Woman's Hour - Young women and vaccines; Vaccine Deployment Minister Nadhim Zahawi; Lisa Montgomery, Death Row, Sex and the City

Episode Date: January 12, 2021

Around 2.3 million people in the UK have received 2.6 million doses of vaccine. Yesterday we heard they're planning to vaccinate 2 million people a week, until the middle of February with the aim of reaching the most vulnerable who've accounted for 88% of deaths from Covid 19 so far. A recent poll showed more than a quarter of 18-to-34-year-old women said they would say no to a Covid jab, citing concerns over the vaccines effect on their fertility and pregnancies. Emma talks to Professor Lucy Chappell, Research Professor in Obstetrics at Kings College in London and spokesperson for the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists; and to the Vaccine Deployment Minister Nadhim Zahawi. Lisa Montgomery, the only woman on federal death row, was due to be executed by lethal injection later today, but a reprieve has been granted. Lisa was convicted for the gruesome murder of a 23-year-old woman who was eight months pregnant. The baby miraculously survived. Emma speaks to Leigh Goodmark, Marjorie Cook Professor of Law and Co-Director, Clinical Law Program. She assisted the defence team with advocacy for Ms. Montgomery. Sex and the City: After six series, 94 episodes and two films - the women are making a return - but without Samantha - the feminist icon played by Kim Cattrall. The lead character and producer Sarah Jessica Parker yesterday announced they would be back with 10 half-hour episodes - showing us how their lives have changed now they're in their 50s. Reaction has been mixed. Hadley Freeman is a columnist and feature writer for the Guardian and a BIG fan of Sex and the City. She explains how she feels on hearing it is coming back.This is an edited version of the programme.Presented by Emma Barnett Producer: Louise Corley Editor: Karen Dalziel

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK. I'm Natalia Melman-Petrozzella, and from the BBC, this is Extreme Peak Danger. The most beautiful mountain in the world. If you die on the mountain, you stay on the mountain. This is the story of what happened when 11 climbers died on one of the world's deadliest mountains, K2, and of the risks we'll take to feel truly alive. If I tell all the details, you won't believe it anymore. Extreme, peak danger. Listen wherever you get your podcasts.

BBC Sounds. Music, radio, podcasts. Hello, it's Emma Barnett here. Welcome to the Woman's Hour podcast. Good morning. A study has found more than a quarter of 18 to 34-year-old women have said they would say no to a Covid jab, citing unfounded concerns over the vaccine's effect on their fertility. This isn't the anti-vax movement.

This is what's being called vaccination hesitancy. And on today's programme, we're going to separate fact from fiction, hear from a doctor in this space and also the vaccinations minister. But before we hear from them, I want to hear from you. Do you see it as your duty to have the Covid jab? Have you convinced others in your family who may be hesitant? How have you done so? Tell us. Get in touch with us now. 84844. Text to charge at your standard message rate. What have you said or what would you say to anyone worried about it? Is it our duty? Get in touch with us now and let us know on social media. We're at BBC Women's Hour or you can email us through our website.

Already messages coming in on this. Richard says it is your duty to get vaccinated. I wouldn't say it's the most patriotic thing you can do, but it is a patriotic act, which I guess makes the anti-vaxxers unpatriotic then. And he goes on to a few other points, but just to bring in Elle on this, who's got in touch on Twitter. Awful that so many my age are blinded by conspiracies. Unfortunately, that's what happens when a government consistently misinforms the public and allows conspiracies to run rife for their own benefit. Not quite sure which you're talking about there. But of course, we can put that message to the vaccinations minister very shortly, Nadeem Zahawi.

Do stay with us for that. But also on today's programme, news just in. Lisa Montgomery, the only woman on federal death row, was due to be executed by lethal injection later today. But in the last few hours, a reprieve has been granted. She will not be put to death. If the execution had gone ahead, it would have been the first execution of a female federal inmate by the US government in nearly 70 years. We'll get across her story and what's been going on. Plus, should one of the most popular recent TV programmes about women, Sex and the City, be making a comeback? And may I also at this point of the programme

say the warmest of welcomes to our Friday and weekend presenter who's just been announced as Anita Rani. I promise we'll have the kettle on for you, Anita, and a comfy pair of sanitised headphones. All that to come. Now, the vaccination rollout continues. 2.3 million people are said to have already received their first jab, which the government says is more than the rest of Europe combined. But in a recent survey, more than a quarter of 18 to 34 year old women said they would say no to a Covid jab, talking about concerns of their fertility. When we asked why you were so reluctant, and we put this out on social media a few days ago, and it's kept going, it's kept rumbling on this conversation. Many of you got in touch. Listeners like Charlotte,

who emailed us and thank you for this, Charlotte. I'm actually 38. I'm trying for a baby. Rumours around how the COVID-19 vaccination could affect fertility are worrying. As I'm not in a high risk group, I definitely think twice about having it. If there was a risk to my fertility, there just isn't enough information available for such an important issue. I'm fully behind the jab and it's important, but why is this issue being hidden? If it isn't true, why aren't health professionals coming out to counter it?

