You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Wonder if this will be picked up and confirmed by other media? The quote from Jonathan Lord seems to confirm this is happening.
https://www.tortoisemedia.com/2023/10/30/british-police-testing-women-for-abortion-drugs/
I guess the only advice that women should be taking on board and, if you're a man, passing to female partners, friends and relatives, is to delete menstrual tracking apps immediately. And if you're in the awful situation of unexplained pregnancy loss, to be cautious of the purpose of blood tests requested by NHS staff.
It's interesting that one of the financial backers of menstrual tracking apps is the investment firm owned by US right-winger Peter Thiel. Who also owns a significant chunk of Palantir, the firm which is seeking access to NHS patient data.
I guess the only advice that women should be taking on board and, if you’re a man, passing to female partners, friends and relatives, is to delete menstrual tracking apps immediately.
? I’m not sure why men would feel the need to advise women on what privacy steps they should or shouldn’t take. Your advice does sound like a good plan for someone planning to force a late abortion? I’m not sure it’s such good advice for the 99.999% of women who are not pregnant and who will deal with any pregnancy lawfully. I suppose if you were pregnant and worried about being wrongly accused in case of accidental pregnancy loss you might delete the apps too but that seems quite extreme. It’s probably a better idea for ALL of us to spend a bit more time thinking about how ALL of your data is used/abused. Eg I think Apple HealthKit has a period tracker built in - I’d be much more inclined to believe that is not being used to sell you shit than some startup.
And if you’re in the awful situation of unexplained pregnancy loss, to be cautious of the purpose of blood tests requested by NHS staff.
I can only assume you’ve never dealt with someone who has lost a baby? Most want to know why, and what they might do to mitigate it happening again. Telling them to be suspicious of blood tests is almost pointing the finger at them.
Telling them to be suspicious of blood tests is almost pointing the finger at them.
"almost"?
Anyone would think that the police can just pop to the hospital and smile nicely at the receptionist to get one of your blood samples.
I'd suggest that if the police start producing a warrant for a blood test you're past the point of being suspicious about their motives.
I get access denied from work's firewall if I try to access that dodgy tortoisemedia site. My access attempt has been logged 😳
desperatebicycle
Free Member
I get access denied from work’s firewall if I try to access that dodgy tortoisemedia site. My access attempt has been logged 😳
Yeah, I didn't click that
My point was that if the blood test has been requested by the police, its true purpose may not be properly disclosed to the patient, in which case consent has not been obtained. Women who have just gone through a traumatic experience like unexplained pregnancy loss are in a very vulnerable position. Of course many may want to find out if there are any obvious reasons for it, but they should only be consenting to tests which are clinically-relevant, rather than those requested by the police.
It's not pointing the finger, it's just making sure consent is obtained properly. Women have the right to know if they are subject to police investigation. A warrant is not always required for this, it can be done if a medical practitioner and the patient agrees to it, so the patient may not be made aware of the reason for the test.
This thread is going to run to multiple pages and then get closed, isn't it. I'll get the "forum full of middle aged blokes commenting on what women should do with their bodies" shot in now in order to get that out of the way.
On the one hand, illegal abortions are, well, illegal. Whilst the law may be a bit "speed limit sign," a point in time has been established where the foetus is legally considered to be a baby rather than a bag of cells. And of course suspected illegal activity has to be investigated.
On the other... for ****'s sake, where's the compassion here? A woman terminating a pregnancy beyond the legally prescribed time limit (or even within it) cannot be something taken lightly. The mental and physical trauma must be astronomical. The bulk of these women surely aren't criminals, they're victims. And that's assuming it's intentional.
Demanding access to phones (no) for access to menstrual data (WTAF?) because a miscarriage could have been induced? Even when it's a premature birth? Isn't 'reasonable suspicion' suppose to be a tort of English Law? Maybe it's time for a review of an Act from 1861.
I can't quite believe what I've just read. Well, except, I can, because y'know, Tories.
I get access denied from work’s firewall if I try to access that dodgy tortoisemedia site.
Here you go.
>>
British police are testing women for abortion drugs and requesting data from menstrual tracking apps after unexplained pregnancy losses.
Tortoise has seen forensic reports in which police have requested a mass spectrometry test, which can detect the presence of the abortion drugs mifepristone and misoprostol in the urine, blood and placenta of women under investigation.
Other reports include requests for “data related to menstruation tracking applications” as part of the police’s investigations.
