A leading Bishop in the Catholic Church has released a hard-hitting statement after a UK court ruled that a 22-weeks-pregnant Catholic woman with developmental disabilities must have an abortion against her will.
Auxiliary Bishop of Westminster, John Sherrington, was horrified after hearing that the British Court of Protection declared that it would be in the woman’s “best interest” to have an abortion in order to avoid emotional distress.
“Every abortion is a tragedy,” Sherrington wrote in his statement. “This tragedy is compounded in the case of the recent legal decision of the Court of Protection to rule that a mother, who is in her 20s and has a ‘moderately severe’ learning disability and who wishes to keep her child at 22 weeks, must have an abortion.”
Member of European parliament and former Barrister, Steven Woolfe, also slammed the UK judicial system for allowing such a ghastly decision to be handed down.
“The decision by the so-called Court of Protection to force a young woman in her 20s to have her unborn child destroyed in her womb against her wishes is shocking and disturbing,” Woolfe told Faithwire. “This child, who is at least 22 weeks into his life, will be aborted against the mother’s will because she is deemed to have a learning disability which places her mental skills at those of a girl of six to nine years of age.”
Woolfe, who was heavily involved in advocating against the withdrawal of treatment from youngster Alfie Evans last year, said that the court had “disregarded the woman’s desire to deliver the child and her own mother’s willingness to look after the child.”
He added: “To illustrate how shocking this decision is, it comes in the same month of the disclosure that the premature birth and survival of a girl at 23 weeks and four days of age took place in a British hospital two years ago.
The little girl has since survived and thrived. I hesitate to call abortion “murder”, but when a baby just a few days older than this surviving child is now condemned to die because his mother does not reach some “quality control” standards set in a secret court, one must call abortion “eugenics.””
In her ruling, Judge Nathalie Lieven insisted that the woman, who is thought to have the mental age of a grade-school child, does not possess the faculties to fully comprehend what it entails to have a baby.
“I think she would like to have a baby in the same way she would like to have a nice doll,” the judge said of the expectant mother, who was said to be in her 20’s.
“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.”
Sherrington, on the other hand, lamented such a heinous court ruling, which openly orders the killing of a baby against the wishes of the mother.
“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,” Sherrington explained.
The Bishop added that this case was a “sad and distressing decision for the whole family whom we keep in our prayers.”
Bishop Sherrington noted that the case “raises serious questions about the meaning of ‘best interests’,” particularly in the instance of “when a patient lacks mental capacity and is subject to the court’s decision against her will.”
British pro-life organization “Life,” called the court’s decision “truly horrendous.”
Judge is a prolific pro-abortion advocate
Ironically, a profile on Lieven at Counsel Magazine notes that the Judge specializes in “human rights.”
Indeed, just last year, Judge Nathalie Lieven was last year involved with the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission in a bid to elicit a UK Supreme Court and European Court of Human Rights ruling that would deem the country’s strict abortion laws to be a violation of human rights.
The commission, despite being bolstered by Lieven’s legal argumentation, failed in its bid. What is more shocking, however, is to see the clear-cut bias of a Judge who is insistent on pushing her pro-abortion agenda, even if it is through the forced termination of a baby against the wishes of the mother.
Though there are many facts in this case that remain to be released, the crux remains very simple: the state has ordered the forced termination of a baby in direct contradiction to the mother’s wishes. How this ruling will be carried out in practice, however, remains to be seen.
Given the woman’s severe developmental disabilities, the police have now opened an investigation into how she became pregnant in the first place.
We will keep you posted as any additional information becomes available.