To think you can't physically force somebody to have a late term abortion?

[Cringemum]

Just that really.

I was following the thread on the feminist board about the 22yo woman with LD's, who is 22 weeks pregnant, and a judge has ordered the pregnancy be terminated against her wishes.

The thread reached the maximum amount of comments before anybody was able to shed any light on my question.

I can't fathom how she can be physically forced to go through the procedure if she refuses to comply.

Could anybody shed any light on how exactly something like this could be enforced short of physically dragging her to the hospital and restraining her.

Horrible, horrible case by all accounts and my POV is that the judge has made the wrong decision - for the mother - I'm strictly pro choice in all situations but this doesn't sit right with me at all.

Many on the previous thread strongly disagree as is their prerogative but I don't understand how she can be made to go through with a termination?

Anybody?

So @twicemummy1 do you agree with the criteria below? Is it to your satisfaction?

Just been reversed on appeal....

@gingerpaleandproud yes I saw that criteria. It all seems a big vague to me, wishy washy. Not sure how any of it could be applied, when you've got a woman asserting her right to keep the baby and not have an abortion"
If it's to override her decision it should be much more concrete

We're clearly not talking about a woman who has no idea what a baby is and so on

Here

“Barrister Fiona Paterson, who is leading the trust’s legal team, told Mrs Justice Lieven that specialists thought a termination would be in the woman’s best interests.

She said the baby might be taken into council care and said the woman would find the loss of pregnancy easier to recover from than separation from her child.

“(Her) treating clinicians consider that on balance, a termination is in her best interests,” she said, in a written case outline.

“In broad terms (they) believe that as a result of her learning disabilities, (she) would find labour very difficult to tolerate and the recovery from a Caesarean section very challenging.

“(They) consider that (she) is likely to find the loss of a pregnancy easier to recover from than separation from the baby if he or she is taken into care.

“They also consider that (she) is at increased risk of psychosis if the pregnancy continues.”

it all seems a bit vague to me

You realise you are talking about the Mental Capacity Act, a landmark piece of legislation that has been challenged and tested in court repeatedly over the last 10+ years?

@Breathlessness
Yes it's clear the judge has tried to be as compassionate as possible and I personally agree with the judge that it would be much more traumatic to separate her from her baby than to have a late term abortion.

But having looked at the very convincing comments on here I also think that her choice not to terminate should be respected.

I'm glad the ruling was overturned and I hope all can be done to help her keep her baby. Or that she can visit her baby. Or retain some kind of relationship with it. And so on.

@twicemummy1 it's not wish washy. It's the cognitive process that we all go through when making decisions. Have a think about the way you make your choices. It's what we do as autonomous humans. The more complex the decision, the greater cognitive capacity you need to be able to apply those criteria.. Of course she will know what a baby is. That's not the point though, is it?

@hatgirl
Yes I do realize that, and like I said the language seems a bit vague. It could be extrapolated to mean anything.

@twicemummy1 it really couldn't. That's the whole point of it.

@gingerpaleandproud
What I really don't understand is why this criteria wasn't applied to her sooner so that steps could've been taken to prevent the pregnancy. If she literally cannot understand what is happening to her ( and I doubt that from what I've read) then it holds true that she literally cannot understand what sex is and has been failed.

If the state can intervene so drastically and dramatically when it's too late, why can't it intervene sooner and prevent her from having boyfriends, put her on contraception, or whatever the HELL has happened in this case.

Mental health has always been a very misogynistic field.

You realise you are talking about the Mental Capacity Act, a landmark piece of legislation that has been challenged and tested in court repeatedly over the last 10+ years?

Clearly fucking not. I hoped this thread might turn out better than the one on FWR. It was not to be.

People with mood disorders do have an increased risk of post puerperal psychosis. Doesn't mean she will have but her risk is substantially increased.
I hope the woman doesn't get this after delivery.

I hope all can be done to help her keep her baby. Or that she can visit her baby. Or retain some kind of relationship with it.

None of this is going to happen.

As you have been told over and over and over again.

She’s 22 weeks is she not. I expect further by the time it’s carried out. It would be done under GA anyway. So restrained cannula in and then to sleep.

It’s such an awful case, I’m thick skinned and it made me feel very ill. What was her mother thinking. Heartbreaking.

Lots of women have an increased risk of psychosis following labour, myself included. And I actually wouldn't say that risk can be obviated anyway because there's no way to avoid her being postpartum.

@LangCleg

It seems you do have a real issue with handling the existence of opinions that don't tally with your own. Hopefully it will be of some comfort to you that the opinions expressed on this and the other thread that you didn't agree with now have legal backing.

I just read on Facebook that the mother has won an appeal is this true?

I can't find any actual evidence of such but wanted to double check.

www.google.com/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/06/24/court-appeal-blocks-mentally-womans-abortion/amp/

One judges decision overruled by three others, and yet the first judge still made the right decision?

Yes, the termination is no longer going ahead. Decision made today by the court of appeal.

@twicemummy1 we have no idea how she ended up pregnant. The reports state it is being investigated. I really don't know what you think "the state" did / didn't do. It's perfectly feasible that she was looked after by her mum with no need for social services involvement. It may have been her mum who let her down. Who knows?

But what happened previously has no bearing on the current issue at all.

And as you've been told many times, the decision was not made because she was a woman, it was not made due to a misogynistic judiciary. It was because it is in her best interests.

"It was because it is in her best interests."

Presumably the new judgment is in her best interests too, then?

@PouncerDarling I've just caught up with the news, I will be bashed for saying this but I'm so pleased it has been overturned.. for the woman's sake and nobody else's before I get called a pro lifer again

www.mind.org.uk/news-campaigns/legal-news/legal-newsletter-september-2017/committee-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities/

This is what the UN committee on disability rights think of our mental capacity act in the UK.

They dont seem to be very impressed by it.
So maybe it would be possible to improve it.

@Cringemum those of us on this thread trying to explain the process of the decision haven't really said the first judge made the right decision. We've been trying to explain why the decision may have been reached. We do not know the minutiae of the case.

But what it's not is a misogynistic attack on women's autonomy and reproductive rights that pays no consideration of the feelings and beliefs of the woman at the centre of it all. Sadly many on here believe that it is.