Well, funny you should say that. We've got Professor Lucy Chappell, who's a research professor in obstetrics at King's College in London and a spokesperson for the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists here to do just that. Good morning. Good morning. Is there any credence that these jabs, there are three now approved in Britain, affect fertility?

I don't think there's any evidence that they affect fertility. I can understand women's concerns and I share that it's always good to get more evidence, more data on that. But having looked into all the queries about fertility, I can't see any basis to them. And that they have been clearly refuted by both the vaccine manufacturers and by others. There has been a lot of misinformation out there online, which has led to this and frustrations. We will be talking to the vaccinations minister in a moment, but there hasn't been enough to counter this. Why do you think this has taken hold? Well, I think that we've seen in Covid times that we've both seen a remarkable pushing forward of science, both in terms of treatments for COVID and in terms of the vaccine. But at the same time, there's a small minority of persons or groups for whom pushing an alternative is maybe in their interests.

And where there is a gap on on evidence then then sometimes that's filled by um by wrong information so so it's up to all of us in the royal college of obstetricians and gynecologists in the royal college of midwives have done much to push high quality uh information through their web pages and and through their social media uh forums but you aren't able to have this jab if you're pregnant at the moment? So the position is for pregnant women. On the 30th of December, the Joint Committee on Vaccines and Immunisation released a statement saying that two groups broadly of women,

pregnant women, could be considered for vaccination. So the first of these groups, which is pregnant women who may be in a group that are called currently, are those who work in a care home or who are frontline health or social care workers. So to be clear, that is a group who are at higher risk of exposure to the disease. But if they don't have other risk factors, they're pretty much all under 50. And then they may be not at greater risk of complications. So this group are a group with higher exposure. The vaccination wouldn't replace the usual guidance on hands, face, space. And after 28 weeks, we don't recommend that pregnant women are in high exposure contacts.

There is a second group of women, those with major underlying medical conditions, and that's a group who are called clinically extremely vulnerable. And it's on all the government websites. And they have, for example, major heart disease or kidney disease. I look after these women when they're pregnant. They're a group who aren't at greater risk of exposure, but they are at greater risk of complications. And when their priority group reaches the front of the queue, which may be late January or February, then those women are being considered for vaccination. Nobody's going to be forced to have a vaccination. I would urge pregnant women to have a conversation with their obstetrician or their midwife to discuss, is it right for them on a balance of benefits and risks? We are not offering routine vaccination for all other pregnant women at this point in time.

And that is because of what? And I'm looking at the messages that are coming in? Large trials have been done in people who are not pregnant, but now is the time to get further information on the trials of vaccines in pregnant women. So in parallel with this offer, we are also undertaking research into the vaccines in pregnancy. So just to be clear here, it's not because there is danger, it's because it hasn't been proven that there isn't. Absolutely right. And there is a big difference between having some concern and waiting, or there is, exactly as you said it, there isn't any signal of concern. In fact, in the States, they've taken a different, much more permissive view. So they've taken the view that any pregnant women can have the vaccine. I think our stance in the UK is absolutely right. We're both acknowledging that for these two particular groups, high risk of exposure or high risk of complications,

that it's appropriate to consider the vaccine. But for the much larger majority of pregnant women, let's wait and get the evidence from the research trials so that later in 2021 we can go with much more evidence to address all your listeners concerns i'm just going to drill down again one more time so it's clear you can have this if you are not pregnant and trying for a baby you can have this jab if it comes to you. If you, when you reach that priority group, yes, you can have that jab. Right. So we're not saying it, we're saying very clearly here, no effects on fertility. We have no evidence of an effect on fertility. Right. And we're saying with regards to pregnancy, it's not because there is something potentially dangerous.

