70,000 sign petition calling on UK govt to stop judge forcing women to have abortion against her will

On Friday the 21st May, Justice Lieven ordered that a mother with a learning disability who is 22 weeks pregnant must have an abortion against her will.

Right To Life UK have since started a petition to the Secretary of State for Health, Matt Hancock, urging him “to intervene in the case, doing all within [his] power to ensure this woman is not forced to have an abortion.” In  less than 48 hours since it was launched, the petition has gathered over 70,000 signatures.

The woman’s doctors claim that an abortion is in her best interests, despite the fact that the woman herself wants the child, and the woman’s mother has offered to raise the child and firmly opposes abortion. Furthermore, the woman’s own legal team have argued that there is “no proper evidence” for the claim that an abortion is the mothers best interests.

In her decision Justice Lieven said: “I think [the woman] would suffer greater trauma from having a baby removed [from her care],” Lieven said, because “it would at that stage be a real baby.”

Justice Nathalie Lieven has long been a legal advocate in various pro-abortion cases and in a recent pro-assisted suicide case. In 2005 she represented the Family Planning Association arguing that the law should not require parental consent for girls under the age of 16 seeking an abortion and that there is no duty to inform parents.

In 2011, she represented abortion provider and lobby group the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS). Lieven advocated for women to be able to take the second abortion pill in a chemical abortion outside of a clinical setting.

In 2018, Justice Lieven argued on behalf of the Nothern Ireland Human Rights Commission that the abortion law in Northern Ireland discriminates against women and girls and said it was in breach of Article 3 of the ECHR, which forbids torture and “inhuman or degrading” treatment or punishment.

Finally, in a 2018 Supreme Court legal challenge, Ms Lieven argued on behalf of Noel Conway, a 68 year old man with motor neurone disease, that it should be lawful for him to engage in a medically assisted suicide.

At the time of this court case, which ultimately failed, campaigners against assisted suicide pointed out that it “opens the door to risks and dangers driven by attitudes about disabled people and their lives. It’s worth noting that no disability charity or organisation is campaigning for a change in the law around assisted dying. We want support to live, not to die.”

Clare McCarthy of Right To Life UK said:

“Justice Lieven’s background as a lawyer in numerous abortion advocacy cases calls into question her fitness to adjudicate in this case. The fact that this case relates directly to abortion and the fact that the Judge has a strong background of pro-abortion advocacy, undermines the impartiality of the judiciary.”

“This important trial should not be presided over by a Judge with such a strong pro-abortion bias.”

Norway restricts abortions on twins and triplets

The Norwegian Parliament voted to introduce legislation requiring women pregnant with twins, triplets or more to obtain permission from a medical board if they want to abort one foetus or more.

On the 13th June, having debated through the night, a majority in the Norwegian Parliament voted to add a minor restriction to Norway’s long-standing abortion law.

A total of 105 Members of Parliament voted in favour of the change, including members of the four government parties plus several MPs from the rural-oriented Center Party. A total of 64 MPs voted against the law proposal.

The vote followed months of debate where Prime Minister Erna Solberg (who is a supporter of abortion) was ultimately forced to make the concession on abortion in order to form her coalition government.

Under Norwegian law, abortion is available without restriction up to 12 weeks of pregnancy and up to 18 weeks with minor restrictions. After this point, if the baby can survive outside of the womb, abortions are not permitted unless the life of the mother is in danger.

This new law in Norway requires the permission of a medical board before a woman can have an abortion if she is carrying multiple babies. This procedure is known as ‘foetal reduction’ or ‘selective termination’. If a woman is carrying twins or triplets and wants an abortion, a medical board must be consulted.

The pro-abortion leader of Norway’s Labour Party, Jonas Gahr Støre, strongly opposed the new law, apparently admist concerns about Alabama’s new pro-life legislation making its way to Norway. Per-Willy Amundsen, a conservative MP, called the “adjustments” to the law “completely natural and defensible changes. They address some ethical problems that are relevant to the highest degree.”

Clare McCarthy of Right To Life said:

“In England and Wales in 2018, there were 111 foetal reduction abortions out of a total of 200,608 abortions. Over the same time period in Norway there were in 12,380 abortions. If similar proportions of women seek foetal reduction in Norway, it is likely therefore that the number of women seeking foetal reduction abortions is extremely small, probably less than 10.”

