Last month, a British judge ordered that a disabled woman must undergo a forced abortion despite the woman, her mother and social worker insisting that she keep the baby.
Thankfully, the Court of Appeal overturned the ruling after a legal challenge was mounted by the woman’s mother, who had vowed to help care for the child after birth. The common-sense judgment could not have come at a more crucial time, just as the woman was preparing to go through pre-op for the abortion procedure.
Now, the official appeals ruling has been released, and the details make for an incredibly damning read.
Lady Justice King, who was on the three-judge panel, wrote that the Court of Protection judge, Justice Nathalie Lieven, “placed emphasis on the fact that (the woman’s) wishes were not clear and were not clearly expressed,” due to her disability.
The ruling added that Lieven, who is openly pro-abortion, did not consider the woman’s feelings—something that was a grave misjudgment in itself.
“The woman’s) feelings were, as for any person, learning disabled or not, uniquely her own and are not open to the same critique based upon cognitive or expressive ability,” King wrote.
“(The woman’s) feelings were important and should have been factored into the balancing exercise.”
The evidence, the judge declared, “was simply not sufficient to justify the profound invasion of (the woman’s) rights represented by the non-consensual termination of this advanced pregnancy.”
Judge was a prolific pro-abortion advocate
Ironically, a profile on Lieven at Counsel Magazine notes that the Judge specializes in “human rights” — just not the human rights of the unborn.
Just last year, Judge Nathalie Lieven was involved with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission in a bid to elicit a UK Supreme Court and European Court of Human Rights ruling that would deem the country’s strict abortion laws to be a violation of human rights.
The commission, despite being bolstered by Lieven’s legal argumentation, failed in its bid. What is more shocking, however, is to see the clear-cut bias of a Judge who is insistent on pushing her pro-abortion agenda, even if it is through the forced termination of a baby against the wishes of the mother.
“Given that Justice Lieven is a well-known proponent of abortion and has previously represented BPAS, it seems that an ideological belief that abortion is a necessary therapeutic outcome almost won the day,” wrote Naomi Marsden at British Christian policy think tank, CARE.
“We are heading in a very worrying direction indeed if we are starting to believe abortion is the most obvious, perhaps even more positive, outcome, rather than allowing the baby to live and a woman to be spared the grief of losing her child.”