logo
‘I gave birth three months early – then police investigated me over an illegal abortion'

‘I gave birth three months early – then police investigated me over an illegal abortion'

Yahoo14-05-2025
Sammy was being ferried into an ambulance by paramedics – after giving mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to her newborn baby – when she realised there were around eight police officers in her living room.
The mother, in her thirties, had just given birth at home to a baby boy who arrived over three months early, weighing just one pound and seven ounces – little more than a bag of sugar.
Police had arrived to assist her in giving lifesaving CPR. But Sammy* says that, while in shock from the traumatic and unexpected birth – and with her baby still fighting for his life – she suddenly found herself at the centre of a criminal investigation.
This would become a devastating 51-week ordeal, triggered by England's 164-year-old law criminalising abortion, despite the fact that she hadn't actually had one.
'My front room was full of police officers – there must have been about eight. Then out on the street, my husband said there were two ambulances, two unmarked police cars, and a regular police car. I just thought: why?'
Sammy has decided to retell her horrific experience as the issue of illegal abortion in the UK reached parliament this week.
Tonia Antoniazzi, Labour MP for Gower, has put forward an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill to remove the criminal aspect of ending abortions illegally, to bring England and Wales in line with Scotland and Northern Ireland. MPs are expected to vote on the issue this summer.
In an interview with The Independent, Sammy said: 'They were following my husband around – he wasn't allowed to be alone. I was at the hospital, not knowing what was happening at home. Then, they told my son he had to leave. He had 10 minutes to get his things and get out.'
According to Sammy, that day police seized all their electronic devices, including two Xboxes, cordoned off their home with crime scene tape, and arrested her husband when he returned to pick up clean clothes – 'under suspicion of procuring a miscarriage by instrument or tablets'.
They dug through bins and held on to her placenta for months. The next morning, when she was discharged from hospital while her baby fought for his life in an incubator, she says she was questioned by police about whether she had attempted to end the pregnancy illegally.
Sammy told police she had only explored the option of a termination and researched abortion pills online, but had been told she was too far along in the pregnancy to go ahead with it.
'I was open and honest from the get-go, but we were treated like criminals,' she says, visibly distressed. 'When they took me to the police station for questioning – I cried through most of it and just said, 'No comment.''
Her husband, released on bail, was initially barred from seeing or even communicating with Sammy or their baby. Even when that restriction was eased, the parents were only allowed to visit their new son under police supervision. This went on for 51 weeks.
Shortly before the baby's first birthday, the investigation was finally dropped, and Sammy and her husband were cleared. But the damage had been done.
'No other woman should have to go through that. Abortion should be decriminalised,' she says.
Sammy's story, though horrifying, is not an anomaly. She is one of more than 100 women whom rights groups believe have been investigated by police in recent years under the same 164-year-old Offences Against the Person Act which Ranee Thakar, the president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), tells The Independent is 'the oldest healthcare law still in existence.'
Some women have even had their children removed. In fact, there has been an unprecedented surge in convictions related to abortions and pregnancy losses under this legislation.
Six women have appeared in court over the past two years charged with ending their own pregnancies. Prior to that, only three convictions had been reported for illegal abortion since the law was introduced in 1861.
There is a common misconception that abortion is legal in the UK. The 1967 Abortion Act legalised terminations in England, Wales, and Scotland, now up to 24 weeks, provided two doctors sign off that continuing the pregnancy would pose a risk to the woman's physical or mental health.
In the wake of the pandemic, that was amended to allow eligible women in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy to have a medical abortion at home.
Outside of those bounds, women are at risk of jail – which is where rights groups say the problem lies. Just this week, Nicola Packer – who endured a four-year investigation and public trial – was unanimously acquitted by a jury at Isleworth Crown Court in southwest London.
She had been accused of 'unlawfully administering to herself a poison or other noxious thing' with the 'intent to procure a miscarriage'.
In the wake of her acquittal, she told The Independent the process had been deeply traumatic – critics said she faced public shaming at the hands of prosecutors.
'The stress for more than four years was immense, and it was impossible to live normally,' Ms Packer tells The Independent.
'Although it's a relief that I was finally believed and it's all over, it's going to be very hard to ever trust the NHS and police again.'
