UK MP Calls for Debate on Overhauling Abortion Laws After Woman is Jailed for Taking Abortion Pills

Nokes, who chairs the Commons Women and Equalities Committee, said that the 1861 law used to prosecute the woman was "out of date" and that abortion should be "relied on legislation that is very out of date." The woman, Carla Foster, was between 32 and 34 weeks pregnant when she took the medication and faces 28 months in prison, with 14 months to be spent in custody.

Abortion is legal up to 24 weeks in the UK, but the procedure must be carried out in a clinic after 10 weeks.

Foster was initially charged with child destruction, which she denied, and later pleaded guilty to an offence under Section 58 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

This law states that women who use drugs or instruments to cause an abortion can be "kept in penal servitude for life." Campaigners are calling for the law to be repealed, with the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) saying that it is "shocked and appalled" at the prosecution and that "a growing number of women" are coming under police investigation over suspected illegal abortions.

The Crown Prosecution Service said that cases such as Foster's were "exceptionally rare...

complex and traumatic." However, Dame Diana Johnson, chair of the home affairs select committee, has called for the government to decriminalise abortion.

A woman in the UK has been sentenced to two years and four months in prison for having a late-term abortion.

The court rejected appeals from women's health organizations for a non-custodial sentence, citing the law as provided by Parliament.

The woman, who was in emotional turmoil, had moved back in with her estranged partner and was carrying another man's baby when she sought to hide the pregnancy.

The judge acknowledged that she was a good mother to her three sons, one of whom has special needs.

The case has sparked controversy, with some arguing that the sentence is too harsh and could deter other women from seeking medical care.

The defendant's lawyer argued that lockdown and minimizing face-to-face appointments had changed access to healthcare.