It’s understood these requests have been taking place for at least the past three years. Dr Jonathan Lord, co-chair of the British Society of Abortion Care Providers and an NHS consultant gynaecologist, called searching women’s phones for menstrual data “chilling and deeply intrusive”.
“We already know that police routinely remove phones and computers from women suspected of having an [illegal] abortion and it’s even happening following miscarriage and pregnancy loss,” Lord said. “This is damaging enough as it leaves women frightened and isolated immediately after suffering a substantial trauma.”
Lord told Tortoise he was aware of cases of blood tests being taken with the woman’s consent by NHS staff at the request of police, including, he said, “when women knew they were innocent after suffering an unexpected premature delivery”.
Even when the test finds no trace of abortion medication women can continue to remain under suspicion “as a negative test does not exclude earlier use of drugs”, he said. In that event, he argued, “the only motivation for testing is entrapment”.
Although abortion was legalised in England and Wales in 1967, the procedure is still criminal in specific circumstances.
Under Section 58 of the Offence Against the Person Act 1861, which carries a maximum life sentence, it is illegal for a woman to administer “poison” (abortion pills) with the intent to cause her own miscarriage after the 24-week legal limit.
Last month, the fifth woman this year appeared in an English court charged under Section 58, compared with only three previous prosecutions in the past 160 years.
In 2021, a teenage girl with an unexplained early stillbirth faced a year-long criminal investigation that examined her text messages and search history before police dropped the case. A coroner concluded the pregnancy ended because of natural causes.
In Poland, where there has been a near-total ban on legal abortion since 2020, there were concerns raised earlier this year in response to a state-funded study which reported forensic tests could be used to detect abortion bills in foetal and maternal samples.
A recent Human Rights Watch report found there were “sweeping and speculative” investigations of women in Poland – including those who had a legal medical abortion. The practice, it said, “can only be described as a witch hunt”.
Last month, the New York Times claimed tests to detect abortion drugs were being used in Poland “in rare cases” to investigate the outcomes of pregnancies, but that “these tests are not yet known to be in use anywhere else in the world”, including the US.
A spokesperson for AidAccess, which provides abortion pills by post to all 50 US states, said they were “not aware of toxicological tests for mifepristone and misoprostol being used in the US by police in any way yet” but they had heard of similar tests being used in Poland.
There has been a rise in cases of UK police investigating the procurement of illegal abortions in recent years, according to Home Office data. Campaigners say constitutes grounds for repealing the 1861 law and replacing it with medical regulation.
“It can never be in the public interest to subject a woman to criminal investigation following a pregnancy loss. They ought to expect compassion and sympathy. Not only are these investigations desperately cruel but they’re also an enormous waste of police resources,” Lord said.
Two weeks ago, the UK’s Court of Appeal ruled that jail was “unlikely to be just” in the case of Carla Foster. The 45 year-old was initially sentenced earlier this year to 28 months in prison for illegally procuring abortion drugs while she was over 32 weeks pregnant.
Since 2020, women in England who are less than 10 weeks pregnant have been able to have a medical abortion – taking mifepristone and then misoprostol – in their home after a phone or face-to-face appointment with a doctor.
The College of Policing says current guidance to police is not to routinely take samples when women are being investigated after the unexpected death of an infant immediately after birth, and that it is for lead investigating officers to decide which lines of enquiry to follow, including whether to seek biological samples.
It is unlawful for health professionals to take samples of bodily fluids without the informed consent of the patient, according to Dr Sally Sheldon, a law professor at Bristol University. “For that consent to be valid, patients need to understand the nature and purpose of the procedure to which they are consenting.”
In the investigation of women after an unexplained pregnancy loss, she said “the woman would need to understand that blood or urine or placenta samples are to be used not for diagnostic purposes but in pursuit of a criminal investigation”.
Even if this is explained to the woman and they agree to a forensic analysis of samples, “given the nature of these cases, there are grounds for concern regarding whether her consent was truly valid and informed,” Dr Sheldon said.
After Roe v Wade was overturned in the US last summer, removing the constitutional right to an abortion, women were urged by activists and data privacy experts to delete period trackers over fears law enforcement could use the data to identify those seeking abortions.
One of the most popular period tracking apps, Clue, responded to these concerns by stating it “would not respond to any disclosure request or attempted subpoena” of their users’ health data by US authorities, or any authorities.
Other apps launched “anonymous mode” which removed identifiable user information, or implemented end-to-end encryption of users’ data.
Dr Allison Holmes, Lecturer in Law at the University of Kent told Tortoise she was not surprised to hear menstrual app data was being requested by UK police when investigating suspected illegal abortions, based on her research into the treatment of victims’ phones in sexual offence investigations.