Jonathan Lord, the clinician in charge of Ms Packer's care and co-chair of the RCOG abortion taskforce, slammed the process as a 'vindictive and brutal prosecution in which the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) weaponised victim-shaming'.
Lord, who said he has had to help several women and teenagers who have been investigated by the police, says it is 'incredibly traumatic, where every element of your most personal life is exposed, your phone and computer are taken and searched for messages, images, menstrual apps, and internet searches'.
'Even in those who are never charged, most have suffered long-term mental health issues and post-traumatic stress disorder and say they cannot trust the NHS or police again.'
The situation is now so urgent that 60 MPs, multiple Royal Colleges (including the RCOG), and numerous healthcare professionals are backing a cross-party amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill that would remove women from the criminal law in relation to ending their own pregnancies and bring England and Wales.
The amendment was laid in Parliament on Tuesday night by Ms Antoniazzi.
She tells The Independent that an increasing number of women have been subjected to 'utterly deplorable' criminal investigations for a 'crime' that does not even apply in two other parts of the UK: Scotland and Northern Ireland.
'The harm inflicted upon these women is lifelong and profound. This cannot continue,' she says, adding that it particularly impacts vulnerable women.
The Royal College's Dr Thakar said one of the biggest concerns is the chilling effect the law could have on women and healthcare providers.
The RCOG was so alarmed by the rise in investigations that it issued new guidance to medical professionals last January, urging them not to report women to police if they suspect a pregnancy may have been ended illegally.
'Many women may become too afraid to seek help, fearing criminal consequences. Abortion care is a safe, essential part of healthcare. By criminalising it, we make a safe procedure unsafe because women avoid seeking help when they need it,' she continues.
'They should be treated with care and compassion, without judgment or fear of imprisonment. Otherwise, the result is silence and suffering.'
Another backer of the law change is the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), which told The Independent that women 'are being arrested straight from the hospital ward, their homes searched, and their children taken away'.
'This cannot continue. Members of Parliament have a moral duty to decriminalise abortion for women and end the threat of police, prosecutions, and imprisonment once and for all,' Katie Saxon, chief strategic communications officer at BPAS, said.
It comes amid a groundswell of support for change. In a separate initiative launched this month, a cross-party group of MPs led by Stella Creasy called for abortion to be protected as a human right in England and Wales, following a similar, successful campaign in Northern Ireland in 2019.
Other countries have enshrined a human right to access abortion, Creasy said at the time, adding that now is the time to act as 'politicians are using women's bodies as their battlefield'.
Last month, campaigners spearheaded by teacher Gemma Clark and supported by BPAS, delivered a petition to Downing Street that was signed by over 100,000 UK residents calling on parliament to reform the abortion law. It has triggered a debate in parliament expected in the coming weeks
The Independent asked the CPS about the devastating impact the surge in investigations and convictions was having on women involved – particularly in the wake of Nicola Packer's trial, during which personal details were shared in court.
A spokesperson defended the move, saying that information was shared 'only to establish the fact of when she may have fallen pregnant, and her understanding of the gestation period'.
'Our prosecutors exercise the greatest care when considering complex and traumatic cases such as this one,' a spokesperson added.
A government spokesperson, meanwhile, said that 'All women have access to safe and legal abortions on the NHS' and that 'decisions to prosecute – within existing legislation – are for the CPS and are incredibly rare.'
In Sammy's case, the relevant police force acknowledged in a statement to The Independent the 'particular sensitivities of this case' but said the initial investigation was undertaken 'to safeguard all involved'.
They defended the action to investigate and the duration: 'This was a complex investigation, requiring extensive forensic and medical evidence, and unfortunately these kinds of enquiries take time.'
But Sammy says she fears that other women will 'lie and hide' if they find themselves in her position unless the law changes, due to fear of being prosecuted.
During her investigation, she says she spent nearly a year 'thinking every little car door that slams is the police coming to take me and my husband away.'
Now she is trying to piece her life back together, while still worrying the police might come after her again.'I was open and honest with them… that openness and honesty got me nowhere. I got treated like a criminal when I am not one.
'Look at the outcome. All we got was an apology and a message that the investigation was dropped.'The law needs to be changed. I wouldn't wish this upon anyone.'
*Name changed
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Starmer faces Labour turmoil and global volatility as he marks year in Number 10
Starmer faces Labour turmoil and global volatility as he marks year in Number 10

