Why Period Tracking Data Is Not Proof Of An Abortion.
This is not the data you are looking for.
Anyone who knows me or my work will not be surprised by the topic of this week’s newsletter (or Star Wars reference).
On Sunday, The Observer newspaper reported: “Police have been issued guidance on how to search women’s homes for abortion drugs and check their phones for menstrual cycle tracking apps after unexpected pregnancy loss.”
Well now. This has caused quite the stir. To put into context, the publication of this guidance comes at a time of great concern that hard won progress for women’s rights are being rolled back globally. This includes increased surveillance, investigation and prosecution of women suspected of “illegal” abortions after pregnancy loss. As 1 in 4 pregnancies end in miscarriage, the net is potentially very wide.
The shadow of the US looms large here. In 2022, the US Supreme Court ruled in a case which overturned the precedent of the right to abortion established under Roe v. Wade. Overnight, millions of women feared they were at risk of being investigated for a missed period or a miscarriage. This was a lightbulb moment for many of the real-life implications of data collection on a woman’s safety and the surveillance possible through technology ie. period trackers.
The guidance is published by The National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC), which sets strategic direction for policing in the UK and publishes a lot of guidance. The document seen by The Observer is the updated “Practice Advice on Child Death Investigation”, to be read in conjunction with national guidance on the topic published by each of the four nations of the UK. There have sadly been recent high profile cases of parents and/or partners causing the death of their children, and this update reflects the need to learn from these tragedies.
I have read all 92 extremely distressing pages of this guidance. I have nothing but respect for those whose job it is to investigate the deaths of children.
The controversial section in focus here is where police investigate, “…attempted termination of pregnancy outside of legally permitted circumstances”. Abortion law is complicated- some of it goes back to 1861 and it differs across the four nations of the UK. The reason this guidance exists is because terminating a pregnancy outside of 24 weeks is a criminal offence in England and Wales. Any woman suspected of terminating a pregnancy outside of this time limit can be subject to police investigations and prosecution. Women who have suffered miscarriages, complications or stillbirths can be caught in this net at a time when they are most vulnerable. Police have prosecuted over 100 women over the past 5 years and investigated many more.
The main issue to focus on is that abortion needs to be decriminalised, then this intrusive guidance would not be needed in the first place. Northern Ireland decriminalised abortion in 2019. A Labour MP has recently tabled an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill to decriminalise abortion in England and Wales without changing the law on the 24 week limit or provision of abortion in a healthcare setting. Scotland has slightly different laws but there are also calls to decriminalise. Until that happens, we will be stuck in this loop.
Do period tracking apps really serve up evidence of an illegal abortion?
What stands out to many like me in the guidance is for forensic examiners searching homes for abortion drugs and carrying out digital searches.
“Evidence of knowledge and intention in relation to the pregnancy may be demonstrated through digital evidence. The seizure and examination of digital devices used by the woman during her pregnancy should be considered. Internet search history, digital communications with third parties, and health apps such as menstrual cycle and fertility trackers may all provide information to help investigators establish a woman’s knowledge and intention in relation to the pregnancy.”
The police believe that digital evidence, including period trackers, can establish “knowledge and intention” of terminating a pregnancy.
Do they though? This kind of information can be highly misleading and often innacurate. Do the police know how the algorithm behind a lot of basic period trackers actually works? Let’s break down the business model.
“Menstrual cycle and fertility trackers” (I’m using the catch all term “period trackers” here) are the poster child of the booming “Femtech” industry (digital products focused on women’s health) with an estimated 250 million downloads globally. There are hundreds out there, but be warned. While many are dedicated to closing the gender health data gap and providing real solutions for under-researched conditions, many are digital platforms first and act as such. The more data they collect the more valuable the company becomes. Tracking a period involves entering a lot of data regularly (at least once a month) and this feature is really a jumping off point for tech companies to bring in users and start to monetise the service.
The focus on investigating period tracking apps is unsurprising, given how much data these apps collect. Many collect a lot of intimate health data, including menstrual cycle information, fertility data, sexual activity details, and more. Period trackers are on the radar of many civil society organisations, including Privacy International where I previously worked, due to concerns over the amount of sensitive data both collected and shared with third parties for advertising.