It's just we haven't done the tests or the research yet to say it definitely isn't. So it's more of a safekeeping issue. That's right. But these are not live vaccines. So we already have vaccines in pregnancy. We already routinely recommend whooping cough and flu vaccine. And I would urge every woman to go and get her flu vaccine. That's part of standard care. So we are not offering something that is a live vaccine. I think that's also a very important point. Just to also ask you the question I'm asking our listeners and so many of getting in touch, do you see it as your duty to have a vaccine in this circumstance? That's a very good question. I think we are in a different place at the beginning of 2021, where it is for pregnant women, it is consider the offer,

whilst we are getting more evidence. When we have all the evidence, and we have, hopefully, clear evidence of safety, then I think there's both an individual decision and a sort of community decision. So, COVID puts major restrictions on pregnant women who are listed as vulnerable, and therefore, maternity care has really changed. So there is individual impact on an individual if she takes up the vaccination, because it may change how she experiences both life, maternity care and importantly, postnatal care. But also, I think that there is benefit across the community of taking up vaccination. I'm going to come back to you. Stay with us, Professor Lucy Chappell.

I'm going to come back to you with some more questions, if I may. So if you don't mind staying on the line, we'd be very grateful. A message just came in. My mum is an antenatal teacher and has told me I'm 25, that she doesn't want me or any of my female cousins to get the vaccination over concerns, over fertility. Well, I hope that your mum and as you seem to be, are listening to what the expert that we have got on for you today here on Women's Out is saying completely and utterly categorically here. A message here, if women under 40 don't want the jab because they think it affects fertility, fine.

Give it to us menopausal lot instead. Instead of trying to persuade people who are reluctant, just bypass them and give it to us who want it. The others will fall in line later, reads this message. No name on that one. Thank you for them. Keep them coming in. 84844.

I want to hear exactly what you feel about this, what you do about it, and if you think it's your duty. Who better to have on than the Vaccines Deployment Minister, Nadeem Zahawi. Good morning. Thank you for joining us today. This research suggesting young women

are the least likely to accept the vaccine. What do you want to say to them as a member of the government? I want to say to them, listen to what we've just heard from Lucy Chappell. Seek out information from trusted voices like your GP, people who work for both the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation have put out a lot of information online so if you google both JCVI and their recommendations you get that information gov.uk so you know seek out information read that information and then make your decision uh because ultimately uh my the greatest ally in this endeavor for me is information and the more we can share with people as we're doing now on a daily basis we'll we'll be published NHS England we're publishing the daily vaccination rates both

sort of first dose and of course uh those who work in in health and social care and the over 80s and obviously then the over 75s and over 70s as we go through this first four. But you're talking there, if I'm about information. And actually, there's a lot of disinformation out there at the moment. And we were looking through how this came. And one of the roots of the idea this affected your facility is somebody who used to work at Pfizer, hasn't been there for nine years, a guy called Michael Yeadon. Now, we've had a message already in this morning saying the government just isn't doing enough to fight disinformation. So beyond, of course, coming on programmes like this and publishing information and pointing people towards it, what are you actually doing to get rid of this?

So one of the things I did as soon as I got this role is to make sure that we reach out to the healthcare practitioners and of course social care because actually the best way to deal with disinformation is people hear it from a trusted voice and the first four categories include healthcare frontline professionals and of, those who look after people in care homes, social care as well. The best people to... Oh, now, Dean, we've just lost your line, which is unfortunate, as you were answering that question. Let's just see if we can get that back. We are, of course, broadcasting during a pandemic, with many lines open on zoom here

come if we can get that line back we'll go back to the minister let's go back to some of your messages as i'm waiting to reconnect to nadeem zahawi who's just talking there about misinformation a message here i think we need a vaccine card or pass anyone not holding a valid card in 12 months time should not be permitted access to the NHS, pubs, restaurants, airports. That is how it should go, reads this message. In a large London hospital, there have been six pregnant women in intensive care. Two have died, as did one of their children. Pregnant women should have the vaccine if offered, reads a message from a doctor who wishes to be anonymous. Who's, of of course seeing certain

things here that we wouldn't be able to perhaps be privy to. I'm just told that the minister is back on the line. Nadeem Sahawi, I'm so sorry we lost you there. You were just explaining that you got in touch, you were getting in touch with health professionals trying to talk to them. Yeah, absolutely. Sorry about that, Emma. So the best way is, or the most effective way, is if you hear from people that you work with, and obviously the top four categories that we are making sure we protect are health and social care workers, so the people who look after those in care homes, for example.