Yahoo

time4 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Starmer faces Labour turmoil and global volatility as he marks year in Number 10

Sir Keir Starmer is facing Labour dissent, economic uncertainty and spiralling conflict abroad as he marks a year in Number 10. The Prime Minister led his party back into power with more than 400 MPs on July 4 last year – clinching a majority just short of Sir Tony Blair's landslide in 1997. But with a daunting in-tray of problems including a stuttering economy, creaking public services and global volatility, his political honeymoon period was short-lived. His personal popularity is now the lowest of any British premier after their first 12 months in office, political scientist and polling guru Professor Sir John Curtice said. 'There were pretty clear potential weaknesses before they even started, and most of those weaknesses have basically just been exposed over the course of the last 12 months,' he told the PA news agency. Sir John said part of the problem lay in what he described as a failure of narrative in setting out the Government's vision for change to the public. 'They're portraying themselves as a repair gang rather than the builders of a new Jerusalem. Pessimism doesn't necessarily go down very well,' he told PA. 'The thing with Starmer is, he's a brilliant prosecution lawyer… But prosecution lawyers present cases that have been (put together) by someone else. The problem is that as a political leader you've got to prosecute your own case. 'Maybe he needs new personnel? Either he's got to learn to do it himself or get someone in to do it for him.' That verdict was echoed by some dissenting voices within Labour ranks, where there is lingering discontent among rebels over the Government's Welfare Bill despite Number 10 offering major concessions on the legislation. The Government saw off the threat of a major Commons defeat over the legislation on Tuesday after shelving plans to restrict eligibility for the personal independence payment (Pip), the main disability benefit in England. 'I think he really needs to think about why he wants to be a Labour Prime Minister and what is it he actually cares about,' one long-serving Labour MP said. They said Tuesday had marked 'the lowest point' in Sir Keir's premiership so far and raised questions about his authority, warning that backbenchers may now feel emboldened to demand further U-turns elsewhere. Sir John said that the Government's challenges in passing legislation were unsurprising with the broad but fragile coalition of support on which Labour built its election victory, securing 412 seats on just 35% of the vote. That means many MPs defending narrow majorities and raises the prospect of 'a large body of people who are nervous about their political futures,' he said. The Government's original welfare proposals had been part of a package that ministers expected to save up to £5 billion a year, leaving Chancellor Rachel Reeves needing to look for the money elsewhere. The fallout threatens to cause lasting damage to morale in Labour ranks, with some rebels calling for a reset in relations between the parliamentary party and the leadership before fractures widen. Images of the Chancellor crying in the Commons on Wednesday have also led to questions about her future, although a Treasury spokesman cited a 'personal matter' as the cause of her distress and Number 10 said she would remain in post. Asked whether it was time for a course correction, Downing Street has said the Prime Minister will 'plough on' with the 'very busy agenda' of Government. But the MP quoted above said: 'The idea that they can keep carrying on as they've been carrying on is suicidal. 'They have no real sense of how the party thinks and feels.' Others had a more optimistic view of the year ahead, with a Starmer loyalist who supported the Bill suggesting the upset could be salvaged with a 'measured but solid response' from the Government. 'The worst they can do is nothing,' the backbencher added. The Prime Minister used a Cabinet meeting on Tuesday to defend his record in office, telling ministers the welfare Bill was 'to help those who can work into employment and ensure dignity and security for those who can't work.' He said they could all 'rightly look back with a real sense of pride and achievement' on the last 12 months, pointing to a reduction in NHS waiting lists and a series of economic agreements struck with the US, EU and India. Abroad, the Prime Minister faces a tricky diplomatic balancing act as he seeks to strengthen ties with both Europe and Washington amid global instability from the Ukraine war and Middle East crisis. At home, Labour is staring down a threat from Nigel Farage's Reform UK party, which turned opinion poll momentum into widespread gains at the ballot box during the local elections in May. Sir John said that parties such as Reform and the Greens offer more choice to voters wanting to express their discontent with Labour while the Tories continue to flounder in the polls. 'The character of the challenge is different from what it has been historically,' he said. Tim Bale, professor of politics at Queen Mary University, said people had been expecting bold change on areas such as workers' rights and growth, and the Government's achievements so far were 'pretty small beer' by comparison. Critics say the first year has instead been marked by a series of U-turns, including a partial reversal of cuts to the winter fuel payment and the move to launch a national inquiry into grooming gangs after months of resisting opposition pressure to do so. The Government disputes that framing, pointing out for example that ministers had never explicitly ruled out a statutory probe into child sexual exploitation but waited for a review to be carried out before making a decision. Prof Bale said he believed the first year had gone 'worse than most people imagined' and warned 'it's difficult for a leader who starts badly to persuade people that he or she is what they need.' But he said the problems were not necessarily fatal, adding that setbacks early on in a premiership have an upside in allowing for more time to 'turn it round'. 'If you look back to Margaret Thatcher, she was able to do that, so it's not a foregone conclusion that all is lost, even for Keir Starmer himself,' he said. Arguing that the Government could recover in the polls if its plans for the economy and public services pay off, he added: 'I think you can see the light at the end of the tunnel, but it's a very long tunnel.' Sir Keir has pledged to lead a 'decade of national renewal' through a phased approach to Government, the first year of which he said would involve 'cleaning up the mess' his administration had inherited. In a speech last week seeking to set the tone for the future, he said: 'We've wiped the state clean, we've stabilised the economy, and now we can go on to the next phase of government, building on that foundation.' A Government spokesperson said: 'We were elected with a commitment to deliver change and security for working people – and we are getting on with the job. 'We are delivering our Plan for Change – wages are rising faster than prices, interest rates have been cut four times, immigration has come down with 30,000 people with no right to be here removed and over four million NHS appointments have been delivered. 'Progress has been made, but we know people are impatient for change – and we are too – so we will continue to govern in the national interest for British people and deliver a decade of national renewal.'