As this data is inputted at least every month it is a regular source of valuable data for tech companies wanting to scale fast and for advertisers wanting to target pregnant women- a golden “brand-capture” opportunity. It is not so great for the women who risk being betrayed by this data and arrested.
I have campaigned against companies exploiting these intimate details for years, preventing marketing companies accessing maternity wards (anyone remember Bounty? No? Good) and warning of the dangers of women’s health data being excessively collected and then weaponised against them.
Substack write Kanya is currently writing a great short series about Femtech startups and she says this about Flo, one of the most popular period trackers:
“Flo reached unicorn status by using a simple cycle tracker with minimal clinical depth to create a daily habit. That habit became data. That data became leverage. Suddenly Flo had a low cost engine to reach, retain and monetise 70+ million monthly active users globally.”
So they are big business, but how do they work? Many basic cycle trackers are a simple algorithm based on the assumption that all women have a 28 day cycle. Studies have shown only around 16% of women have a 28 day cycle. So a “missed period” on a tracker does not necessarily mean a missed period, and it’s a huge leap from there to assume a terminated pregnancy.
Secondly, the assumption is that women are militantly entering data. Some do, but many don’t. Many women’s trackers are incomplete. Is this evidence of an illegal abortion?
It will come as no surprise then that many women are suspicious of entering too much data and take steps guard their privacy. A few months after the overturning of Roe v. Wade, one US study found women’s health apps to be the least trusted. Reports abound of women deleting period tracking apps or even avoiding using Google Search in fear of location tracking, analysis of online search histories, online shopping habits and suspected missed periods being weaponised and used to prosecute them for seeking an abortion. For women in the 21 countries where abortion has been illegal for years, this fear is already a reality.
A few years ago I completed a Fellowship at Mozilla Foundation. I examined how digital advertising exploits women’s health data and ran a survey of 1,000 users of Femtech in the UK. 44% of women surveyed said they had deleted an app because of privacy concerns. This is astonishingly high and Femtech companies should take note. When asked to specify which app they deleted, 20% of respondents specified it was a period or fertility tracking app.
Regardless, this is another American problem right?
A reaction I often hear in the UK in response to Roe v. Wade is, "Oh that is America! It could never happen here!" But anti-abortion campaigners were emboldened by the Roe v. Wade “win” and are determined to try and replicate the success elsewhere.
In April last year, I spotted that the US anti-abortion group the Alliance Defending Freedom were ramping up lobbying in Westminster, following their successful involvement in overturning Roe v. Wade. They were drawing up policy briefings for MPs in favour of restricting reproductive rights in advance of Parliament debating amendments to the criminal justice bill, which would decriminalise abortion and introduce protections on access to abortion in England and Wales. This debate did not take place at that time as Parliament was dissolved in advance of the July General Election.
The co-chair of the British Society of Abortion Care Providers was quoted at the time, "We’ve known for some time that these extreme groups from America are infiltrating the UK, having been emboldened following the US supreme court’s actions removing women’s right to abortion there. However the scale of their spending and influence in the UK is disturbing, especially as we know they are actively lobbying MPs and want to restrict women’s reproductive rights, whether that is fertility treatment, contraception or access to abortion."
John Oliver recently dedicated a whole episode of Last Week Tonight to bringing attention to the Alliance Defending Freedom. Through their now established UK office, they recently funded the defense of a British woman charged with breaching a buffer zone around an abortion facility in Bournemouth, successfully arguing it violated her right to freedom of expression.
Deciding to get pregnant, deciding not to get pregnant, getting pregnant, being pregnant, not being pregnant anymore and giving birth are minefields for women to navigate at their most vulnerable. What we do not need is this combination of criminalisation, intrusive police guidance, weaponisation of unreliable period tracker data and the creeping influence of US anti-abortion groups.
As long as abortion remains a criminal offence we are all vulnerable. Period tracking apps are not just the thin end of the wedge here, but a stark example of how technology can be weaponised against women by creating an illusion of evidence.
The law on abortion must change. Decriminalisation is not merely a legal reform, it is a fundamental safeguard for women's autonomy and privacy. Without it, we risk handing powerful tools to emboldened, well-funded groups and encourage further avenues to demand surveillance and control over women’s bodies.