US situation has anything to do with this. But anyway, there was a fairly similar case about a decade ago after a 38-week abortion.[1] For reference, 38 weeks is the expected durat…
Yeah, they certainly buried the lede. She was 32-34 weeks pregnant, apparently. 34 week preemies apparently have a >95% survival rate, and barely meet the threshold for needing NICU time.
I'm very pro-choice but like, at that point delivering the baby early would have saved its life and ended the pregnancy.
Re: 162-Year-Old Law Used to Jail Woman for Taking Abortion Pills Beyond Legal Time
#9> They wrote: “It is our strong belief that in the 21st century, in the shadow of the overturning of Roe v Wade, it is never in the public interest to prosecute women in these circumstances.” Well this is in the UK so I don't know what the US situation has anything to do with this. But anyway, there was a fairly similar case about a decade ago after a 38-week abortion.[1] For reference, 38 weeks is the expected durat…
There isn't a good answer to that question. The US had set a very arbitrary definition set of trimesters which actually worked rather well. The vast majority of abortions will happen soon after the pregnancy is discovered. Practically nobody who carries a healthy pregnancy past the sixth month will choose an abortion.
There is a lot of gray area in between, but not many cases fall into it. The previous US situation allowed states to put the dividing line anywhere in there, and that was a compromise acceptable to most. It's not a rigorously defensible answer, but the only rigorous answers are "all" and "none", and both are considered repugnant to most people.
A case like this is incredibly rare, and suggests mental health issues. For that, she should receive treatment. While there is an argument to be made that she should have the right to her bodily autonomy and terminate any pregnancy, it's extremely unlikely that this is what she would want if she were mentally healthy. So this case doesn't inform much about where you might draw a line, and more about how to diagnose somebody who is probably depressed or otherwise not competent.
I am not, of course, qualified to judge her competence. I can only speak in generalities.