June 24, 2019

"A court ruling that a woman with learning disabilities must have an abortion against her wishes has been overturned on appeal."

"The decision came after the woman’s mother, a former midwife, challenged a court order issued on Friday. The appeal court judges Lord Justice McCombe, Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Jackson said they would give reasons for their decision at a later date.... On Friday, the court of protection in London decided an abortion was in the best interests of the woman, who is in her 20s, and is 22 weeks pregnant. She has the mental capacity of a six- to nine-year-old child.... The NHS trust that is caring for the woman had sought the court’s permission for doctors to terminate the pregnancy. Three specialists, an obstetrician and two psychiatrists, said a termination was the best option because of the risk to the woman’s psychiatric health if pregnancy continued. Both the woman and her mother were opposed to the abortion, and the woman’s mother had offered to care for the child. A social worker who works with the woman said the pregnancy should continue. The court was told last week that the woman had a 'moderately severe' learning disorder and a mood disorder. The judge said she was not sure the woman understood what having a baby meant. 'I think she would like to have a baby in the same way she would like to have a nice doll'... Earlier on Monday, before the appeal court’s decision, John Sherrington, a bishop in the Catholic diocese of Westminster, said: 'Forcing a woman to have an abortion against her will, and that of her close family, infringes her human rights, not to mention the right of her unborn child to life in a family that has committed to caring for this child."

The Guardian reports.

We talked about the lower court's decision yesterday, here.

40 comments:

AlbertAnonymous said...

How, honestly, could any sane person decide otherwise?

That first ruling was insane. Who was the judge? Lord Choicey McChoice?

AlbertAnonymous said...

And if the woman was in the care of the state, and had the mental capacity of a 6 to 9 year old, someone’s got some ‘splainin to do.

Birkel said...

Maybe Althouse won't have to decide if the slope is indeed so slippery.
HINT: It is.

We'll revisit this after feminists close the Overton Window.
It was drafty anyway.

Ralph L said...

I didn't see any mention of the father--of the baby or the woman.

Drago said...

The public outcry was overwhelming and the insanity of the lower court ruling was inescapable.

Leftists & LLR's hardest hit.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

"Lord" Justice McCombe

Lord? Jebus that's FuCT.

Narr said...

Here I come, wandering into a topic that I have avoided recently. Might as well be early than try to catch up. (Diagram that!)

I think the original decision was appalling, an arrogant, unwarranted state intrusion into private and personal matters. It was a very dangerous marker placed, a bid to make women as equal as men in that their bodies can be utilized by the State as the State sees fit--"All Your Fetus Are Belong To Us" as it were.

I'm no fan of the RC, but on this I don't have any doubt which side is right.

Narr
Or "All Your Choice Are Belong To Us"

n.n said...

Social progress, zero. Human rights and reconciliation, one.

And if the woman was in the care of the state, and had the mental capacity of a 6 to 9 year old, someone’s got some ‘splainin to do.

Another house of progress, diversity, and Pro-Choice, perhaps. A rape... rape-rape culture fostered by activists, n-wave feminists with a cause and without a clue who labeled their forefathers and mothers morons, deplorable, even, probably. Then they got mugged by reality and reached the same conclusions.

Henry said...

The Civil Court Rules.

BarrySanders20 said...

John Irving hardest hit

n.n said...

'Forcing a woman to have an abortion against her will, and that of her close family, infringes her human rights, not to mention the right of her unborn child to life in a family that has committed to caring for this child

There are better, reconcilable solutions. Baby steps.

JMW Turner said...

And circumstances such as this is why I support abortion. (The hell with subterfuge such as "woman's right to choose;it's a necessary act of killing under certain situations.) I'm not on board with the "slippery slope " late trimester changes in law: give some advocates an inch etc...

Bill, Republic of Texas said...

World's fastest appeal decision?

Embarrassing!

traditionalguy said...

At last a good lawyer has intervened and stolen sanity has been returned to the English people.

n.n said...

At last a good lawyer has intervened and stolen sanity has been returned to the English people.

There's not enough brown matter in the known and inferred universe for people to believe the "big bang" theory of human evolution.

cyrus83 said...

Note that while the appellate judges clearly disagreed with the original judge's decision, they also said they'll give us the legal reasoning later, which makes me think this is more of a reactionary response to a decision that got an unwelcome viral response. I wouldn't be surprised if we get a word salad issued on a Friday before a major holiday long after everybody's forgotten about this case that does as little as possible to reach their decision.

Mary Martha said...

"That first ruling was insane. Who was the judge? Lord Choicey McChoice?"