MPs back foreign investors owning minority stakes in UK newspapers
MPs back foreign investors owning minority stakes in UK newspapers

Yahoo

time13 hours ago

  • Yahoo

MPs back foreign investors owning minority stakes in UK newspapers

Foreign investors have stepped closer to buying part of the Telegraph, as MPs backed relaxed laws on foreign ownership of UK newspapers that will allow them to own up to 15%. The Commons voted overwhelmingly in favour of a change to the law by Labour which would allow foreign firms to buy minority stakes. It is the latest turn in a tumultuous two-year takeover process for the 170-year-old newspaper business. It comes after the previous Conservative government put a block in place amid fears the Telegraph could be bought by a majority-owned UAE company, RedBird IMI. The investment vehicle is a joint venture with US financiers. The regulation was approved by 338 votes to 79, majority 259. Labour was boosted in the voting lobbies by four Reform UK MPs, including its leader Nigel Farage (Clacton), and seven Independent MPs. Meanwhile former Tory leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith, a vocal critic of China, was among those to vote against it. The Liberal Democrats, who forced the vote over fears foreign ownership would compromise editorial independence, also opposed it. The result will give the green light to RedBird IMI, with the cap in place now being supported by MPs. RedBird Capital, the US junior partner in RedBird IMI, agreed a deal in May to buy a majority stake in the newspaper for £500 million. Abu-Dhabi's IMI will look to buy a minority stake as part of the consortium. RedBird has investments in AC Milan, film production giant Skydance and Liverpool FC owner Fenway Sports Group. It is also understood that the Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT) – which owns the Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday, the i, and the Metro – is also looking to buy a stake. This is in addition to Sir Len Blavatnik, who owns the Theatre Royal Haymarket in the West End, who is considering a minority stake, according to Sky News reports. The rules were introduced after RedBird IMI looked to buy the Telegraph Media Group (TMG) from the Barclay Brothers. Then-Conservative culture secretary Lucy Frazer told a Society of Editors Conference in April 2024: 'I had concerns about the potential impacts of this deal on free expression and accurate presentation of news and that's why I issued a public interest intervention.' Culture minister Stephanie Peacock told MPs last month that appropriate safeguards had been introduced. She said: 'Government need to balance the importance of creating certainty and sustainability for our newspaper industry with the need to protect against the risk of foreign state influence by setting a clear threshold for exceptions within the regime at 15%. We believe that we have done that effectively.' The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has been approached for comment.

