Woman Jailed for Killing Her Baby - Special Pleading, Outrage and Deflection

Edited 16th June 

A woman who took abortion pills beyond the 24-week statutory limit, killing her child, who at 32-34 weeks gestation was fully viable, has been jailed for 14 months. This has sparked expressions of "outrage" from woman's groups, certain politicians and health care professionals. It has triggered calls for the decriminalisation of abortion in England and Wales. 

Yet the churches have said little or nothing, leaving the narrative to be controlled by the abortion lobby who are peddling lies and deflecting from the real cause of this tragedy - the reckless supply of abortion pills by phone - and are using this tragic death of a child and the imprisonment of her traumatised mother, to push for the decriminalisation of abortion, i.e., de facto full-term abortions. 

The Facts

Carla Foster, a 44-year-old mother-of-three, pleaded guilty to the offence of administering poison with intent to procure a miscarriage under section 58 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. Foster was initially charged with child destruction (carrying a sentence of up to life imprisonment) and pleaded not guilty. She later pleaded guilty to the alternative lesser charge. This was accepted by the prosecution.

Carla Foster obtained the abortion drugs mifepristone and misoprostol through a telephone consultation service launched by the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) early in the pandemic, intended for ending pregnancies in the first 10 weeks.

After taking both pills she began to miscarry, resulting in a stillbirth requiring medical attention. She called an ambulance. Attempts to resuscitate the child, named 'Lily' by her mother, failed and she was declared dead on arrival at hospital. A post-mortem examination found that the pregnancy was between 32–34 weeks’ gestation at the time.

The cause of the child's death was recorded as stillbirth and maternal use of abortion drugs.

It was established at trial that Carla Foster “knew full well that (her) pregnancy was well beyond the legal limit of 24 weeks.”

The court heard Foster, who had three sons before becoming pregnant again in 2019, did not see a doctor about her pregnancy because she was “embarrassed”. This offence was committed against the backdrop of the first phase of lockdown at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic. Forced to stay at home, she had moved back in with her long-term but estranged partner while carrying another man’s child. She sought to hide the pregnancy.

The mother of three children was given a 28-month extended sentence; 14 months to be served in custody and 14 months on license. In sentencing her, the judge acknowledged she was in a state of "emotional turmoil" at the time and commented:

"I accept that you feel very deep and genuine remorse for your actions. You are wracked by guilt and have suffered depression. I also accept that you had a very deep emotional attachment to your unborn child and that you are plagued by nightmares and flashbacks to seeing your dead child’s face.

I also take into account the fact that you are a good mother to three children who would suffer from your imprisonment. One of your children himself has special needs which means that he is particularly reliant upon your love and support."

(Baby in the womb at 32 weeks)

The Reaction

The Abortion Lobby

Prior to sentencing, the court received a letter signed by the President of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Chief Executive of the Royal College of Midwives, the President of the Faculty of Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare, the President of the Faculty of Public Health, the Chair of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists’ Abortion Taskforce, the Clinical Lead and a Clinical Representative for the Abortion Care Guideline developed by the National Institute for Health Care Excellence, and the Co-Chair of the British Society of Adoption and Care Providers.

Astonishingly, these groups claimed that the successful introduction of the telemedicine option was one of "the single greatest advances since abortion care was legalised by the 1967 Act,  transforming the care for the most vulnerable women and girls who find it difficult to access in-person medical services."  They called for a non-custodial sentence, claiming that imprisonment might deter other women from accessing telemedical abortion services and other late-gestation women from seeking medical care or from being open and honest with medical professionals.

The judge dismissed this as "special pleading", saying, "I consider that it would have been better if the letter had not been written at all," adding, "I do not accept that imprisonment in this case is likely to deter women and girls from lawfully seeking abortion care within the 24-week limit. Rather, it might be said that it would reinforce the limit of that law."

After the sentence, the various pro-abortion groups and politicians swung into action, ably supported by our BBC and the rest of the mass media.

