UK Cops Take an Interest in Miscarriages

May 22, 2025

Plus: justice for Salt-N-Pepa ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌

May 22, 2025

Greetings, Meteor readers,

Today’s date is a numeric palindrome, and something about that is just so utterly satisfying. I hope writing out 5/22/25 multiple times today was as good for you as it was for me.

In today’s newsletter, we take a trip across the pond and examine the UK’s guidance on how police officers should investigate women after pregnancy loss. Plus, your weekend reading list.

52225,

Shannon Melero

WHAT’S GOING ON

ABCAN (All British cops are nosy): Earlier this week, the UK’s National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) released new guidance on how officers should investigate stillbirths, “unlawful termination,” and infant deaths immediately after birth. Part of the guidance–which, according to the Observer, was apparently issued without consulting any legal experts or doctors–states that if officers suspect an illegal abortion has taken place, they should seize devices and look through women’s internet histories, including their fertility trackers and Google searches. In other words: Even if you have a spontaneous miscarriage in the UK, police can search your belongings and phone for evidence of abortion.

“The new guidance is shocking,” Dr. Ranee Thakar, president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), told the Observer. “Women in these circumstances have a right to compassionate care and to have their dignity and privacy respected, not to have their homes, phones, computers, and health apps searched, or be arrested and interrogated.”

This is all the more startling when you consider that abortion is legal in the UK—up to 24 weeks, with some allowances for later-term abortions if the life of the mother is at risk. The term limits for taking abortion medication at home are much shorter, and that is only legal up to 10 weeks, leaving any women who self-manage an abortion beyond that period subject to investigation.

The NPCC is defending the new guidance, claiming that searches will only be conducted if there is a credible belief that a crime has taken place and that it’s not routine to launch an investigation after pregnancy loss. Still, investigations like these are on the rise. Last year, the BBC found “an unprecedented number of women” were being investigated on suspicion of unlawful abortion; six women in the UK have been prosecuted for abortion-related charges in the last couple of years, compared to only three reported convictions in the previous century and a half. Recent cases include that of Carla Foster, who was jailed after taking abortion pills after the legal timeline, and of Nicola Parker, who was unanimously acquitted of unlawfully inducing a miscarriage just weeks ago.

So why this renewed interest in policing pregnancy loss in the UK? Blame us, or to be clearer, the U.S. These investigations have neatly coincided with the fall of Roe, and in January, the international charity MSI Reproductive Choices outlined how Trump’s re-election would further embolden anti-abortion politicians to push more misinformation and spend more on anti-abortion messaging. That prophecy was fulfilled a few weeks ago when conservative MPs in the UK started delaying and picking apart a bill introduced by the Labour Party to decriminalize abortion throughout the UK, all while a teenager, Sophie Harvey, was on trial for an illegal abortion.

One Labour MP, Tonia Antoniazzi, thinks that even with the U.S.’s bad influence, the UK is poised to protect abortion. “I am confident that…my colleagues will agree that never again should a woman be prosecuted for ending her own pregnancy in England and Wales,” she told the BBC. (Another point in her favor: Nearly 90 percent of people in the UK are pro-choice.) A vote on two decriminalization amendments is expected to be held this summer.

AND:

The Trump administration’s “big beautiful bill” narrowly passed the House early this morning and is making its way to a Senate vote. How worried should we be? Very. If passed, the bill would cut hundreds of billions from Medicaid and make it harder to qualify for SNAP, two programs that benefit low-income Americans. Unsurprising. The bill would also create a “Trump account” for infants born in the next four years, which would invest $1,000 in financial markets on the child’s behalf (is that supposed to make up for the bill’s reduction in student loan benefits?). Cue Tupac’s Keep Ya Head Up.
The case of Adriana Smith, a woman in Georgia who is being kept on life support because she is roughly 22 weeks pregnant, is bringing about a spate of legal questions. Georgia’s attorney general wrote in a statement that the state’s abortion ban does not apply here because “removing life support is not an action ‘with the purpose to terminate a pregnancy.’” However, the doctors and legal guidance for the hospital caring for Smith argue that her treatment is in compliance with the law. Law professor Mary Ziegler told NPR that she suspects the hospital is being extra-cautious because Georgia has a provision in its abortion law about “fetal personhood.” If Georgia residents can claim a fetus as a dependent on their state taxes, would homicide charges for removing a pregnant woman’s life support be so far-fetched?
In an effort to increase detention and deportation, ICE is changing tactics: Officers have begun waiting outside immigration courts and checking the documents of anyone leaving. Typically, ICE officers are not present at the courts as their presence could be a deterrent to anyone with an appointment. One attorney told The Intercept, “I am very concerned that people might hear this and decide not to go to court because they think it’s unsafe. But if you don’t go to court, it’s automatic deportation, and that gives ICE an excuse to come for you a lot faster.”
Somebody please check up on the men, they’re shaving off their eyelashes to appear more masculine. Weird because hair removal has always been targeted to women??
Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees Salt-N-Pepa are suing Universal Music Group for rights to their master recordings. The plaintiffs, Cheryl James and Sandra Denton (DJ Spinderella is not part of the suit), allege that UMG has been pulling their songs from streaming platforms in retaliation for their years-long efforts to own their music. Apart from ownership, Denton and James are asking for punitive damages and to be paid the money they lost when their songs were allegedly suppressed.

WEEKEND READING 📚

On unsolved mysteries: Roanoke College in Virginia has seen a surge in cancer cases over the last 17 years—disproportionately affecting women. What the heck is going on over there? (Airmail)

On a water war: Climate change has disturbed rainfall patterns in the West Bank, which wouldn’t be such a problem if Israel weren’t also weaponizing water. (Atmos)

On eternal youth: Sofia Coppola revisits The Virgin Suicides. (i-D)