MP compares Judge’s abortion ruling to forced abortion in China

Photo credit Adobe Stock:Pineapples

A number of pro-life MPs have spoken out against the “barbaric practice” of forced abortion in the UK. The comments came after a ruling on Friday June 21st where Justice Lieven ordered that a woman with a learning disability who is 22 weeks pregnant must have an abortion.

This ruling has since been overturned by a Court of Appeal on Monday 24th June. 

Sir Edward Leigh MP called on the British government to “take urgent action to ensure this barbaric practice is eliminated.”

He said this case was “the kind of thing we expect in the People’s Republic of China”, where forced abortions and sterilisations are common.

Sir Edward Leigh went on to say that it was “deeply disturbing to discover that forced abortions are not only legal in this country but that judges may order them.”

“Even more appalling is that a judge has ordered this even though the disabled, Catholic Nigerian woman who is pregnant has a mother who is willing to look after the grandchild as well,” he added.

“The government should take urgent action to ensure this barbaric practice is eliminated from this country and from all countries.”

Right To Life UK, who started a petition asking Health Secretary Matt Hancock to intervene in the case reaching over 120,00 signatures just three days after launching, have organised a demonstration to take place outside Parliament on the evening of Tuesday 25th June at 6.30pm calling for clear safeguards to prevent this kind of ruling from happening again.

Despite the success of the petition, Jacob Rees-Mogg acknowledged that in this case there was little chance of a ministerial intervention, saying:

“This is deeply troubling but there is no Parliamentary route to challenging this decision.”

Clare McCarthy of Right to Life UK said:

We are thrilled that Justice Lieven’s decision has been overturned but remain concerned that she ever had the authority to make this kind of ruling in the first instance. While Parliament may not be able to directly interfere in the decisions of the judiciary, they can create legislation that stops of the judiciary from making this kind of decision in the first instance.”

A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Social Care said: “This is a matter for the courts so it is not appropriate for us to comment on the case.”

(Photo credit Adobe Stock:Pineapples)