And we held roundtables with them and with the... Yeah, but they're not going to patrol the internet late at night, are they? They're too busy doing their day job. You're absolutely right. But what they do do is make sure that colleagues see that actually they're delivering the accurate information, the very clear, transparent information. Anecdotally, and this is only anecdotal, in the past week as GPs have gone into care homes because our target is to make sure all residents and those who look after them

are vaccinated by the end of January, have said to me that some care home workers were reluctant because they've seen some of this disinformation. And people have been very clever how they share this stuff. It's not just on social media, it's on sort of text messaging and WhatsApp and so on. So I understand the line of argument around trying to make sure they see people around them making these arguments. But do you accept that the government could be doing more to deal with, as you put it, this clever sharing of information that isn't true online? Yeah, absolutely. And you will see more and more of the campaign. So the first part of the campaign is to go out to those who are the people we want to vaccinate in the first four cohorts of the nine categories that the JCVI have set out to us. And they're the ones that especially in the BAME community. It has to, doesn't it? Because you're talking there about people on the front line preaching to the converted, perhaps in care homes or those who perhaps are having some hesitancy.

But we're actually talking about young women here. And it's about why isn't your government connecting with them? I mean, could it be, for instance, as of the 16th of December, it was calculated by one of the newspapers that Downing Street didn't, I don't know, use a female minister to lead any of its press conferences for the last six months? Do you think you've got a problem connecting with women? I don't think that's fair. The senior responsible officer for the whole of the vaccination campaign, the brilliant Emily Lawson, absolutely understands how important it is to connect with women. The lead director for primary care, Nikki Kanani, is absolutely not just cognisant of the fact she leads this with me in terms of both women and BAME populations. And we do this together, hand in hand. I'm not saying that's not the case, but it's about if people have ever seen these people, if they know their names, they have to be front and centre. And you look back at

six months of government briefings you didn't have a single female minister well i i go back and say to you if if my if the exam question for me is nadim target and get to vaccinate those who are most vulnerable which is category one and two which is residential care homes residents and their people who look after them those who are on the front line in the NHS, staff that actually in health care staff that are treating those with Covid and the ones that need protection. The best way to get to them. And I guarantee you they know exactly who Nikki Kanani is. And you can. I'm talking about the young women who have been polled here. And I understand your first wave here, but I'm very happy you brought that up because you are also a business minister as well as vaccinations.

It was striking that the chancellor said yesterday that the vaccine, of course, was vital for economic recovery. Can I ask you, as we are talking about young people here in particular, did the UK ever consider, did the government consider doing as Indonesia is doing and opting to vaccinate the working young first? So the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation looked at all this, looked at different cohorts, looked at BAME and the evidence very clearly pointed towards actually the greatest risk of death from this virus is age. And of course, those on the front line that look after the people who are most vulnerable to Corona. So if you vaccinate 20 people in a care home, you save a life. If you vaccinate 250 people who are over 80, you save a life. Hence why our focus is very much at this stage.

And by the way, this is the first chapter, Emma. This is the first iteration. I'm only asking. In the next weeks, that will move further down the list. Well, and I want to get to that as well. But I only ask because, for instance, Prue Leith, of course, famous to a lot of people from Great British Bake Off, but also works for this government as a hospital food advisor. It was very striking that when she received her first dose before Christmas, she's 80. She said she didn't think her age group should be the first group. She said, if I was choosing the priority group, it would be young people who could earn the money to keep the economy going. So what I would say to Prue is this is about protecting people from dying from Covid in the first instance.

So our absolute priority has to be protecting those who are most vulnerable to dying. 88% of deaths are from the first four cohorts that we are focusing on for mid-February to offer them a vaccine. That's the absolute priority. If you go down the nine cohorts, the nine categories, that's 99% of deaths.

So I hear what people say. You stand by that position based on that. And it's important to have explained it. But it's also incredibly important at this point that you are trusted as a minister, as a cabinet, as a government. The latest polling is not looking good in terms of the trust, the confidence that people have. 32% it's at from YouGov. It was 53% back in March. But it's got to be about consistency, hasn't it? This weekend, two women in Derbyshire were fined for walking with takeaway tees five miles from their home. That's now been withdrawn.

We now learn on the same weekend, the prime minister was cycling seven miles from his home. I'm not saying he's broken any rules, but if you look at the guidance, neither are they. But they had a completely different response. Can you see why that would make people, some people feel it's one rule for us and one rule for them? Well, the rules are very clear that you stay at home. This new variant is incredibly infectious. It loves social interactions. And I understand that we are social animals. We are pro-social. So it's really hard to do. But the worst thing we can do is socialise, whether indoors or outdoors.

