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?

but if a termination is against the woman's religious views, it does make a difference.

Is there any evidence that it is against her religious views (ie that she morally objects to a termination on religious grounds as opposed to the fact she stated she wanted to keep the baby), or just her mother's? I know it has been reported that her mother is catholic and there have been statements by Bishops, but I'm not sure that someone with limited capacity would have clear moral or religious convictions for or against terminations. Obviously I don't want to speculate, and fully agree that compelling someone against their religious beliefs would be very damaging to the individual, however I'm not sure it's necessarily as clear cut in this instance.

Text if you don’t want to click the source:

Three Court of Appeal judges have ruled that doctors must not perform an abortion on a woman with a learning disability.
On Friday 21st June, Justice Nathalie Lieven ruled that the woman must be forced to have an abortion against her will, and in spite of the fact that the woman’s own mother offered to look after the child.
On Monday 24th June, Lord Justice McCombe, Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Peter Jackson overturned the ruling after the woman’s mother mounted a legal challenge.
The three judges said they would present the reasons for their decision at a later date.
At this time, the identities of the family, their social worker and NHS Trust who brought the case against them remain unknown.
Clare McCarthy of Right To Life UK has said:
“This is a very welcome decision that will save the life of the unborn child and the mother from a forced late-term abortion and much undue distress. However, the horrific original ruling should never have happened.
Unfortunately, we fear that this is not a one-off case.
We are calling on the Department of Health to urgently reveal how many women have been forced to have an abortion in the UK over the last 10 years and make it clear how they will ensure it will not happen again.”
Lord Alton of Liverpool has said:
“The decision of the Appeal Court restores my faith in our judicial system. The implications of their decision should now be carefully considered by the Court of Protection. By supplanting the rights of the family, and the rights of a vulnerable pregnant woman, the Court of Protection went way beyond the rights of a British Court. In trampling on the foundational, paramount human right – the very right to life itself – the Court exceeded its authority and the Appeal Court is to be warmly congratulated for overturning it.
There is an old saying that the person who saves a single life, saves the world. The saving of this single life should now open the eyes to the loss of so many others.”

Sorry- maybe a more appropriate link www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/24/catholic-church-hits-out-at-court-over-abortion-ruling

t the appeal court hearing, John McKendrick QC, representing the woman’s mother, argued that Lieven’s analysis of what was in the woman’s best interests was flawed.
“There is a clear overall view of a young woman who wishes to have a baby,” he told the court.
Earlier on Monday, before the appeal court’s decision, John Sherrington, a bishop in the Catholic diocese of Westminster, said: “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.
“In a free society like ours there is a delicate balance between the rights of the individual and the powers of the state.”
He added: “This case, for which all the information is not available, raises serious questions about the meaning of ‘best interests’ when a patient lacks mental capacity and is subject to the court’s decision against her will.”
At the earlier hearing, the judge was told that the circumstances of the conception were unclear and a police investigation was continuing.

As I say, if it was to do with religion, I don't personally agree that it ought to be part of any decision like this. But I can see why it would have to be.

That's why we have the Court of Protection. To ensure organisations like UK Right to Life don't get a say in cases like this.

The decision of the Appeal Court restores my faith in our judicial system. The implications of their decision should now be carefully considered by the Court of Protection. By supplanting the rights of the family, and the rights of a vulnerable pregnant woman, the Court of Protection went way beyond the rights of a British Court. In trampling onthe foundational, paramount human right – the very right to life itself – the Court exceeded its authority and the Appeal Court is to be warmly congratulated for overturning it.

Absolutely this ^

@FakeUsername
Gives me a little shudder to think right to lifers have jumped on this. But it's good they're asking for forced abortion statistics over the past 10 years.

The judge did her best, I think

For me, the fact the social worker said she thinks the woman could mother her child stands out in this case, plus the woman herself says she wants to keep it ( if she was saying she didn't want a baby there would be no controversy), then there's the grandmother who is happy to take on the care.

I said before it's cases like this where extreme decisions are made about women that gives fuel to pro-lifers. You can bet your buttons this is going to be used as part of the argument to reduce the age of viability.

Even if it was a pro life stance, so what?

I don't understand why the woman can't continue the pregnancy and a couple of weeks before she is due. They take her in and sedate her, do a c-section, remove the baby before she wakes and place baby for adoption, if it cannot be adopted within the family.

The option they are currently suggesting amounts to inducing an early labour where the end result is she gives birth to a dead baby.

If anyone thinks she'll struggle giving birth to a live baby, how do you imagine she will feel giving birth to a dead one. If anything is likely to tip her over the edge, that is.