The UK Home Office was approached but did not comment.
The National Police Chiefs’ Council was approached for comment but had not responded at the time of publication.
I’d suggest that if the police start producing a warrant for a blood test you’re past the point of being suspicious about their motives.
Also, a police officer can't go requesting info like period tracking data or blood test data willy-nilly. They must be able to demonstrate that there is reasonable suspicion of a crime taking or having taken place.
My copper mate was lamenting to me on Saturday how much paperwork he has to do to download the data from a phone he already has in possession after an arrest.
We're not in America, the tin foil hats can be safely stored away under the stairs again
EDIT - My reply was written without having read the article linked. My point still stands that there has a be reasonable grounds to conduct any form of search or blood test however grim and gruesome
This is all profoundly wrong - police effectively harassing distressed women while on the other hand claiming not to have the resources to catch actual criminals, or police the roads in an adequate way (and I’d bet the road KSIs in one week far exceed the number of illegal terminations of pregnancy in the UK each year).
If I lived in the area that the police forces doing this operated, I’d be writing to the PCC (who, let’s not forget is directly elected) saying this must not be a policing priority and must cease.
Just in case anyone hasn't noticed (although if you haven't you either don't read the news or are very selective about how you read it) women's bodies and privacy are under attack in a way we probably haven't seen since the 60s. Anywhere where the culture wars are particularly hot (which, believe it or not, includes the UK) there is an effort to take away women's autonomy.
This is part of it.
to be cautious of the purpose of blood tests requested by NHS staff.
Point of order, they may be carried out by the NHS, but you mean the cops are requesting these tests.
And also - NHS staff shouldn’t be doing blood tests at police behest, these need to be done by a police surgeon (DOI am occasionally asked to do this in other circs and we’ve always said ‘no’)
On the other… for ****’s sake, where’s the compassion here? A woman terminating a pregnancy beyond the legally prescribed time limit (or even within it) cannot be something taken lightly. The mental and physical trauma must be astronomical. The bulk of these women surely aren’t criminals, they’re victims. And that’s assuming it’s intentional.
We have had a very unfortunate recent case of a woman jailed for a significant stretch (overturned on appeal, but..) for inducing an illegal late-term abortion.
While it's illegal, as you say, there does not appear to be the corresponding balance of compassion in the system.
As for 'it's not the states, relax bro', we should always be cautious about any chance of deception or overreach in the use of police powers. And fully aware that if we sign up to something as seemingly benign as a menstrual tracking app, there is still potential for our personal data to be used against us.
Point of order, they may be carried out by the NHS, but you mean the cops are requesting these tests.
The implication of the article was that clinicians were cooperating with police requests on the basis of very flimsy consent. The patient has to consent, or they need to go get a warrant. The source the article quotes is a pretty reliable one, and based on anecdotal evidence obtained by him, but I would hope that this is followed up elsewhere.
This thread is going to run to multiple pages and then get closed, isn’t it.
I'd hope not. Men don't have the right to tell women what to do with their bodies, but we all have a stake in making sure there is safe access to reproductive medicine.
we all have a stake in making sure there is safe access to reproductive medicine.
We all have a duty to protect or at least support those who are more vulnerable than ourselves. Not that I'm white knighting nor suggesting that women are the same oppressed minority that a black trannsexual lesbian vegan christian sex worker may be, but rather "men + women" is a louder voice than "women."
As someone else said, women's rights are being eroded. We should all be concerned about that.
(... not that twelve pages of discussion here is likely to change anything, but hey.)
My point was that if the blood test has been requested by the police, its true purpose may not be properly disclosed to the patient, in which case consent has not been obtained.
In which case its an illegal assault and both the medical staff and the police will be in big trouble
Basically I think this is a scare story in the culture wars. From what I know of NHS and police proceedures its just not going to happen
Is Tortoise not a credible source? I've never heard of it before.
It reads like its made up from bits and bobs - 2+2 = 22
nope me neither, sounds like it's legit tho (notwithstanding any biases/agenda, not looked into that!!) as set up by ex-BBC News director/editor of The Times:Is Tortoise not a credible source? I’ve never heard of it before.
As ever, I prefer to read about stuff from a variety of sources, but the people quoted are certainly reputable, so as long as they've been accurately quoted, I'd give it a bit more weight. Some of the newer journalism sites popping up seem to want to do the job better than the established ones at the moment.
