On Friday, June 21, 2019, the UK’s Court of Protection ordered a mentally disabled Nigerian woman in her 20s to abort her 22 week old baby.

Fortunately, the following Monday, the Court of Appeal reversed that decision:

The world had followed this story, and police are still investigating the circumstances of the woman’s pregnancy.

Going back to June 21, the Catholic News Agency reported:

The Court of Protection handles cases involving individuals judged to lack the mental capacity to make decisions for themselves.

The woman, who cannot been publicly identified, has been described as “in her twenties,” and is under the care of an NHS trust, part of the UK’s National Health Service.

Doctors at the trust wished to abort her pregnancy and argued that, due to her diminished mental capacity, the abortion would be less traumatic for the woman than giving birth, especially if the baby would then be placed in foster care.

The woman’s mother made clear to doctors and the court that she would assume care of her grandchild.

The woman is believed to have the mental capacity of a grade school-age child. She is reportedly Catholic, and her mother is Nigerian.

It is unknown if the pregnancy was conceived consensually, and police are investigating the circumstances of conception.

The woman’s mother, reported to be a former midwife, registered her absolute opposition to the abortion citing the Catholic faith of herself and her daughter. A social worker who cares for the woman also disagreed that she should be forced to have an abortion.

The judge said she did not believe the woman understood what it meant to have a baby.

The Washington Examiner had more on the story that day (emphases mine):

In her ruling for the Court of Protection on June 21, Justice Nathalie Lieven said, “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] I have to operate in [her] best interests, not on society’s views of termination.”

“Immense intrusion” is a remarkable understatement. If the government can force you to abort your child, is there any limit to its power?

The pregnant mother and her family do not want an abortion, but she is under the care of a division of the U.K.’s National Health Service — thus why this matter has gone to court and why they have not already gotten one. But because the pregnant mother is mentally challenged, Lieven said, “I think she would like to have a baby in the same way she would like to have a nice doll,” completely dismissing the mother’s desire for her baby.

Barrister John McKendrick, who is leading the legal team for the pregnant woman’s mother, says the court has “no proper evidence” that having an abortion will be beneficial to the pregnant mother. “Their evidence is premised on a narrow clinical view. The application must be dismissed,” McKendrick said. The pregnant woman’s mother has added that abortion strongly violates her family’s Catholic values and that she would raise her grandchild herself.

I have no idea why the judge, a woman herself, wanted an abortion instead of adoption. Could she not bear to see the baby go to a good home?

A Canadian CEO considered the term ‘right to choose’:

I have no doubt that millions of prayers ascended on this future mother’s behalf.

As is so often the case with prayer, the good Lord heard us and answered our pleas according to His will.

On June 24, Sky News reported on the welcome reversal (emphasis in the original):

Doctors must not be allowed to perform an abortion on a pregnant mentally-ill woman, Court of Appeal judges ruled on Monday.

This is a marvellous result, especially for the people of United Kingdom.

Thank you, Lord, for answering our prayers! Please bless this lady and her mother in the weeks and months ahead. Please also bless the child once s/he is born. To God be all glory, now and forever! Amen.

Advertisements