It's not allowed, obviously, in either. Because actually, these rules are not sort of boundaries to push against. These are there to protect lives. So should the Prime Minister have cycled a little closer to home? He's got lots of parks around Downing Street. Well, he's allowed an hour's exercise. So you can cycle and do that hour's exercise. Just like those women could have a walk with each other and do their exercise.

Of course they can. Well, they got rounded on like they'd done a murder. They felt like they'd been a murder. I hear you, and I don't know the exact circumstances of what happened, but the police overall have done a tremendous job in making sure they explain to people the rules. I go back and say to you that the rules are there

not as boundaries to be pushed against. They're all there to protect all of us, and especially the most vulnerable. Are we going to get stricter rules then? Because there are shades of grey here. You can hear it in the example I've just given you. Do you think we are going to get stricter rules? The rules are pretty tough, as it is.

Do you think they're going to get stricter? It would be very important for people listening to know. Well, I think it's important to point out where we think there are issues. So yesterday, I pointed out that supermarkets have done a tremendous job up till now, both of obviously making sure they're open and feeding the nation, but also in complying with the rules. And I was concerned that people were not following the one way system or wearing face coverings or masks. And the supermarkets have come out today and said very clearly they will absolutely enforce that.

The rules are pretty tough. We review them because, look, none of us take great joy in doing this stuff. You just have to look at hospitals all over the country. This new variant is incredibly... That's what I'm saying. You've got the rules, but you've got the rules and the hospitals are filling up.

So what are you going to do different? That's i'm trying to understand as i said the rules are pretty tough we're trying to get the message across that please please please stay at home because this virus loves that social interaction even if it's a single social interaction it absolutely thrives on that at the moment and give me the space as vaccines minister to do my job we've got the team out there working seven days a week, night and day, to vaccinate as many of the vulnerable as possible by mid-February and we'll keep going down that list. And on that basis of socialisation that you just talked about,

how can nurseries stay open? Do you think they're going to stay open? I've got a lot of people who rely on that right now listening. So nurseries, primary schools and secondary schools are open and I commend them because they're looking after and educating the children of nurses and doctors. But specifically, will nurseries stay open? This is what's been debated in the last few days.

So absolutely, at the moment, it's right that nurseries stay open because they're keeping the front line working. People, nurses, doctors, the people, the healthcare workers, we so want to support to make sure they do their job properly. So should nurseries be limited? Sorry, but it's slightly different for nurseries at the moment. You don't have to be a key worker to have your child in nursery. Should nurseries then be limited to the children of key workers?

My apologies. Of course, you're right. I was talking about primary schools and do you think nursery should be limited but nurseries are are safe because actually those very little ones uh the the evidence is just not there in terms of you know the sort of the transmission and and actually nursery managers and nursery um owners have done a tremendous job of making sure that covid's safe um but schools and primary schools are also open for those frontline staff who have to send their children. They have indeed. I just wanted to differentiate a final question, if I may. What date will you be able to say you have vaccinated teachers and those working in nurseries looking after children? What is that deadline? So the cohorts we're focusing on is the first four, which is by mid-February.

That's the most vulnerable and the people who look after them. That's 88% of deaths. Once you get down to the nine categories in phase one, and I was talking about phase one, you've pretty much covered 99% of people who are most likely to die from COVID. And teachers are then top of the list for phase two, as well as other frontline persons. Like police and, of course, shop workers even. I can't put a date on that because my target at the moment is very much to meet that 15 million people who will be offered a vaccine in the top four most vulnerable groups by mid-February.

And then we'll keep going. Every day you're going to see data, Emma, that we publish of how many people we've vaccinated. And then you'll be able to hold us to account. We've got much clearer lines of sight now. We will talk again then and keep an eye on that. Nadeem Zahawi, thank you very much for your time. And of course, just to say many messages coming in. And I did say we would come back

to this, but the latest data is that 57% of respondents from Black, Asian, minority, ethnic background were likely to accept a vaccine versus 79% of white respondents, a theme that's also coming out in your messages. Lucy Chappell, thank you very much for staying with us for that. I'm going to have to

come back to some of those messages a bit later and keep them coming in on 84844. Now, Lisa Montgomery, the only woman on federal death row, was due to be executed by lethal injection later today. Within the last few hours, a reprieve has been granted. She will not be put to death. If the execution had gone ahead, it would have been the first execution of a female federal inmate by the US government in nearly 70 years. Lisa Montgomery was convicted for the gruesome murder of a 23- inmate by the US government in nearly 70 years. Lisa Montgomery was convicted for the gruesome murder of a 23-year-old woman who was eight months pregnant. In December 2004, she strangled Bobby Joe Stinnett before cutting the baby out of her womb and