The Justice who made the first ruling spent the 15 years of her career before becoming a judge as an advocate for pro choice causes.

Including representing the largest British abortion provider, representing another organization as it tried to overturn Northern Ireland's abortion regulations, and against parental consent laws.

She has been a judge for less than a year and surprise, surprise here she is making very pro abortion ruling.

mockturtle said...

Good! Let this 'psychiatric health' issue be a warning to those who think 'protecting a woman's health' is a good reason for an abortion. A woman's life, yes but nowadays this situation is rare to the point of extinction. A woman's 'health' can be construed to cover just about anything.

mockturtle said...

A mentally disabled woman in AZ was raped [who knows how many times] by a staff member at a nursing facility and became pregnant, which is the only way it was discovered. News Article

Gahrie said...

"Lord" Justice McCombe

Lord? Jebus that's FuCT.


Well, it's primarily just a job title, most of them are not members of the peerage. Chief Justice Roberts is not a chief either.

readering said...

Was there a single comment on the prior thread in favor of the Power court ruling? I don't remember one.

readering said...

Lower.

Kathryn51 said...

Thank you Althouse for posting this.

I went to bed last night, sick to my stomach that any court w/in "the West" could possibly rule to FORCE an abortion.

I'll sleep better tonight because of this post. Thank you.

narciso said...

The guardian and the telegraph noted it, the times and the Express did not
.

Freeman Hunt said...

Thank goodness. What was the first judge thinking? That ruling was barbaric.

Josephbleau said...

In England the way they would handle this is to quietly reassign the justice to a 20 year post in the Sudan.

MadisonMan said...

I'm curious: Who is the father?

Kevin said...

A woman's 'health' can be construed to cover just about anything.

The pregnancy itself is now labeled a health problem.

Circular logic and not what the justices envisioned in Roe.

Bobb said...

The Justice who made the first ruling spent the 15 years of her career before becoming a judge as an advocate for pro choice causes.

Including representing the largest [] abortion provider, representing another organization as it tried to overturn [] abortion regulations, and against parental consent laws.


But enough about Justice Ginsberg.

Saint Croix said...

Thank goodness. What was the first judge thinking?

Abortion good. Baby bad.

That ruling was barbaric.

It was an unelected official ordering that a mother and her unborn child should be violently attacked, and that her baby be killed.

It was a crime ordered by the state.

Saint Croix said...

Also it was perhaps racist.

She definitely hated the handicapped and other "inferiors."

Crazy Jane said...

Eugenics is alive and well in the UK and, let's face it, in the US too.

At the same time, a mother with the mental capacity of a six-year-old who wants a baby is like an actual six-year-old who wants a puppy. The offered solution -- grandma raises the baby -- sounds great, but what happens if the grandmother dies before the baby is a functional adult? These things do happen, after all.

It would have been nice if a less ad hoc solution were involved. Perhaps including the father (if he's not in prison, where he probably belongs) and his family. Perhaps adoption with generous inclusion of the birth mother in a cooperative larger family arrangement that takes her long-term needs into account as well.

Dishing off these decisions to uninvolved judges and medical experts is an outrage, of course, but simple solutions on the other end may be unavailing as well.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

The public needs to keep pressure on that eugenicist lefty cunt in a robe, and not let this attempted murder go unpunished.

Paul said...

You know the Nazis killed off all the mentally insane in Germany before WW2. Handicapped, Jews, Gypsies, Poles, anyone 'undesirable'. Today leftist want to kill of those that 'might' have an undesirable life. That is if they may be born in some way handicapped then, well, kill them off. Or just an inconvenience!

Their logic? They take more resources.. they interfere with the lives of the mothers, and they won't have a perfect life.

You know they don't even have a fancy Latin word for killing off the insane?

But soon senicide will be fashionable among the left. Infanticide is already ok with them.

Fernandistein said...

an actual six-year-old who wants a puppy.

I want eleven puppies.

sykes.1 said...

“Three Generations of Imbeciles Are Enough” So wrote Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in Buck v. Bell, a 1927 Supreme court case upholding a Virginia law that authorized the state to surgically sterilize certain “mental defectives” without their consent.

Jupiter said...

I think the judge wanted to kill the baby the same way that she might want to kill a story in the newspaper.

Sigivald said...

But Nationalized Healthcare Can Never Have Any Downsides.

It Is Known.

Skippy Tisdale said...

"Both the woman and her mother were opposed to the abortion, and the woman’s mother had offered to care for the child"

Socialized medicine:

"My body, Big Brother's choice"

Skippy Tisdale said...
This comment has been removed by the author.