Ms Nokes, a Conservative MP who chairs the Commons Women and Equalities Committee, said MPs should "decide in the 21st Century whether we should be relying on legislation that is centuries old". She told BBC Radio 4's World Tonight programme: "This is not something that has been debated in any great detail for many years now. And cases like this, although tragic and thankfully very rare, throw into sharp relief that we are relying on legislation that is very out of date. It makes a case for Parliament to start looking at this issue in detail." Labour MP Stella Creasy also called for urgent reform, telling BBC Two's Newsnight programme: "I don't understand in whose interests this case was." The British Pregnancy Advisory Service chief executive, Clare Murphy, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "We are now seeing a mother-of-three prosecuted under laws that do not exist in the same way in any other country." She said "a growing number of women" were coming under police investigation over suspected illegal abortions, with another woman facing trial later this year. Dame Diana Johnson, chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee, called for the government to decriminalise abortion. She told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "Removing the criminal law is a very sensible, reasonable step, but it's not to deregulate abortion care and who can provide it." Centre for Women’s Justice director, Harriet Wistrich, questioned how the prosecution was in the public interest. “What possible purpose is served in criminalising and imprisoning this woman, when at most she needs better access to healthcare and other support?” she said. “She is clearly already traumatised by the experience and now her children will be left without their mother for over a year. When most forms of violence against women and girls go unpunished this sentence confirms our very worst fears about contemporary attitudes to women’s basic human rights and an utterly misdirected criminal justice system.”

Women’s human rights programme director at Amnesty International UK, Chiara Capraro, said the decision to prosecute was “shocking and quite frankly terrifying ... This is a tremendously sad story and underscores the desperate need for legal reform in relation to reproductive health,” she said.

BPAS chief executive, Clare Murphy, said “no woman can ever go through this again” and called for MPs to protect women in desperate circumstances so they are never threatened with prison. “Vulnerable women in the most incredibly difficult of circumstances deserve more from our legal system,” she said.

During a debate in the House of Lords on 15th June, Lord Stewart of Dirleton was asked by Baroness Thornton, "What assessment (His Majesty's Government) has made of the recent application of section 58 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861?"

Lord Dirleton said it was the government's position that it was "committed to ensuring access to safe, regulated abortion for all women in England and Wales on the NHS," adding, "it would be inappropriate for me to comment on specific criminal cases, especially those which may - and I understand will - be subject to appeal proceedings, or on prosecution decisions made by the CPS independently of government. Abortion is a contentious issue on which the Government maintain a neutral position. It is, however, open to Parliament to propose changes to the law in this area, which, as a matter of conscience, would normally be subject to a free vote."

He informed the Lords: "In addition, there is the possibility that the Criminal Cases Review Commission will take an interest. Ultimately, there is the possibility that the royal prerogative of mercy could be exercised in favour of the woman concerned."

Christian Responses

On behalf of the Catholic Bishops Conference for England and Wales, Bishop Sherrington, Lead for Life Issues, made the following feeble comment:

“Abortion is always a tragedy, both for the mother and for the child who is killed. The consistent teaching of the Catholic Church has always been that both must be protected. The recent case of the mother who aborted her child outside the parameters of the law is deeply distressing for all concerned, especially her other children. However, it is the responsibility of the judiciary to decide how the law should be applied, including the consideration of mitigating circumstances and sentencing. I offer prayers for all concerned.”

Surely he could and should have said more about the death of Lily Foster? Something needed to be said about the underlying issue of telemedicine, about the need for greater support for women during pregnancy, for those considering abortion, and also for those women who have experienced the trauma of abortion.

To date, there has been no response from the Church of England - our established Christian church. 

One would expect robust and direct responses from Christian church leaders and Christian politicians to the pro-abortion lobby's deflections - but apart from the feeble comment from the Catholic Church there has been silence. It has been left to a few voices in the media to expose the spin of the abortion lobby. 

"What’s the difference between infanticide and an abortion at eight months’ gestation?" asks Melanie McDonagh rather bluntly over at the Spectator:

"What this unhappy case shows is that the relaxation of the rules during Covid, since extended, is as unwise as pro-life groups said it would be. Women can get the gestational age of their baby wrong, wilfully or through ignorance. Any midwife, looking at this eight month-or-so pregnancy, wouldn’t be in any doubt that it was well advanced and the drugs would never have been made available to Foster.

"Instead, this case has been seized on by interested groups to insist that administering abortifacients at home is just fine … Except, in this case, it was used to ensure that a baby girl was stillborn, six to eight weeks before what would have been her natural birth, but still qualifying comfortably for the status of ‘preterm’."

The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children comments:

“This is a tragic case for all involved, but it is important that the facts, as revealed in court, are reported. This is a horrifying case of a baby girl killed by an extremely late term abortion using DIY abortion drugs ... Abortion providers and pro-abortion politicians who are outraged at a case being taken for taking abortions pills “beyond the ten week limit” are not mentioning that we are talking about the tragic death of a fully viable baby of eight months ...

