Abortion - bbc 2 now

Case 1 :

In 2012, 40-year-old Sarah Catt was jailed for eight years for terminating her pregnancy with pills she had bought online when she was 39 weeks pregnant.

Guardian :

A woman jailed for eight years after aborting her unborn baby within a week of her due date has had her sentence reduced to three and a half years.

Sarah Catt, 36, from Sherburn-in-Elmet, North Yorkshire, who was married but had been having an affair for seven years, was around 40 weeks pregnant when she took drugs she bought on the internet to induce her labour.

She claimed the baby was stillborn and buried his body – but has not revealed its whereabouts.

Mr Justice Cooke, sentencing her at Leeds crown court last September, said the seriousness of the crime lay between manslaughter and murder.

He said she would have been charged with murder if the baby had been born a few days later and she had then killed him.

Catt pleaded guilty to administering a poison with intent to procure a miscarriage.

Lady Justice Rafferty, heading a panel of three judges in the court of appeal, said it was an extraordinarily difficult sentencing exercise, but the term was manifestly excessive.

Catt sobbed in the dock throughout the hearing in London.

Rafferty said Catt's complicated obstetric history, which involved adoption, seeking termination and concealment of pregnancy, threw up a "potential for disturbance, personal misery and long-lasting difficulty".

Catt, who was described at her trial as "cold and calculating", had no relevant previous convictions and a psychiatric report excluded mental disorder.


Rafferty referred to a letter of "remarkable restraint, dignity and loyalty" from Catt's husband, which spoke of his hope that the couple and their two young children could stay together as a family.

She said the facts of the case were "mercifully highly unusual".

Catt had waited until term before premeditatedly destroying her child, lied about it and had prevented a postmortem examination with its potential to determine the cause and timing of death.

Her persistent refusal to reveal the location of the body was originally said to be a consequence of legal advice, but was now put down to her not being "emotionally able" to address the issue.

"Mrs Catt caused the death of a foetus at term. She intended to do it. She planned what she did with some care. She ensured that when she delivered the infant, it was in private. Somewhere there is a body.

"She had known by October 2009 that she was pregnant and she had ample time to seek a lawful termination. She was not without experience in that regard."

As a consequence of medical reports, she added, the trial judge had no option but to treat Catt as a normal rational individual, who did what she did for reasons of her own, never adequately explained.

In Catt's favour was her guilty plea, the appearance of remorse, the difficulty she had in forming an emotional attachment to an unborn child and the fact she was a good mother to her children, whose development was adversely affected by her absence.

The judge concluded that a "wise disposition" of the case should never take its eye off two young children and a "notably forbearing husband".

Case 2 :

Natalie Towers, 26, was sentenced to two-and-a half-years in 2015 after using the pill to terminate her pregnancy while she was between 32 and 34 weeks pregnant.


DM :

Towers initially denied knowing she was pregnant but later confessed that she suspected she was pregnant but 'could not deal with the stress'. The court heard Towers also concealed an earlier pregnancy.

A search of her computer revealed her visit to an online pharmacy in relation to 'abortion pills' and inquiries on how she cold delete her search history. Another search was in relation to babies born at 24 weeks.

Miss Mallett added: 'Natalie Towers was concerned about how she could completely delete her private internet browsing history and what the police would search for.'

Daniel Cordey, defending, said Towers is 'struggling to come to terms with what she has done'.

Paramedics were called to Towers home in this street in Shildon, County Durham and found the baby dead
Mr Cordey added: 'She would not have done what she did if she had been thinking fully, rationally, at the time.

'She realised she must have been pregnant. What she submits is, she didn't realise she was as far pregnant as 32-34 weeks. She is remorseful, she greatly regrets her actions.'

The court heard Towers has a history of emotional and psychological problems.
Anne Scanlon of Life Charity, a pro-life organisation, said the jail term was a ‘fair sentence’.

But the Pro-Life Alliance’s Dominica Roberts described the prosecution as a ‘terribly sad’ case, adding: ‘One must pity rather than blame someone who is so desperate.

‘Taking a child’s life at any age is just not a good thing to do but in this instance it does seem like a very long sentence.

‘The fact she got the pills from the internet is shocking and terrifying and I feel so sorry for the woman as she should have been offered help through abortion counselling.’

Kerry Abel, of pro-choice group Abortion Rights, said: ‘In a case like this it is not sensible to criminalise the woman. I don’t think it should have gone to court … a baby is not a baby until it is born.’

Again, my comment deleted. Perhaps they could explain in simple terms what opinions one is allowed to hold on this forum, and then we could just all say the same things in agreement with that position. That's how most internet forums work I believe.

Let's assume that in the not too far distant future, medical science discovers how to make artificial wombs, capable of growing a zygote to full-term, as well as the ability to both collect and transplant a blastocyte and transplant a week old embryo from a mother to an artificial womb.

Should abortion then be legal at any point in the developmental process?