R v Foster: Exemplifying the urgency of the decriminalisation of abortion

Romanis, Elizabeth Chloe

Abstract

On 12th June 2023, Ms Foster was sentenced in the Stoke-on-Trent Crown Court to 28 months’ imprisonment after pleading guilty to unlawful procurement of miscarriage.1 This sentence was shortly after reduced to 14 months and suspended by the Court of Appeal.2 Ms Foster had obtained abortion medications from the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) in May 2024. She did so through their telemedical abortion care pathway, which had been established just over a month prior when the law dictating where abortion medications could be administered in England and Wales had been temporarily relaxed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.3 This case is important as the first in which a person has been sentenced for unlawful procurement of miscarriage after obtaining abortion medications through telemedicine. In this short commentary, I reflect on the implications of this case for telemedical abortion services and abortion-seekers. First, I set out the relevant law facts of this case, and the key points raised by Pepperall J (Crown Court) and Sharp P (Court of Appeal) in sentencing. Second, I reflect on the intersection between criminal law and the telemedical provision of abortion. I illustrate that while abortion remains tightly criminally regulated,4 telemedical provision increases the likelihood of people inadvertently falling foul of the criminal law. Third, therefore, I argue that this case exemplifies the urgency of the decriminalisation of abortion in England and Wales.

Citation

Romanis, E. C. (online). R v Foster: Exemplifying the urgency of the decriminalisation of abortion. Medical Law Review, 31(4), 606–614. https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwad026

• Journal Article Type: Article
• Acceptance Date: Jul 27, 2023
• Online Publication Date: Aug 10, 2023
• Deposit Date: Oct 13, 2023
• Publicly Available Date: Aug 11, 2025
• Journal: Medical Law Review
• Print ISSN: 0967-0742
• Electronic ISSN: 1464-3790
• Publisher: Oxford University Press
• Peer Reviewed: Peer Reviewed
• Volume: 31
• Issue: 4
• Pages: 606–614
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwad026
• Public URL: https://durham-repository.worktribe.com/output/1792425