“This is an extremely minor concession which will affect a tiny number of pregnancies, but does have the potential to save the lives of babies.  We therefore welcome this change and hope that it is seen by Norway as a starting point for the introduction of further protections for unborn children and more support for pregnant mothers.”

The Politics of Foetal Pain

James Evans

On the 6th of February this year, the Department of Health and Social Care admitted that an unborn baby aged 20-24 weeks gestation receives painkillers prior to surgery in the womb to treat spina bifida.

In a parliamentary question, Sir Edward Leigh MP asked the obvious follow-up question: will it be made “policy to provide pain relief to unborn babies of a similar age undergoing a termination”. The answer from the Department of Health? No.

Picking up on the contradiction, Fiona Bruce MP asked why there was this variance in clinical practice. Why did babies at 20-26 weeks undergoing spinal surgery receive painkillers, but babies at the same age undergoing termination receive no painkillers? The answer from the Department of Health? Not our job; no.

So whose job is it? Ms Bruce asked. The answer from the Department of Health? It may as well have been white noise.

In the meantime, while the Department of Health avoids it’s responsibilities, around ten mothers a day continue to proceed with a very late term abortion under the assurance that their baby will feel no pain and so does not need painkiller. Yet in the same hospitals, mothers with babies of the same age are assured that their baby will feel no pain because a painkiller will be administered.

This political avoidance has been happening since the late 1980s when the then MP, David Alton, raised the issue in parliament. It was only following the inquiry into foetal sentience that the RCOG formed a working party who published their paper in 1997. They recommended that consultants should consider the need the use of painkillers only for diagnostic or therapeutic procedures on foetuses in utero. Since then, in 2018 alone, 3602 women underwent an abortion at 20 weeks or later without the use of foetal painkiller; many of these will be following the diagnosis of a disability.

Many of these late term abortions will have been a D&E procedure in which, according to RCOG, the ‘fetus is removed in fragments’. In third trimester abortions, babies receive an injection of potassium chloride to effectively induce a heart attack – it can take minutes to several hours to work according to abortion provider BPAS.

Why is there this discrepancy? Why do we provide painkillers for an infant about to undergo spinal surgery in the womb but do not do the same for an infant about to lose his/her life through abortion? Perhaps it is because over time many Obstetrician and Gynaecologist consultants who conscientiously object to abortion have migrated to other medical fields, resulting in a group of polarised mindset without dissenters.

Or, most obviously, perhaps it is because to provide painkillers to a child that is about to have his or her life ended would bring home the reality of what’s going on. It would have a deeply humanising effect on the unborn child, and this is something that abortion supporters are keen to avoid. It would be to acknowledge that there is another human being here who is hurt by abortion. And to admit this might help cause the whole abortion edifice to collapse.

(Photo credit Adobe Stock:MoiraM)

UK Govt announces £13.6 million taxpayer money for US pro-abortion lobby group

In a recent debate in the House of Lords on global gender equality, Baroness Sugg revealed that the Department for International Development (DfID) had increased its funding for the American pro-abortion think tank, the Guttmacher Institute.

On returning from the Women Deliver conference in Vancouver, Baroness Sugg “was also pleased to announce an uplift to [DfID’s] programme with the Guttmacher Institute, bringing our current support to £13.6 million.”

It transpires that DfiD have been working with the pro-abortion think tank in their promotion of sexual and reproductive health and rights, which includes promoting access to abortion.

Historically, the Guttmacher Institute was a part of America’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, and continues to have close ties with that organisation.

In 2015, Planned Parenthood were embroiled in a scandal after they were discovered to negotiating the trading of baby body parts for research. Planned Parenthood abortionists were filmed altering how they conducted abortions in order to best harvest the desired organ(s) of the unborn baby.

DfID support for this the Guttmacher Institute is in addition to funding that has previously been provided to other abortion lobby groups. This year DfID gave IPPF £132 million in funding for a two-year programme, despite the ongoing sexual scandals within the company.

Furthermore, in April, Penny Modaunt MP, as International Development Secretary, pledged an additional £42 million to IPPF (alongside Marie Stopes International) to look at the “neglected issue” of safe abortion in developing countries.

Clare McCarthy of Right To Life UK said: “ DfID’s use of taxpayer’s money to fund the pro-abortion research group, Guttmacher Institute, as well as the scandal ridden IPPF is disgraceful.”

“There is no popular support for this international abortion advocacy as 65% of people in Britain oppose the use of taxpayer money being used to fund overseas abortions.”