Are you really pro-choice if you disagree with late-stage abortions?

Many “pro-choice” feminists are in disarray after a woman in the UK was sentenced to 28 months in prison for illegally procuring drugs to induce an abortion at 32-to-34 weeks (roughly seven to eight months).

It’s understood that the woman in this case – a mother of three who we are choosing not to name – received the medication under the “pills by post” scheme after misleading the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) about how far along she was in the pregnancy.

As the news of her sentencing broke – and was condemned by the likes of the BPAS, the Fawcett Society, and the Women’s Equality Party – comments that began “I’m pro-choice but…”  started to trickle through on social media:

“I’m pro-choice. But at 32 weeks, it’s a different ball game.”

“I am pro-choice. But this baby was aborted at 34 weeks. That is entirely viable.”

“I’m pro-abortion rights, but THIS turns my stomach.”

Various people have condemned this rhetoric, with one person tweeting, “Sorry, no, you are not pro-choice if you think a pregnancy choice you disagree with should be criminalised,” while another wrote, “You’re not pro-choice if you put a time limit on women’s bodily autonomy.”

Variations on ‘My body. My choice’/’No uterus? No opinion’/’Girls just wanna have FUNdamental human rights’ have long been plastered across placards in response to the ongoing attacks on reproductive rights, but with catchy slogans comes sketchy politics. And the response to this case – troubling as it may be – has exposed the empathy vacuum at the heart of British feminism and played directly into the anti-choice movement’s hands.

Justice Pepperall, the judge who delivered the controversial sentence, declared that she “knew full well [her] pregnancy was beyond the limit of 24 weeks,” adding that she “deliberately lied to gain access to telemedical services.”

“Toiling over these details – and not the utterly grim circumstances that led to this woman’s decision – is a move straight out of the ‘pro-life’ playbook.”

Much of the “I’m pro-choice… but” response has focused on these comments, debating the duration of the pregnancy, the woman’s perceived knowledge of the pregnancy, and her deception of the healthcare provider.

But toiling over these details – and not the utterly grim circumstances that led to this woman’s decision – is a move straight out of the ‘pro-life’ playbook.

Some have responded to the case by posting photos of children born prematurely on social media. It’s a deeply understandable reaction, but it conflates a rare, tragic case of a “late-stage” abortion, with the 58,000 babies born prematurely in the UK every year (per Bliss), most of who receive vital healthcare. It plants a faint terror that all 32-week-old foetuses are at risk of abortion – they’re not – and inadvertently resembles the emotive tactics used by anti-choice activists to guilt-trip women to continue unwanted pregnancies, which ironically increases the chances of an illegal, late-stage abortion happening later on.

Elsewhere, anti-choice organisations are petitioning for the pills-by-post scheme to be scrapped, insisting that any pregnant person – regardless of what trimester they’re in – should attend an in-person appointment before having an abortion. Never mind that the woman, in this case, was unable to attend any in-person appointments due to the government-mandated lockdown. Never mind that revoking permission for abortion providers to dispense medication could result in “increased waiting times, a shortfall of appointments, and a 43% increase in terminations post-20 weeks” (per BPAS).

Activists who consider themselves to be ‘pro-life’ are infamously only concerned with the preservation of life as it pertains to controlling women’s bodies, which is why the reaction to this case is so fraught.

Whether you’re “pro-choice” or “pro-choice… but,” we should all be able to agree that the woman in question should not be imprisoned and separated from her three children, one of whom is disabled. What public interest does this serve? Beyond publicly humiliating and chastising a woman who made a desperate decision in desperate circumstances.

Reproductive rights in the UK have been hard-won, but still, they’re shockingly inadequate. When the Supreme Court revoked the legal right to abortion in the USA last year, we congratulated ourselves here in the UK for our comparative freedoms. But our response to this case has shown that we’re closer to a post-Roe world than we think – indeed, many of us appear to be actively ushering it in.

For more from Glamour UK’s Lucy Morgan, follow her on Instagram @lucyalexxandra.