kidnapping it. The baby miraculously survived. In the last few hours, the US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted a stay of execution for Lisa Montgomery so there could be a hearing to decide whether she is competent to be executed under the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. I'm joined now by Lee Goodmark, Marjorie Cook Professor of Law and co-director, Clinical Law Program. She assisted the defense team with advocacy for Ms. Montgomery. Could I first get your reaction to the news? Well, of course, we're thrilled to hear that the execution hopefully will not go forward tonight. This is not entirely finished. The government could still appeal the stay that came out of the Southern District of Indiana, but there was actually a

second stay issued as well by the United States Circuit Court the Southern District of Indiana, but there was actually a second stay issued as well by the United States Circuit Court for the District of Columbia based on the federal government's failure to follow its own policy in setting the timing of the execution. So there might still be a change. We should be very mindful on that. But I'm very aware that people will be thinking, perhaps, why is there such a strong case for this woman not being

in this situation, despite what I've just described that she did? Could you tell us a bit more about her childhood and what had happened to her in her psychological state? Absolutely. When Lisa was a child, she was physically abused by her mother, she was psychologically abused by her mother, and she was trafficked by her mother to strange men in trade for plumbing services and electrician services. She was raped for the first time at 11. She was raped repeatedly throughout her life. There was a trailer that her stepfather kept that was specifically there for the purpose of raping his stepdaughter. She was then married off to her stepbrother at age 18, who then physically and psychologically abused her. She was involuntarily sterilized.

There's no way to describe what Lisa endured but torture. And as a result of both fetal alcohol exposure and the pounding of her head against pavement and the torture that she experienced, she is severely mentally ill. And do you feel that has been taken into account at any point? And why should it be, if I could say it like that? I mean, you've only just touched the surface of it. I've also been reading into what happened to her.

But tell us how that has played out in her life since what she did. Since her crime, well, you have to take a step back, which is to say that at trial, good counsel would have explained her mental illness and would have explained the tie between, for example, all of the abuse she endured, her involuntary sterilization, and why it was that she committed this crime in the first instance. But her counsel never really gave the jury or the judge a full picture of the torture that she had experienced. And all of that is what we would call mitigation, things that should have been considered

in her sentencing. There's no doubt that she did what she's alleged to have done, but she did it under the influence of this mental illness that is so severe that calling for her execution was simply unwarranted. And without that context, it was impossible, I think, for any court to see why she should not have been given the death penalty. Yes, her legal team most recently described Lisa Montgomery as out of touch with reality and says she has no rational understanding of her scheduled execution. There are supporters, though, for her execution, aren't there? Of course there are. Not least, of course, as I said, that the child survived. And I suppose some people would say, and I just wonder what you would say to this on a legal basis,

what she did, despite her circumstances, still deserves punishment. We don't disagree that what she did deserves punishment. And in fact, what we've asked is that her punishment be commuted to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. That's the punishment that's been meted out to every other woman who's committed the same crime. It is an extreme punishment for anyone who has ever visited a prison. You will know that this is not a place

where you want to spend the rest of your life, and it is a fitting punishment. But to take the life of someone who genuinely does not understand where she is, what she's done, or why it is that she's going to be executed is simply barbaric. And most places in the world don't even have the death penalty. Most places recognize that life imprisonment is a suitably serious punishment for almost for actually any crime. And there's no reason why the United States shouldn't follow suit. My heart goes out to the family. I can't imagine the pain that they experience every time that this comes up. But to execute someone who is so mentally ill is so completely inconsistent with our Eighth Amendment that it's shocking. We should also say she has a stepsister, Diane Mattingly, who has said that

Lisa had been repeatedly failed because Diane was removed from the family home and has seemed to have led a relatively normal life. Yeah, Diane will say that she was the lucky one, that she was taken out of that home and put into a loving foster family. Lisa didn't have to be the way that she is, but no one who could have saved her ever stepped in to help her. Not the police officer cousin who she told about being abused, not the judge who presided over her mother's divorce trial from her stepfather and heard that she had been raped. Not the social services people who came in and took Diane out of the home.

