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.”

UK judge orders mother to have abortion against her will

A court has ordered that a mother with a learning disability who is 22 weeks pregnant must have an abortion. The woman is understood to be in her 20s and has been diagnosed with having a moderately severe learning disability.

The woman’s doctors claim that an abortion is in her best interests, despite the fact that the woman herself wants the child. Her social worker disagreed with the doctors and the woman’s legal team has said there was “no proper evidence” for their claim.

The pregnant woman’s own mother has offered to care for her grandchild when he/she is born and argued that her daughter’s doctors have “underestimated her ability and understanding…”

Mrs Justice Lieven, said that she believed it would be too difficult from the grandmother to look after both the daughter and the grandchild.

The Judge said it was an “enormous” decision and that she was “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”.

After making this concession, she proceded to order that this woman have an abortion against her will.

“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.”

Lieven clarified that the pregnancy “although real to [the woman], doesn’t have a baby outside her body she can touch.”

Lieven’s claim that her decision is in the best interest of the woman and “I have to operate in [her] best interests, not on society’s views of termination,” is extremely disingenuous.

In 2011, the judge represented the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, Britain’s largest abortion provider, and in 2016 she argued in court that Northern Ireland’s abortion laws were a violation of the United Kingdom’s Human Rights Act. In 2017, she said that Northern Ireland’s abortion laws were akin to torture and were discriminatory.

Right To Life UK have launched a petition to the Secretary of State for Health, Matt Hancock, urging him to intervene in the case.

Author argues abortion “is a form of killing that we need to be able to defend.”

In a short interview, the author of a new book, Full Surrogacy Now: Feminism Against Family, has said that abortion “is a form of killing that we need to be able to defend.”

Sophie Lewis offers as a radical defence of abortion following on from  the introduction of strong-pro-life laws in some US states. These new laws, in Alabama and Georgia, recognise the right to life of abortion and therefore restrict abortion.

Lewis argues that it is a mistake of the pro-abortion lobby to suggest that abortion is not killing. She recognises, however, that abortion is a form of killing but still claims that it “is an acceptable violence.”

Although such a view might be considered to be controversial, it is a statement of fact and one that other proponents of abortion are increasingly saying.

Ann Furedi, the head of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), the largest abortion provider in Britain is known for her radical abortion views, particularly supporting abortion up until birth, and frankly admits in her own book that “abortion may be an act of killing”

Lewis is similarly open about the killing involved in an abortion saying she is “not interested in where human life starts to exist” and arguing that that the “violence [of pregnancy] is an unacceptable violence for someone who does not want to do gestational work.”

Commenting on this interview Clare McCarthy of Right To Life UK, said

“I think these extreme views give us an indication of an increasingly radical turn in the pro-abortion movement.

Not too long ago, the line was “safe, legal and rare”. We can see in this instance the pro-abortion lobbying are actually agreeing with what pro-lifers have been saying the whole time: that abortion is the ending of a human life.

The really shocking thing is that they apparently do not care at all. Contrary to what Lewis says, abortion is not an acceptable violence. It is a tragedy for both mother and child.”

(Photo Credit – Youtube:screenshot)

US stops federal funding for research using aborted baby parts

Adobe Stock/Photographee.eu

The US Department of Health and Social Services (HHS) has ended taxpayer funded federal research using the remains of aborted foetuses.

HHS recognised “the dignity of human life” as a “top priority” in determining what counts as ethical research. “Promoting the dignity of human life from conception to natural death is one of the very top priorities of President Trump’s administration,” the department said in a statement.”

However, privately funded research using parts of aborted babies is still able to continue.

Any research from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that desires to use new foetal remains for its research will no longer be conducted under this policy change.

As for future aborted-tissue research that applies for federal funding but takes place outside NIH, “an ethics advisory board will be convened to review the research proposal and recommend whether, in light of the ethical considerations, NIH should fund the research project—pursuant to a law passed by Congress.”

HHS also said that it was committed to funding ethical alternatives which does not involve the use of foetal remains.

After an abortion, it is possible to harvest the dead foetal remains for use in medical research.

Planned Parenthood were embroiled in a scandal in 2015 after they were discovered to negotiating the trading of baby body parts for research. The British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) also openly admitted to being involved in harvesting of baby parts for research following an abortion.

However, biochemistry expert Dr. Tara Sander Lee testified before the US Congress last December that fetal tissue research is medically unnecessary.

She explained that “after over 100 years of research, no therapies have been discovered or developed that require aborted fetal tissue,” and that researchers have access to a wealth of ethical sources for human tissue, including cells that can be given the coveted quality of pluripotency, or the ability to become other types of tissue.