This is all profoundly wrong – police effectively harassing distressed women while on the other hand claiming not to have the resources to catch actual criminals, or police the roads in an adequate way (and I’d bet the road KSIs in one week far exceed the number of illegal terminations of pregnancy in the UK each year).
If I lived in the area that the police forces doing this operated, I’d be writing to the PCC (who, let’s not forget is directly elected) saying this must not be a policing priority and must cease.
the story smells wrong to me (clearly if it’s content is as presented there’s something wrong too) but despite being fairly well written it doesn’t provide any information about which police force, what the cops had to say about it etc - ie it’s a rumour written up as fact. I don’t think you have anything to worry about the cops suddenly taking blood samples and phone from every woman who has a miscarriage or still birth. Presumably the cops only become involved if either the medical staff or a relative of the woman raise a suspicion. I don’t think anyone here would object to the cops taking phone or even blood samples from the mother of a newborn who dies in suspicious circumstances, albeit we might have some element of compassion for the mental health situation that likely led to it. If we turn that round to be someone forcing a still birth a few days before the due date, I don’t really see a massive difference. You can continue to move that timeline back until you reach a point where some actions may be legal, and then the police have zero interest anyway. <br /><br />
We have had a very unfortunate recent case of a woman jailed for a significant stretch (overturned on appeal, but..) for inducing an illegal late-term abortion.
While it’s illegal, as you say, there does not appear to be the corresponding balance of compassion in the system.<br /><br />
id say that the appeal court showed quite convincingly there is compassion in the system. Whilst it’s unfortunate for the woman involved that it had to go that far - the flip side is that it now creates a precedent which other judges can look to when deciding any future cases - such cases are (thankfully) so rare that there aren’t any guidelines or benchmarks to work with until now.
And fully aware that if we sign up to something as seemingly benign as a menstrual tracking app, there is still potential for our personal data to be used against us.
im not sure exactly how you think that data is used against you by a U.K. police force - presumably to establish the likely “age” of a foetus? There would potentially be other ways to established the same - clinical evidence (ultrasound, hormone levels etc), dates of buying sanitary products, witness evidence from partners or friends, purchase history of pregnancy tests, search history etc. not to mention paper based diaries that people used before apps etc. Really the police are the last people I’d worry about having that data. Business working out the perfect time to advertise to you, or lobby groups identifying when in your cycle you might be most likely to signup to their agenda would be much more concerning, and frankly likely, than some cop deciding when you had done nothing wrong to construct a case from your app data!
I’d hope not. Men don’t have the right to tell women what to do with their bodies,
and yet you feel you should be advising the women in your life which apps they should use. I’m all for men being supportive of womens rights but the idea they need advice from men on IT privacy is a bit ridiculous. The idea that they would need that because they might want to cover up a late abortion is even more bizarre.
nothing wrong with Tortoise, they do some very good podcast series!
Back to the topic though, the world is in weird place again, really does feel like 5th Element/Blade-runner/total recal type control going on everywhere - i blame religion and America.
I’m all for men being supportive of womens rights but the idea they need advice from men on IT privacy is a bit ridiculous.
Anyone could benefit from privacy advice, regardless of the gender of either party. I'd take security advice from people like Holly Grace Williams any day of the week, she knows more about the subject than any men in the room.
and yet you feel you should be advising the women in your life which apps they should use.
If I'm crossing the street next to a woman, and I see a speeding car coming which she hasn't noticed, should I warn her? Or is that some kind of white-knight mansplain thing?
I use the principle that if I've heard something that another person might appreciate knowing, then I'll share it with them, regardless of sex. That person is free to tell me to bugger off, I'm not going to grab the phone and delete the app.
I tried googling for any other articles supporting this story. So far I can only find the one already linked. Lots of stuff about Poland and the US nothing about the uk. Has anyone else got an alternative source
If I’m crossing the street next to a woman, and I see a speeding car coming which she hasn’t noticed, should I warn her?
That’s not quite the analogy. That would be a specific women and a specific risk. You knew some one in hospital bed and had seem the police on the ward.
Your asking huge chunk of the population to take action not because you saw the car but found an article online that said there might be cars
nope me neither, sounds like it’s legit tho (notwithstanding any biases/agenda, not looked into that!!) as set up by ex-BBC News director/editor of The Times:
Setup by James Harding who was involved in the phone hacking scandal.
was he 🤔who was involved in the phone hacking scandal.
Setup by James Harding who was involved in the phone hacking scandal.
I'm not sure if that came out wrong, was an attempt to be intentionally misleading, or if you only read the headlines that popped up on Google and got the wrong idea.
