On November 13, 2025, the Gauhati High Court in India delivered a landmark judgment that has sent shockwaves through both legal and public health circles. The Court upheld the conviction and seven-year rigorous imprisonment of an elderly woman for causing the death of an eight-month pregnant woman during a crude and illegal abortion procedure. This grim case, marked by the use of a fishing hook to forcibly extract the fetus, highlights the dangers of unauthorized abortion practices and the legal system’s determination to hold perpetrators accountable, regardless of age or intent.
The facts of the case, as reported by LiveLaw, are harrowing. The victim, already a mother of five, sought help from the appellant to terminate her late-stage pregnancy. Instead of directing her to a qualified medical facility, the appellant—who possessed no medical training—administered crude abortifacient substances and, in a shocking escalation, used a fishing hook to attempt the abortion. The result was catastrophic: massive hemorrhage, septicemia, and ultimately, the young mother’s death.
Justice Kaushik Goswami, delivering the Court’s opinion, left little room for ambiguity. “Consent of the deceased for abortion does not exonerate the appellant because the act was performed: without medical qualification, in a crude and unhygienic manner, and in a manner imminently dangerous to life,” he wrote. The Court rejected the defense’s plea for leniency on account of the appellant’s advanced age and supposed lack of intent. “The conduct of the appellant borders on barbarity,” Justice Goswami stated, emphasizing that “age, though relevant, cannot dilute the gravity of the offence.”
Eyewitness testimony played a pivotal role in the case. The deceased’s sister-in-law, identified as PW-1, described the horror she witnessed: the appellant using a fishing hook to extract parts of the unborn child while the victim screamed and begged for help. “PW-1’s testimony is natural, consistent, and unimpeached. Nothing was elicited to shake her testimony,” the Court noted. The daughter of the deceased (PW-3) corroborated these events, painting a chilling picture of the ordeal.
Medical evidence sealed the case. PW-5, the doctor who performed the post-mortem, testified that “the uterus was pale and perforated, with remnants of the foetus present. Death was caused by shock as a result of haemorrhage and septicemia following mid-trimester incomplete abortion.” The injuries, the doctor confirmed, were consistent with manipulation using a hook-like object, directly linking the appellant’s actions to the fatal outcome.
Despite the appellant’s plea for a reduced sentence due to her age—she is now over 70—the Court stood firm. “Old age cannot wash away culpability for a heinous act,” Justice Goswami declared. The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act in India strictly regulates abortion, requiring that only competent medical practitioners perform such procedures under defined conditions. The Court concluded, “The appellant’s actions exhibit reckless disregard for life and human dignity.”
“Seven years is not excessive—it is the minimum required for justice,” the judgment read. The Court stressed that “sentencing must balance societal interest and individual circumstances. The conviction under Section 314 IPC and the sentence imposed thereof are just, proper, proportionate, and in accordance with law.”
This case underscores a critical issue: the intersection of consent, legality, and safety in reproductive health. The Court’s reasoning makes it clear that even if a woman requests an abortion, if the method chosen is manifestly unsafe and performed by someone unqualified, the act is criminal. As the judgment put it, “Consent alone cannot sanitize a patently dangerous and illegal act.”
While the tragedy in India highlights the perils of unsafe abortions, a different but equally urgent debate is unfolding in England and Wales. On November 22, 2025, a report titled “Abortion and Childlessness” by Kevin Duffy, a Catholic pro-life activist and former Marie Stopes International employee, brought renewed attention to the long-term social and demographic consequences of abortion.
Duffy’s research, as reported by Catholic News Agency, projects that by 2045, up to one in four women in England and Wales may reach age 45 without having given birth, with abortion being a major factor in about half of these cases. Notably, Duffy does not claim that abortion causes infertility. Rather, he points to the risk that women who have abortions in their 20s and remain childless at 30 face a 50% chance of still being childless at 45, due to timing pressures and natural fertility decline.
“In 2022, it is very likely that more than 5,000 childless women aged 29, presenting for an abortion, were not warned of the 50% chance that they would remain childless at 45,” Duffy stated. Data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) revealed that in 2022, 48% of conceptions among women up to age 25 ended in abortion. The total fertility rate (TFR) in England and Wales was just 1.41 in 2023—the lowest on record for the third consecutive year and well below the replacement level of 2.1.
Duffy argues that abortion providers rarely inform women of these risks. “They need to be told. Abortion providers should be letting them know that there is a risk. That abortion may be ending the only chance you have of becoming a mother,” he said. The report warns that continued declines in fertility rates could result in workforce shortages and an unsustainable age structure, with profound consequences for society.
The debate in the UK is further complicated by legislative developments. An amendment to the government’s Crime and Policing Bill could, if passed, allow women to perform their own abortions at any stage of pregnancy, raising concerns about the safety and oversight of such procedures. The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, in a November 14 statement, reaffirmed its opposition to decriminalizing abortion, describing it as “an assault on the value of human life” and calling for laws that “protect life, preserve human dignity, and promote the common good.”
Pro-life advocates like Isabel Vaughan-Spruce emphasize the need to recognize the emotional and spiritual dimensions of abortion. “When discussing ‘childlessness,’ we frequently overlook a crucial fact: Many women counted as childless have conceived a child but have then had an abortion. The truth is that life begins at conception, meaning motherhood and fatherhood begin then as well. No act, not even abortion, can erase that reality,” she told Catholic News Agency.
Andrea Williams, chief executive of Christian Concern’s Christian Legal Centre, echoed these concerns: “Abortion providers fail to give women the full picture of what the choice to abort will mean for them in the long term. How many women would make different decisions if they knew of the 50/50 chance that they would never have children?”
Both the Indian court ruling and the UK report highlight the need for robust legal and medical frameworks to safeguard women’s health and autonomy while ensuring that decisions are informed by accurate information and performed within the bounds of safety and legality. As societies grapple with the complexities of reproductive rights, the message from courts and campaigners alike is clear: accountability, transparency, and compassion must guide every step.
These stories, from the courtroom in Gauhati to the research labs of England, remind us that the consequences of abortion—legal, medical, and social—are profound and far-reaching, demanding vigilance, honesty, and humanity from all involved.