This baby is potentially viable now, and it is totally unacceptable to kill a healthy baby when the mother, the grandmother, and even the mother's social worker want the baby and think the pregnancy should continue. The people who know her best, baby's grandmother and the mother's social worker think it is reasonable to proceed. Additionally the mother must be known to social services, so they will have carried out a thorough and stringent assessment of the baby's mother and the home set-up leading up to their decision to support her application to keep her baby. So if they (Social Services) don't see a problem, that in itself speaks for itself.

Granted that the mother lacks capacity and appears unlikely to be able to care for her baby, but the grandmother and the social worker for the mother do not lack capacity, and the grandmother wants to take responsibility for the child. If GM passes social services assessment, let them keep the child within the family but have an extended period of ongoing assessment. If it doesn't work out, SS remove the baby.

I think a number of agendas have jumped on this in a way (I’m not a pro-lifer). I think some very important conversations are needed, this case upset me as a sister of a young woman with a similar diagnosis and my urge to protect her being stirred- not any political agenda. I just imagined her feelings and emotions dismissed due to her lack of intellectual capacity and ability to express them, it’s had to explain the nuances of someone with LD and MH issues. But I know her feelings run deeper than are recognised by professionals and she is often dismissed as not having understanding when she does have feelings.

*@NotMyFinestMoment
*
I don't understand why the woman can't continue the pregnancy and a couple of weeks before she is due. They take her in and sedate her, do a c-section, remove the baby before she wakes and place baby for adoption, if it cannot be adopted within the family.

Your suggestion is terrifying. How dehumanizing

But that's probably what will happen

"I don't understand why the woman can't continue the pregnancy and a couple of weeks before she is due. They take her in and sedate her, do a c-section, remove the baby before she wakes and place baby for adoption, if it cannot be adopted within the family. "

@twicemummy1

Not as terrifying and dehumanising as forcing her to undergo an abortion and killing a wanted baby.

It's the lesser of 2 evils, but both options are awful.

@FakeUsername

But I know her feelings run deeper than are recognised by professionals and she is often dismissed as not having understanding when she does have feelings.

Yes professionals and experts can often get it wrong

@carla1983 I think both those options are totally evil

I hope now that the order is overturned the woman is given every bit of support she needs both in the pregnancy and handling this shit storm she has been put through.

The only person who should ever have a say in whether a pregnancy continues or is terminated is the babies mother and I'm so relieved that people are acknowledging the fact.

Even with her limited understanding there's no question as to the fact the poor woman's life has been turned upside down not only by the pregnancy itself but then having to go through all of this aswell.

I really hope she is as well as can be expected under the circumstances.

God knows how this change of ruling will be explained to her, being told one minute that the baby is going to go away and then the next day being told it's not.

Well, I hope it will be best managed through pictures and social stories post whatever birth is in her best interests. That she has an opportunity for supervised visits and support in whatever is in the child’s best interests. If fostered she may be able to express love and care in supervision in some way and be prepared as best possible for next steps. It’s a shit situation all ways but I wish her well.her difficulties are not described as profound, but moderate/ severe so she is likely to be able to express some love and time to be reduced with as much care as possible if that’s the way it has to be for the child to thrive.

@twicemummy1 what is the option that is not evil, if it's established that she cannot take care of the child and the mother did leave her to return to Nigeria - some basic facts that are in the public domain. Words like "evil" have no place here.

'I don't understand why the woman can't continue the pregnancy and a couple of weeks before she is due. They take her in and sedate her, do a c-section, remove the baby before she wakes and place baby for adoption, if it cannot be adopted within the family.'

Because she's not a walking baby incubator? She's more than a womb. She's a person!

If it's too evil to terminate the pregnancy, and too evil to give birth to it, how on earth to resolve that.

She is a person who has expressed a wish not to terminate the her baby.

However limited her capacity her wishes should never have been dismissed totally because regardless of disability she has rights.

Especially as she had the support of a trained social worker who would have assessed the situation and the young woman's understanding before giving her own reccomendations which did not match those of the other professionals.

It is said that her capacity has been underrated and that she is an individual who is capable of being flexible and adaptable.

Although her mental age is said to be between 6 and 9, if it were closer to 9 then she will have more of an understanding than some have insinuated on here.

Excuse my poor wording but the woman has been spoken about as if she were virtually brain dead at some points.

Two psychiatrists and an obstetrician stated that the woman would suffer if the pregnancy continued. No matter what a social worker thinks of her potential to be a parent, that is still the case. What if she develops PND? On top of a mood disorder? How does this decision benefit anyone? Baby or mum?