Tragic late-term abortion case highlights dangers of pills-by-post scheme

A woman who illegally took abortion pills at home while around six months pregnant has recently appeared in court.

Nicola Packer procured abortion pills from Marie Stopes by falsely claiming she was under 10 weeks pregnant.

She later went to the hospital with the deceased foetus in her bag, telling nurses she had experienced a miscarriage and was 16-18 weeks pregnant. A postmortem revealed the baby was 26 weeks old and healthy, meaning the abortion occurred past the legal 24-week limit.

It was also far beyond the legal 10-week limit for taking abortion medication at home without clinical supervision.

The prosecution showed evidence from Ms Packer’s internet searches that she had known about her pregnancy for 10 weeks prior to seeking an abortion and had plainly lied to a nurse about the abortion pills and the baby’s gestational age.

The case raises serious questions about the safety and oversight of the pills-by-post abortion scheme, introduced during the Covid-19 lockdown.

Under the current model, patients access abortion medication following a telephone or online consultation. No physical examination or ultrasound is required. This approach relies on patients accurately reporting the date of their last menstrual period—something that can be uncertain or deliberately misreported.

This lack of clinical oversight puts both women and healthcare providers in a difficult position and leads to real concerns that vulnerable women—those facing coercion, denial, or fear—may not disclose the full truth during remote assessments.

Furthermore, in cases where the pregnancy is further along than reported, the risk of complications increases significantly.

While the pills-by-post system was introduced as a temporary measure during a public health emergency, it has since been made permanent in England and Wales.

But cases like this demonstrate that serious consequences can arise when clinical safeguards are reduced. Without in-person checks, opportunities for safeguarding, medical assessment, and informed decision-making may be missed.

The Crown Prosecution Service said cases of this nature are extremely rare, but the ruling has raised fears that the current system fails to prevent serious legal and ethical breaches. Critics have called for urgent reform to ensure that abortion laws are respected and that women in crisis are properly safeguarded.