State Mandated Abortion

Share on facebook
Facebook 0
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn 0
Share on reddit
Reddit 0
Share on delicious
Delicious
Share on digg
Digg
Share on stumbleupon
StumbleUpon 0
Share on whatsapp
WhatsApp
Share on email
Email
Share on print
Print

Holly Scheer at The Federalist gives us the latest from the UK of an attempt by a Judge to force an abortion to occur:

 

On Monday, three appeal judges overturned a decision issue by Justice Lieven, which would have forced an intellectually disabled woman to abort her child, after the woman’s mother requested a review of the ruling. Lord Justice McCombe, Lady Justice King, and Lord Justice Peter Jackson reversed the decision in London’s Court of Appeals today. The reasons for this decision have not yet been released, but we do now know that this mother and her baby will be safe and she will be allowed to continue her pregnancy.

Before today, a British judge with a long personal history of supporting abortion rights had ordered a pregnant disabled woman to have an abortion against her wishes. The state decided it knew better than an adult woman and her mother who takes care of her and attempted to make this life and death decision for a child. This was a violation of the woman’s body and rights, as well as the child’s right to life, and both pro-life and pro-choice people ought to unite in denouncing this evil. The state told this woman that she had no choice in protecting her baby, and a judge tried to take away her autonomy. No case could further demonstrate the dangers that lie at the end of the eugenics behind pro-abortion policies than this devastating example.

Justice Nathalie Lieven is a judge in the UK’s Court of Protection, a court set up to handle cases for UK residents without the intellectual capability to make decisions for themselves. The woman in question has most of the details about her redacted to protect her identity, but we do know that she is in her twenties, her mother is Nigerian, and she is Catholic (as is her mother). She is also currently 22 weeks pregnant. She is also under an NHS trust, which is part of the National Health Service. The social worker responsible for caring for this woman has said that maintaining her pregnancy is in the woman’s best interests. This same NHS service was responsible for the decisions that led to the tragic death of Alfie Evans last year.

Why Was the State Making Life or Death Decisions?

NHS doctors want to end this woman’s pregnancy because they believe that her intellectual disabilities mean that an abortion would be less traumatic for her than having her baby. Her mother, whose identity is also obscured to protect her daughter, has been reported to be a former midwife and has told the courts that she would be happy to care for both her daughter and her grandchild. Despite this, the doctors and lawyers involved have decided that this would be too “burdensome” for this woman and that the baby, if allowed to be born, should go to foster care.

This means that a child, who has never been neglected or abused, could be slated for foster care simply because the mother is disabled and the grandmother is the mother’s caretaker. Arguments for abortion in this case also hinge on this idea, with the baby’s potential removal being cited as more traumatic for the mother than the child’s death via abortion.

The statements from Justice Lieven are chilling. Released in a ruling from the Court of Protection on June 21, she says, “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.” In addition, “I have to operate in [her] best interests, not on society’s views of termination.” Yet, Lieven herself has argued in favor of abortion on multiple occasions while she was a lawyer, notably in 2011, 2016, and 2017.

 

Go here to read the rest.  More and more pro-aborts are arguing that abortion is a positive good.  They are usually also worshipers at the altar of state power.  It takes little imagination to see that they will use state power to maximize the number of abortions however they can.  Pro-lifer George Orwell, who finished 1984 seventy years ago, would not have been at all surprised.

More to explorer

Just When You Think the New York Times Can’t Go Any Lower

Yep, all equal as slaves of the State.

No Comment Needed

Hattip to commenter Nate Winchester.

July 18, 1969: Entering the Gravity of the Moon

Fifty years ago Apollo 11 entered the gravity well of the Moon from the gravity well of the Earth.  Three-quarters of the

6 Comments

  1. “This was a violation of the woman’s body and rights, as well as the child’s right to life, and both pro-life and pro-choice people ought to unite in denouncing this evil.”

    Ding dong.

  2. “[B]oth pro-life and pro-choice people ought to unite in denouncing this evil.”

    That they likely won’t is proof positive that the abortion lobby is an anti-life movement that makes assertions about women’s bodies and rights in order to deprive unborn children of their right to life.

  3. Mr. Schreiber.

    I agree.
    This nefarious activity is simply a platform that desensitize’s the public and prepares worse scenarios to be acceptable decisions based upon one’s “freedom” regardless of the sufferings or deaths of the entities associated with the interferences of said freedoms.

    Who are you to tell me what I can or can’t do to my own body?

    Leading to; Who are they that don’t positively produce any goods or services to help the community. They are a useless liability. A non-person. An impediment. They must be “terminated.”

    Abortion as a slippery liquid poured onto the slope?

    (Who are you to tell me what I can or can’t do to my own body?), except that there are two bodies that hang in the balance of your decision.
    That aspect is not relevant in many minds and hearts…unfortunately.

    I’m rambling…(sorry) but I do agree with you that the rights to life for the unborn is
    not considered. Not yet!

    Hope? Yes! Always hope.
    The blowback from Mayor Cuomo could be advancing the Right to Life. Wouldn’t that be poetic justice.

  4. This is precisely why you do not let the government manage healthcare. The Judge: “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 we’ll do it anyway because we are the State and you cannot be a burden on the taxpayer besides we know what’s best.

Comments are closed.