"The needless tragedy of this death and its consequences should shame abortion giants like BPAS. They make business from the “DIY Abortion” policy which recklessly permits the distribution of deadly abortion drugs to be sent in the post ... BPAS forcefully campaigned for abortion drugs to be sent to women in the post, and for women to self-administer these drugs with no medical supervision or support ... Now, that this policy has led to nearly full-term babies being killed well past the legal limit, abortion giants like BPAS are attempting to cover up this tragedy by calling for abortion to be entirely removed from the oversight of the law."

In the Catholic Herald, Katherine Bennet writes:

"What this case has revealed is the disconnect between ordinary people who retain some common (natural) sense about human life and extremists who plan to use this tragic case to lobby for removing what the World Health Organisation calls “unnecessary policy barriers such as limits on when during pregnancy abortion can take place”.  This Saturday a protest will take place at the Royal Courts of Justice where those who failed Carla and Lily Foster will call for a reform to the law that would remove the 24 week upper limit.

We are now seeing the flower of the seed that was planted almost 60 years ago and it looks a lot like infanticide. 

Though there is no appetite in this country to see such a change in law, yet again a loud minority of fanatics are attempting to corral others into adopting the same liberal vision as them ...  A person of basic decency and intellectual honesty would never approve of abortion, let alone late-term abortion. What has happened and will continue to happen if the ordinary man does not fight back is what Ramesh Ponnuru describes as a “deep corruption of conscience.  

"The results of such corruption are becoming clearer each day ... "

Dr Callum Miller, researcher, ethicist, philosopher and medical doctor, tweets: 

“Lily was 8 months old.  She was fully formed, sentient, capable of feeling pain ... She was viable and could have survived outside of the womb. She did not have a disability, her mother’s life was not at risk.  She was aborted – killed – at home with no medical supervision. If they listened to the many medical professionals who opposed abortion pills by post for safety reasons, baby Lily might still be alive and her mother might not be in jail. The pro-abortion lobby did this, they are to blame.”

Alithia Williams writes in Premier Christianity:

"How does a Christian respond compassionately to this sad situation? It is natural to wonder if imprisonment is really the best answer here. But it is important to note that many of those protesting the sentence have their own agenda ...

"Our natural compassion for a deeply remorseful woman should not play into the hands of the extreme abortion lobby ... Should unborn babies have no rights at all? Did Lily’s life have no value, and should there be no penalty for her death? ...

"Decriminalisation will not help women. Vulnerable and coerced women are more likely to have late abortions ... The ‘pills by post’ policy only makes these women more vulnerable and unable to access the help and support they may need. Laws against aborting a baby that is old enough to survive a normal hospital delivery help to prevent dangerous, traumatic late-term abortions ... More responsibility should be laid at the hands of abortion providers, who knowingly campaigned for a dangerous policy, and now are using the predictably horrific consequences to push their own agenda.

"We should pray for Carla Foster, that she finds hope and healing, and for her family. But we must also honour the memory of baby Lily, and not allow a cruel abortion lobby to remove legal protection for other babies like her."

Even some who support abortion have pushed back.

Alison Pearson, writing for the Telegraph, "fully supports" regulated abortion because "insisting women should have babies they don't want, or can't provide for, is not humane to mother or child." She asserts: "If you choose to abort your baby at 32 weeks, jail is exactly where you belong."

What's the difference between a 1 week old baby and a 32 week old baby? One is viabile outside the mother's womb; the other is not. She acknowledges it getting tougher to defend the 24 week limit for abortion because medical advances mean "foetuses can survive earlier outside the womb." Notice the switch from "foetus" to "baby".

In similar vein, writing for the Daily Mail, Nana Akua, describing herself as "passionately pro-choice", having undergone two abortions herself, offers this similarly inconsistent observation:

"It would be a monster who did not feel some compassion for Carla, who was clearly under enormous stress ... At 32 weeks, she was close to full term. Why not continue the pregnancy for a few more weeks and then allow a childless couple the joy of adoption? Instead, she chose to give birth to a stillborn baby, a senseless deprivation of life for which, despite the outcry from women’s rights groups, only a custodial sentence can be appropriate ... (she) callously chose to take a pill to end her child’s life."

Don't these propositions apply to any abortion?

The last comment is best left to Carla Foster. The night before her sentencing, she placed this message on her Facebook page:

"No one has the right to judge you because no one knows what you've been through. They may have heard stories, but they didn't feel what you felt."