“Unfortunately, we fear that this is not a one-off case,” McCarthy said.
“We are calling on the Department of Health to urgently reveal how many women have been forced to have an abortion in the UK over the last 10 years and make it clear how they will ensure it will not happen again.”
See also UK BISHOPS, LAITY DENOUNCE COURT-SANCTIONED FORCED ABORTION. While some bishops such as John Keenan (see featured image) of Paisley, Scotland have come out against this ruling, general reaction from Catholic bishops was delayed and muted:
But Catholic bishops in England and Wales only responded to the ruling after the Catholic Herald tweeted: “Their relative silence has dismayed our readers in both the UK and US.”
However, Damian Thompson, editor-in-chief of Catholic Herald, tweeted back his dissatisfaction: “Statement from @catholicEW on the disgusting forced abortion: late, unmemorable, entirely lacking in righteous anger. The bare minimum. Pathetic.”
HORRIFIC: A British court has ordered a forced abortion. So much for choice and women’s bodily autonomy
On Friday, a British court made a profoundly shocking ruling which seeks to force a woman with an intellectual disability to undergo a late-term abortion against her wishes.
You didn’t misread that sentence. This forced abortion – of a 22 week unborn baby – is to take place in Britain, under the auspices of the National Health Service.
The pregnant woman doesn’t want an abortion. Her mother, a midwife, says she will care for her daughter and the baby, but the court has dismissed that solution. A social worker familiar with the family also advised against an abortion, but the judge, who has a history of advocating for abortion, insists that the baby must be killed.
This is absolutely horrendous and a terrifying breach of human rights.
The judge, Nathalie Lieven (pictured), acknowledged that the woman doesn’t want an abortion. She had the extraordinary arrogance to say that: “I am acutely conscious of the fact that for the State to order a woman to have a termination where it appears that she doesn’t want it is an immense intrusion, but added “I have to operate in [her] best interests, not on society’s views of termination.”
She admits that she is ordering this woman to undergo an abortion. She admits it is an immense intrusion. But she is going to do it anyway, because you can literally get away with anything in a country where every abortion is a good abortion.
According to reports, the pregnant woman’s mother is Nigerian and she says that the Catholic faith of herself and her daughter means that they are opposed to abortion.
This is a case of the worst kind of religious discrimination, then, because the ruling would force this family to act in a way that is completely contrary to their religious beliefs. The Catholic church needs to speak out to protect this family now.
The pregnancy woman has an intellectual disability, and Justice Lieven serves in the Court of Protection, which deals with people who are held to lack the ability to make decisions for themselves. However, the court has never ruled that any person with a disability must be forced to take part in a procedure which ends a life, a procedure which they and their family oppose. This ruling also tramples on the rights of people with disabilities in a way that is deeply disturbing.
Justice Lieven said she thought the woman would suffer more distress if the baby was taken away than if pregnancy was terminated – even though the woman’s mother and her social worker, who surely know her better, disagreed.
What does the judge imagine will happen next? How is a forced abortion carried out on a vulnerable woman who is 22 weeks pregnant?
Will she be strapped to the table while a surgical procedure dismembers her child? Or will she be sedated while an abortion is forced on her against her will?
The scenario is absolutely horrific. There should be a national and international uproar, and there likely would be except that the media are doing their damnedest to keep the whole thing as quiet as possible.
There hasn’t been a word from Amnesty and it goes without saying that the silence from British feminists is deafening.
After years of nonsense about ‘Handmaid’s Tale’ scenarios, we now have a real-life case where a woman’s body is subject to a legal order, but the so-called women’s rights advocates have nothing to say. What about the right to choose, and preserving women’s bodily autonomy? When a case is facilitating abortion, they don’t seem to matter that much anymore.
Sources tell me that lawyers and other concerned citizens are working to see if an appeal is possible. We need to pray that they succeed.
As I noted earlier, Justice Lieven has form in this area: she previously argued in court that Northern Ireland’s ban on abortion amounted to torture, and led to inhuman and degrading treatment by the state.
Most sane and decent people would agree that ordering a woman to undergo an abortion amounts to some of the most inhuman and degrading treatment imaginable.
This ruling, authorising a forced abortion on a vulnerable person, is monstrous. It cannot be allowed to stand.
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Click on the image below to visit TLB Project on twitter …