A Kentucky Woman Was Charged with Fetal Homicide for Taking Abortion Pills. Here’s the Legal Landscape.

Last updated 1 day ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

A 35-year-old Kentucky woman was arrested on New Year’s Eve 2025 and charged with a capital offense—first-degree fetal homicide, which carries a potential life sentence. Days later, prosecutors dismissed the charge because Kentucky law explicitly protects pregnant women from prosecution for their own abortions. She remains in legal jeopardy on other felony charges.

Melinda Spencer went to a clinic in Campton, Kentucky, seeking medical care. She told the staff she’d terminated her pregnancy at home using medication she’d ordered online. The clinic workers called the police.

Spencer was arrested and charged with first-degree fetal homicide—a capital offense in the state that could result in life in prison. She was also charged with abuse of a corpse and tampering with physical evidence after police found fetal remains buried in her yard.

Then, just days later, the fetal homicide charge was dismissed. State law explicitly prohibits prosecuting pregnant women for causing the death of their own unborn child: “Nothing in this chapter shall apply to any acts of a pregnant woman that caused the death of her unborn child.”

Spencer still faces felony charges for what she did with the remains. But she was arrested and jailed for doing something that state law says she cannot be prosecuted for doing.

Legal Protection vs. Arrest

Miranda King, the Commonwealth’s Attorney who initially brought the charges, issued a statement acknowledging the problem. She described herself as a “pro-life prosecutor” but said she was “sworn to defend” state law. The fetal homicide charge couldn’t stand.

Kentucky has one of the nation’s most restrictive abortion bans. It implemented a near-total ban immediately after the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision in June 2022, using a law designed to automatically ban abortion when Roe fell. Abortion is now illegal except when continuing the pregnancy would kill the pregnant person.

Yet the law still protects pregnant women from prosecution for their own abortion decisions. That protection has been part of state law for years. It reflects a principle that runs through abortion regulation nationwide: criminal penalties are supposed to target providers, not the pregnant person herself.

Having a legal protection doesn’t automatically prevent arrest, charges, jail booking, and court defense. Spencer experienced all of that before a reviewing prosecutor looked at the statute and dropped the charge.

Medication Abortion and Enforcement

Medication abortion now accounts for 60 to 63 percent of all abortions in the United States. Two pills—mifepristone and misoprostol—taken at home, usually in the first ten weeks of pregnancy.

For people in states with abortion bans, pills obtained through the mail have become the primary workaround. Laws in states like New York protect providers from prosecution when they mail abortion pills across state lines. The FDA approved generic versions of mifepristone in 2024, expanding access further.

An estimated 76,310 abortions occurred via telehealth to states with total bans in 2024, according to the Society of Family Planning. State abortion bans remain on the books, but states cannot easily enforce these bans when the abortion happens at home using pills that arrived by mail from a provider in another state.

Prosecutors cannot easily go after out-of-state providers or intercept every package. Some are trying a different approach: prosecuting the pregnant person herself, using whatever criminal statutes might apply.

Fetal Homicide Laws and Their Original Purpose

Fetal homicide statutes emerged in the 1970s and 1980s to address a specific problem: third parties who caused fetal death through violence or recklessness. The typical example was a drunk driver who struck a pregnant woman’s car, killing the fetus, or a domestic violence perpetrator whose assault caused pregnancy loss.

No fetal homicide law was written to apply to pregnant women’s own abortion decisions. It reflects a basic legal principle: the pregnant person has bodily autonomy that third parties don’t have. She’s making decisions about her own body and pregnancy. A drunk driver or abusive partner is not.

The first-degree fetal homicide charge in this case is a capital offense. Spencer faced potential life imprisonment for taking pills that state law explicitly says she cannot be prosecuted for taking. Karen Thompson, legal director of Pregnancy Justice, called it “a travesty”: “We have a woman arrested and thrown in jail for doing what is perfectly legal for her to do in Kentucky, which is to self-manage her own abortion.”

The charging decision reveals prosecutorial strategy since the Supreme Court overturned Roe. When direct abortion charges aren’t available, prosecutors are reaching for other statutes: abuse of a corpse, tampering with physical evidence, concealing the birth of an infant. Spencer still faces all of these charges, even though the fetal homicide charge was dismissed.

Prosecutorial Language and Gestational Age

Police and prosecutors described what they found in Spencer’s yard as a “developed male infant.” They refuse to disclose how far along the pregnancy was.

If the pregnancy was terminated in the first trimester—which is when most medication abortions occur—the remains would bear no resemblance to what most people think of as an “infant.” The prosecutorial language creates a false impression, suggesting disposal of something far more developed than was likely the case.

Thompson noted this pattern: “Police and local media will claim a woman callously discarded her ‘infant’ or ‘stillborn,’ only for us to later find out she simply disposed of miscarriage remains.” The arrest records indicate the remains were “wrapped inside of a lightbulb box.”

The language shapes how judges and juries see the case. When prosecutors use the most inflammatory language possible while refusing to disclose basic facts like gestational age, they’re building a narrative designed to generate outrage.

Healthcare Workers as Informants

Spencer went to a clinic seeking medical care. She disclosed what had happened. The clinic staff called the police.

Healthcare workers reporting patients to law enforcement for pregnancy outcomes has become common in restrictive states. Organizations like If/When/How have tracked many cases of pregnant people who sought medical help and found themselves reported to police instead.