That’s not quite the analogy. That would be a specific women and a specific risk. You knew some one in hospital bed and had seem the police on the ward.
No, the point was that if I think that there is information that is useful, I'll pass it on, and just because the person involved is female doesn't automatically make me a paternalistic oaf.
It isn't a command, people are free to look at the article and decide that, on balance, these apps offer something positive to them.
We're all cattle, just with a billion different gotchas unlike the 4 legged variety, but they'll find the genes eventually, and homogenize us too, halt evolution, while they inbreed with lizards.
people are free to look at the article and decide that, on balance,
Its a load of baloney. the NHS does not work like that nor do UK police
I’m not sure if that came out wrong, was an attempt to be intentionally misleading, or if you only read the headlines that popped up on Google and got the wrong idea.
He was involved with it was he not?
Its a load of baloney. the NHS does not work like that nor do UK police
It seems extremely unlikely to me.
I don't know, depends on what level of involvement you're claiming.
He certainly never did it, encouraged it or turned a blind eye to it.
Was he not editor at the time and ‘accidentally’ forgot one his staff was involved?
I read a shitton of news items via Flipboard, a lot is about anti-abortion but it’s all about what the Christo-fascists and extreme Right Republicans are doing and saying in America; this is certainly the first time my attention has been drawn to the police acting like this, I have never heard of Tortoise before, and with the preponderance of bogus news items all over the internet creating stuff like this purportedly factual article about things nobody else has heard of, I really wouldn’t treat it seriously at all. I wonder what Snopes might have to say about it…? 🤔
Snopes don’t appear to have any fact checking records of it at the moment.
I guess the only advice that women should be taking on board and, if you’re a man, passing to female partners, friends and relatives, is to delete menstrual tracking apps immediately.
Not being a woman, I'm not an expert in this area, but deleting menstruation tracking apps seems like cutting off access to a free and useful way for a woman to manage her own health...?
So to summarise, police might be over-reaching when investigating things that are actual crimes for better or worse. Business as usual then?
No - to summarise, someone on the internet has made a load of allegations with no real evidence and is claiming not only are the police acting well outside their powers but all the NHS staff are colluding with them despite it being gross professional misconduct to do so
Was he not editor at the time and ‘accidentally’ forgot one his staff was involved?
Just do some googling. You'll be able to show that what you said was technically true, to which I'll point out you specifically said the phone hacking scandal, to which you'll say emails still count, to which I'll say it was a completely different situation, etc.
Summary, without his knowledge one of his reporters hacked a police officer's phone because he was trying to find out the identity of a blogger.
He was not even tangentially involved in hacking Milly Dowler's phone.
I have never heard of Tortoise
I've read it before, and I'd grade it no better or worse than any mainstream press outlet. Regardless of whether James Harding was involved in phone hacking, he was appointed by Murdoch as the Times Editor. The article is bit speculative, offers no evidence, very quickly moves onto Poland and the USA, very broad brush. Doesn't seem particularly believable to me at least.
He was not even tangentially involved in hacking Milly Dowler’s phone.
Do some Googling and you will see the scandal wasn’t just about Millie Dowler. He was involved, even recalled back to high court as he was found to not be truly honest.
Regardless this is currently nothing but ‘sources say’ clickbait article.
Do some Googling and you will see the scandal wasn’t just about Millie Dowler.
I know it wasn't just about Millie Dowler, but that's the first thing anyone thinks of whenever it is mentioned. And I think you know what I meant and are just being deliberately obtuse and trying to wiggle out of a statement you made because it is clearly false.
He was involved, even recalled back to high court as he was found to not be truly honest.
He was the editor when one of his reporters hacked an email account trying to uncover the identity of a police blogger. He was recalled to apologise.
Regardless this is currently nothing but ‘sources say’ clickbait article.
Yes, I'm sure we will look back on this in a few years time and think, 'What a lot of fuss about nothing. The Tories would never try to bring women's reproductive rights into their little culture wars.'
He was recalled to apologise.
He was not "recalled to apologise", as if the judge had their feefees hurt. He apologised when he was back giving evidence because he knew that one of his staff had hacked the emails and he failed to tell the court when he was supposed to!
Yeah, I'm not giving the Daily Mail any traffic, thanks.
Happy to read any other source and I'll happily admit if I'm wrong but I doubt very much if anyone is going to provide a link that shows him to be complicit in the phone hacking scandal.
Anyway, if it turns out the article is complete bollocks then the NHS and Police will be along to bring a defamation case, I'm sure.