A legal judgment that a woman with learning disabilities must have an abortion against her will has been overturned by appeal court judges.
Last week Mrs Justice Lieven ruled that an abortion was in the woman’s ‘best interest’ despite the fact that she wanted the child.
But following an appeal launched by the lady’s mother, the unnamed woman will now be permitted to continue the pregnancy.
An NHS trust – caring for the 22-week pregnant woman with a mental age of a nine year old – sought the Court of Protection’s permission for doctors to abort the baby.
Judge Lieven said: “I am 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.”
a new doll
But she ruled in favour of the abortion, adding: “I have to operate in her best interests, not on society’s views of termination.”
Following the ruling, doctors told the woman she would go to sleep and when she woke, the “baby would no longer be in her tummy but she would get a new doll” instead.
At the appeal court hearing on Monday, John McKendrick QC representing the woman, argued that Lieven’s conclusion about her ‘best interests’ was flawed.
He said: “There is a clear overall view of a young woman who wishes to have a baby.”
Lord Justice McCombe, Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Jackson overruled Lieven’s decision and said they would give reasons at a later date.
Pro-life campaigner Obianuju Ekeocha revealed that Justice Lieven has a long history of supporting Britain’s abortion industry.
She said: “Most reports have failed to highlight that in the last fifteen years Lieven has had a prominent place in the British pro-abortion movement.”
“As a lawyer, she has been the voice of abortion organisations, she has argued to increase abortion access in the UK, she has fought against the rights of parents with regards to their children, she has claimed that the foetus does not have an autonomous right to life under UK law, and she has spoken on panels dedicated to abortion rights-related litigations.”