When you fear that disclosing a pregnancy loss or abortion to a healthcare provider will result in arrest, you delay treatment during emergencies. You try to manage complications alone. You don’t ask questions when you need medical guidance.

House Democratic Caucus Chair Lindsey Burke introduced legislation on January 6, 2026—the first day of the legislative session—directly in response to this case. House Bill 23 would protect medical privacy and prevent criminalization of residents who seek reproductive healthcare. Burke said: “When people are afraid of prosecution, they don’t stop needing health care — they just stop asking questions.”

The bill would establish protections against criminal, civil, and administrative penalties for seeking or facilitating abortion care that’s lawful where it’s provided, including care accessed outside the state. It would also prevent medical records from being used to investigate or prosecute patients.

The fact that it was introduced immediately—on day one of the session—shows how quickly the case became a flashpoint.

Similar Prosecutions in Other States

Similar prosecutions have occurred in other states, with prosecutors stretching existing criminal laws to charge pregnant people for abortion-related conduct.

South Carolina has proposed legislation (H. 4760) that would classify abortion pills as a controlled substance and create a Texas-style civil bounty system allowing family members to sue anyone who “aids and abets” an abortion. The bill is written to extend to out-of-state doctors and telehealth providers.

When Louisiana made abortion pills a controlled substance in 2024, chaos erupted in maternity wards. The same pills used for abortion—misoprostol—are also used to treat postpartum hemorrhage and prevent maternal death. Treating it like a controlled drug created delays and complications in emergency obstetric care.

Abortion opponents are frustrated that medication abortion has proven difficult to stop. Mail delivery, state protections, and federal commerce rules have created a system where enforcement of state abortion bans is practically impossible when the abortion happens at home using pills from another state.

The strategy shifts: criminalize possession, criminalize disposal of remains, criminalize anything connected to the abortion, even if you can’t criminalize the abortion directly.

Wyoming Supreme Court Decision

In January 2026—the same month as the arrest—the Wyoming Supreme Court struck down the state’s abortion restrictions, including the nation’s first explicit ban on abortion pills.

Wyoming votes more conservatively than any other state. Yet its supreme court recognized that abortion is healthcare and decisions about it involve a pregnant person’s own health considerations—”physical and mental health, finances, educational and career plans, personal relationships with her existing children and/or partner, and religious beliefs.”

The ruling rejected Wyoming’s attempt to classify abortion pills as a controlled substance. It recognized constitutional limits to abortion criminalization even in a deeply conservative state.

In Wyoming, the state’s highest court said abortion pill bans violate constitutional protections. In Kentucky, a woman was arrested for using abortion pills even though state law explicitly protects her from prosecution for doing so.

Federal Authority and Interstate Commerce

Spencer ordered pills online. They traveled through the U.S. Postal Service, a federal agency. The provider who prescribed them was likely located outside the state. These facts raise questions about state authority to criminalize conduct with significant interstate and federal components.

The FDA has approved mifepristone and authorized its mail delivery. The Justice Department said that mail delivery of FDA-approved medication abortion was consistent with federal law. The Trump administration asked a federal court in May 2025 to dismiss a case challenging the FDA’s authorization of mail delivery, arguing the states involved lacked standing. It has also authorized a review of mifepristone’s safety.

Senate Republicans have begun pushing for restrictions. Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, has scheduled hearings titled “Protecting Women: Exposing the Dangers of Chemical Abortion Drugs.” The goal is building support for federal restrictions on access to medication abortion.

Can states prohibit their citizens from receiving pills delivered through federal mail? Can they prosecute people for conduct that involves FDA-approved drugs prescribed by out-of-state providers operating legally under their own state’s laws? Courts haven’t answered these questions yet, but they suggest that aggressive state-level prosecutions like this one may face constitutional challenges beyond the legal protections that led to the fetal homicide charge being dismissed.

Remaining Charges and Ongoing Case

Spencer still faces felony charges for abuse of a corpse and tampering with physical evidence, plus a misdemeanor for concealing the birth of an infant. Her case continues.

The dismissal of the fetal homicide charge shows that even in states that ban almost all abortions, legal protections for pregnant women exist and work. It shows that prosecutors who attempt to stretch criminal law to punish self-managed abortion face legal constraints.

Spencer was arrested, jailed, and charged with a capital offense. The fact that the charge was eventually dismissed doesn’t erase that experience or the message it sends to other pregnant people: seeking medical care after an abortion might get you arrested.

Some prosecutors will see the case as a cautionary tale about the limits of prosecutorial authority. Others will see it as a roadmap—avoid the fetal homicide charge, but pursue the other charges that aren’t explicitly protected by statute.

The legislative response—House Bill 23—suggests that at least some lawmakers recognize the problem and want to create clearer protections. Whether that bill passes, and whether other states follow suit, will help determine whether cases like this become more common or less.

Medication abortion continues to arrive by mail in restrictive states. Shield laws protect the providers. Federal mail channels remain open. The practical reality of abortion access has shifted in ways that state-level enforcement struggles to address.

Prosecutors can arrest individual women and charge them with whatever crimes seem to fit. But they can’t stop the mail, can’t easily prosecute out-of-state providers, and face legal and constitutional constraints on punishing pregnant people for their own abortion decisions.

The outcome of prosecutorial testing will shape abortion access for millions of people in restrictive states.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.