There were so many people who could have stepped in to protect this child and no one did. We should also put this into the wider context, shouldn't we, of the final days of the Trump administration. She could have been and may still be, as you say, one of the last inmates to be put to death under Trump, whose administration has executed 10 inmates since July when it reinstated the federal death penalty after a 17-year hiatus. That's despite waning public support for the death penalty. That's the backdrop and something to bring up at this point, isn't it? It is. And what we have asked repeatedly of the president is that he show mercy. He has the power through the clemency power to show mercy. And if there was ever a case in which mercy was warranted, certainly Lisa's is that case.

It's not that I think that any of the executions that have been carried out were a good idea or were good things to have had happen. But Lisa's case is truly exceptional. I work with incarcerated survivors of violence, and I have never seen a case as severe as Lisa's. This is torture, what she endured, and there's really no other word for it. Well, we will follow this case. Thank you very much for putting us in the picture and for sparing your time today.

Lee Goodmark there, who is Marjorie Cook Professor of Law and co-director of the Clinical Law Programme, and she assisted the defence team with advocacy for Ms Montgomery. We'll bring you more on that as we have it. So many of you getting in touch, coming back to our discussion about vaccines and young women saying they're particularly reticent. The minister says they'll deliver daily information. This will just be a series of statistics showing how well they're doing. There'll be no real information, says's back. Sex and the City, after six TV series, 94 episodes and two films,

the women are making a return, but without Samantha, the feminist icon, some would say, played by Kim Cattrall. It told the fantastical stories and lives of four friends in their 30s and 40s navigating, dating, working and living in New York City and was based on the book of Candice Bushnell. The lead character and producer, Sarah Jessica Parker, who plays Carrie, yesterday announced they'll be back with 10 half-hour episodes that will start production

in late spring, showing us how their lives have changed now they're in their 50s. There was a mixed reaction. Hadley Freeman is a columnist and feature writer for The Guardian and a big fan of those original Sex and the Cities. I spoke to her just before coming on air about how she felt hearing it was coming back.

Well, I think it's not the best idea. I mean, I love the show a lot, but I did not love the movies. And I sort of feel we could just let its legacy lie. But I was also intrigued to see what other people's reactions were. And the reactions were, as I predicted, a general dumping on Sex and the City. Not even looking at whether it's a good idea for it to come back, but just dumping on the show, this stupid show about women shopping, women having casual sex. What place does that have in today's pandemic, you know, austerity-ridden world?

First of all, I would say to that two things. If you think Sex and the City existed in this amoral universe that promoted just shopping, shopping, shopping, and guilt-free casual sex all the time with no repercussions. You clearly never watched the show. I mean, there were many episodes about Carrie's compulsive shopping habit and how that led her into bankruptcy. The show was extremely aware of what it was doing. Simultaneously, it was, without question, like most TV shows are, a fantasy. I mean, they could always meet up at any time for lunch, four of them, you know, regardless of what you do in your life.

And I know we don't go out at the moment. I used to find that the most fantastical bit of all. Well, you know, the friends are always meeting up in the coffee shop and I don't see anyone complaining about that too much. But the idea that fantasy has no place today, I don't think fantasy has ever had more of a place today. Do we all want to just sit around and watch news about the pandemic in the evenings? No. And you look at what the TV shows are now. Okay, so the big show at the end of last year, The Undoing, well, that was about extremely rich people shopping a lot, living in luxurious apartments. But because it had a murder in it, that somehow made it okay. You look at the TV schedules now coming up on Netflix, on the main broadcasters.

It's a lot of biopics about mass murderers and psycho killers. Somehow that's better than Sex and the City. So you think there's a kind of an inherent sexism and snobbishness, an extra snobbishness towards the return of this, even if you don't think the return is a good idea, but generally towards the programme because it's led by and is about the lives of women. I think that is always the case. We see that with everything that is aimed at women. That is a fantasy for women. Wish fulfillment shows and books for women are always dismissed in a way which fulfillment shows for men are not. I mean, you know, the obvious comparison here is with another HBO show that came out at the same time, which was The Sopranos. The Sopranos is about white men killing each other.

Sex in the City is about white women shopping and talking to each other and being friends with each other, which is the one that people have to dump on as being amoral and just a disgusting example to young people today. It's Sex in the City. Women have a terrible tendency to apologize for things they like, whether it's fashion, whether it's shopping, whether it's books aimed at women. And I'll tell you what, men really don't. And I say this as someone who writes for a newspaper about fashion and whose husband is a newspaper sports writer. And I am the only one at dinner parties who's asked to justify my job. Well, there's a whole lot of stuff in there that people can can perhaps unpick as well. But to stick with the show and also how that kind of plays out with attitudes,

do you think, I know you've been re-watching it, do you think it has aged well? Because, of course, some people have dumped on The Sopranos for the violence, not necessarily in the way that you're talking about because it's all men or even because it's all men from one group, from an Italian group. Do you think it has aged well? Are you more concerned looking back now, for instance, how there isn't any diversity in it?