No, Rachel Reeves crying during Prime Minister's Questions isn't the political win you think it is
No, Rachel Reeves crying during Prime Minister's Questions isn't the political win you think it is

Cosmopolitan

time14 hours ago

  • Cosmopolitan

No, Rachel Reeves crying during Prime Minister's Questions isn't the political win you think it is

Look, I'll be honest – I've cried at work before. At one of my old jobs I even had a particular cubicle in the ladies' toilets where I'd go for a silent weep before re-emerging, head down, and slinking back to my desk. Thankfully, the times I have bawled until my face was a red-streaked and swollen mess have not been caught on camera for the world to see (I am a particularly ugly and colourful crier). So I genuinely felt for Rachel Reeves, who today was spotted puffy-eyed with a single tear rolling down her cheek, while sat behind Prime Minister Keir Starmer during today's Prime Minister's Questions, the day after the controversial welfare system reforms vote. Reeves, the country's first female Chancellor, has recently been on the receiving end of criticism from colleagues, opposition parties and the public over a proposal to cut benefits and Personal Independence Payments (PIP) which help disabled people live a more independent life, as part of a much-needed benefits system overhaul. Elements of said plan is something the government has since been forced to u-turn on following backlash and the threat of a Labour rebellion. Much furore has been made of Reeves's clear upset when Starmer sidestepped a question about her future during PMQs – and it's something the financial markets have apparently picked up on, too. At around midday (when PMQ's are broadcast) the value of the pound declined sharply against the dollar (though whether that's entirely down to Reeves's tears, or more linked to the suggestion that unpopular tax rises or a new Chancellor with a whole new economical plan could be waiting in the wings, is unclear). What is clear, however, is the whiff of misogyny accompanying a lot of the commentary about Reeves online right now. There's a lot I find indefensible about this current Labour government – remember the halcyon days of last July when we actually thought change was afoot and things were going to get better? – but a politician showing emotion is not one. It's a tired and well-worn (not to mention chauvinistic) trope that women are often 'too emotional' in the workplace, and that showing any sign of upset is to be considered weak and feeble. It's a reductive take – and we don't know with certainty what has upset her (a spokesperson for the Chancellor said it was 'a personal matter' and that Reeves will be 'working out of Downing Street this afternoon', implying she has not been ousted or used as a scapegoat). Frankly, a few tears are far less embarrassing than some of the frequent, angry outbursts we see from other politicians. Donald Trump, for instance, regularly takes to his own social media platform, Truth Social, to get involved in spats with whoever has irked him that day, using language akin to an angry eight-year-old who has been told he's had enough screentime for the day, labelling former colleagues as 'losers' or any vaguely unflattering (and oftentimes honest) commentary about himself as 'fake news'. Or take his Vice President, JD Vance, and his petulant outburst against Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the White House earlier this year, during which he berated a man whose country is at war for his lack of wearing a suit. These are treated as popcorn-worthy entertainment, meme-ified and held up as the embodiment of 'power' and strongman politics – when really, it's just a tantrum for all to see. Somehow, though, I reckon Reeves will be judged more harshly. I'm not saying crying at work is necessarily a good thing – if you find yourself dissolving into tears frequently and publicly, maybe it's time to accept that perhaps the job isn't for you. But what I am saying is, sure, there's plenty to attack Reeves over politically (seriously, those welfare reform plans and the threat to remove PIP payments were a mess) – but visibly showing emotion should not be one of them. If the markets are affected by a woman crying, then it's the markets that need to get a grip, not Rachel Reeves. Kimberley Bond is a Multiplatform Writer for Harper's Bazaar, focusing on the arts, culture, careers and lifestyle. She previously worked as a Features Writer for Cosmopolitan UK, and has bylines at The Telegraph, The Independent and British Vogue among countless others.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store