You know, it's a show set in New York. And the truth is, a lot of shows set in New York don't have diversity. And I grew up in New York. And New York is, well, obviously, an ethnically mixed city, in many ways, a very segregated city. This is why Seinfeld is almost entirely white. This is why Friends is almost entirely white. Girls is almost entirely white. This is why Friends is almost entirely white. Girls is almost entirely white. And Sex and the City is almost entirely white. Interestingly, it's really Sex and the City and Girls that get attacked for this,

because guess what? It's about women made for women. I'm not saying it's a good thing, but I also don't think it's necessarily unreflective of the demographics in that show. You know, the other side of that coin is The Cosby Show. The Cosby Show was set in New York, and that was an almost entirely black show. Like I say, New York is in many ways a very segregated show. You know, you look at Frasier. Frasier is almost entirely white,

set in Seattle. Do people complain about the whiteness of Frasier? Do people complain about the whiteness of The Sopranos? I don't hear that so much. All TV shows date. All TV shows look weird. Even just 10 years later, you know, 30 Rock recently got in the neck for having all those blackface jokes, which were wildly inappropriate at the time. If you go back and watch old episodes of The American Office, it's a lot of jokes about trans people, a lot of jokes about gay people. And yet it's still Sex and the City that is largely criticized for this stuff. And Sex and the City didn't have those kinds of jokes. Sex and the City actually had great representation of gay people. But still, it somehow has to apologize for being largely about white women. Are you going to watch it?

You know, I have to say, I'm in need of some escapism. I think a lot of people are. Look, you know, I don't want to,'t want to not support whatever it is that Michael Patrick King and Sergei Kuparov are trying to do here. It's not like I'm putting it in my, to be honest, entirely empty diary. What I would really recommend is just everyone go and rewatch the old show, particularly if you're out there saying that the show is just about Manolos and sex and shopping. Because let me tell you, if you're saying that, you're basically saying the millions and millions of women who love that show are stupid. And you're saying that you think women were stupid in the 90s and the early noughts. Women are women. We're adult people.

There's a reason they love that show. And it's not just because of it's not even because of Manolo's. They're going to also have to find someone to get the sex in, as it were, because Kim Cattrall, Samantha, who is many people's favorite, if you did like the show, is not going to be in it. So that is going to be the difference there in terms of if you are a big fan. Yeah, it's a big loss to them. You know, Golden Girls is an interesting comparison here. I know people kind of mockingly compare the two because they're both about, quote unquote, older women, even though Carrie was actually in her 30s when the show started. You know, Golden Girls tried to do a spin off show and Bea Arthur, who played Dorothy, wasn't in that. And I'll tell you, honestly, the show didn't really work.

You know, all the best to them. Great. You know, shows about women. Let's, you know, support it. That's fantastic. Shows about women for women. Fantastic. Personally, I will be sticking with my old box set. Hadley Freeman there. Thank you so much for so many messages about whether it's your duty to get vaccinated after young women are showing reticence. Women should do themselves a favour and protect themselves from Covid by getting vaccinated, says this message. Always question the source of anti-vaccine talk. If no reliable source, assume it's malicious gossip.

We'll be back with you tomorrow from 10. Join us then. This is how the pandemic ends. Not with a bang, but with a shot. Or rather, billions of shots. I'm Tim Harford, the presenter of More or Less and 50 Things That Made the Modern Economy. And in a new podcast series from the BBC, we'll be covering the defining story of the crisis. The search for a vaccine. We look at the cutting-edge biotechnology behind these vaccines

and the underrated business of fridges and vials and porter cabins that will be essential in a huge public health campaign. And of course, there are the other questions. Who's going to pay for this? How will we persuade people to take the vaccine? And who gets to go to the front of the queue of several billion people? That's How to Vaccinate the World, available now on BBC Sounds. I'm Sarah Trelevan, and for over a year I've been working on one of the most complex stories I've ever covered.

There was somebody out there who's faking pregnancies. I started, like, warning everybody. Every doula that I know. It was fake. No pregnancy. And the deeper I dig, the more questions I unearth. How long has she been doing this? What does she have to gain from this?

From CBC and the BBC World Service, The Con, Caitlin's Baby. It's a long story. Settle in. Available now.