British judge orders disabled 22-week
pregnant woman to have abortion
Fox News,
by
Lukas Mikelionis
Original Article
Posted By: AltaD,
6/22/2019 9:27:59 AM
A British judge ordered Friday that an abortion be performed on a mentally disabled woman who is 22 weeks pregnant, despite objections from the woman and her mother.
Justice Nathalie Lieven admits in the ruling of the “heartbreaking” case that it’s an “immense intrusion” to order the abortion against the woman’s will, but argued that it’s in the best interest of the woman.“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,” the justice said. “I have to operate in [her] best interests, not on society's views of termination."
Reply 1 - Posted by:
MMC 6/22/2019 9:31:14 AM (No. 103944)
Wait for it.. NHS will soon not authorize treatment for elderly or disabled individuals- This is what Germany did preceding the Aryanification of Germany..
life needs to be valued- or all lives don’t matter..
15 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
ramona 6/22/2019 9:47:24 AM (No. 103963)
FTA: "“I think she would like to have a baby in the same way she would like to have a nice doll,” she said, pointing out that she didn’t fully comprehend what having a baby entails" (says the judge). Well, your Honor, every parent I know would have said exactly the same thing after their first child is born. This is pure evil.
Ramona (the Pest)
14 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
Tom Paine 6/22/2019 9:48:31 AM (No. 103966)
Check out the 1927 Supreme Court decision “Buck v. Bell”. The Supreme Court has never overturned Buck v. Bell. This is the court playing God.
5 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
jimincalif 6/22/2019 10:05:49 AM (No. 103993)
The opposite of “don’t tell women what to do with their bodies”. Horrific.
16 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
Nevadadad46 6/22/2019 10:20:37 AM (No. 104006)
Why the judge completely disregarded the right of the baby to live is beyond me. It is all about the woman and the expense to the state now, isn't it? When the state took over the Medical responsibility for the entire society, it failed to realize it also assumed the full responsibility for the health of every living individual in their jurisdiction. Now they fail that responsibility- miserably. That baby is a living human being now and it has equal rights to life as anyone. Except, those rights are invisible to this judicial monster. Her comment could as well have been made in Hitler's Germany of 1942. This is what liberalism brings to the human experience.
7 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
Northcross 6/22/2019 10:24:54 AM (No. 104013)
So now what happens if the woman and her mother refuse? Think about it.
6 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
Daria 6/22/2019 10:40:12 AM (No. 104029)
So much for "choice".
6 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
VirtuDawg 6/22/2019 11:38:04 AM (No. 104080)
This is truly a despicable "judgment."
It demonstrates why the Government should NEVER have any control over personal health and welfare decisions, which is where the Dim proposals for socialized national health care O(such as "Medicare for All") would be truly disastrous for our Country.
The Government in charge of health care? How about fixing the VA Health Care system first?
3 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
Chuzzles 6/22/2019 12:03:10 PM (No. 104098)
How exquisitely insulting this rotten judge is. How dare she assume that the baby is going to be disabled in any way. So where are the control freak feminists who should be protesting this decision by the judge? If there is a case that calls for protests by everybody, it is this one. Not only are you killing a baby judge, but you are killing that woman's grandchild as well.
5 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
hershey 6/22/2019 12:27:21 PM (No. 104122)
It's Britain people...you act like it is here (not that it probably isn't coming....)
0 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
udanja99 6/22/2019 1:23:01 PM (No. 104159)
I guess the highly educated judge has never heard the word “adoption”.
BTW, who is this Kurt Berger guy and how did he get that post on here? I’ve never seen spam like that on Lucianne.
2 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
Achilles 6/22/2019 2:18:09 PM (No. 104196)
This case needs to be published as far as possible.
1 person likes this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
rochow 6/22/2019 7:06:25 PM (No. 104361)
A 'judge' ordered this??? Who the heck does this piece of trash Lieven think she is?? GOD??
0 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
Catherine 6/22/2019 9:35:04 PM (No. 104437)
I understand the 'reasoning' behind this decision. I worked for a WIC office for several years and saw a developmentally challenged woman with a baby. The nurses had to guide her through the whole process and when it was over, she would sit on the cold steps and lay the baby on them beside her. I don't know her living conditions but I do remember thinking she should never have had that child. Now for this instance, I think the court would be better served seeking out whoever impregnated this woman. She's obviously a child mentally and I'd call this rape. As for the baby, let her have it and adopt it out. Then make sure she never gets pregnant again.
0 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
Faithfully 6/23/2019 9:54:40 AM (No. 104723)
Once the young generation has been desensitized to the reality of abortion the next phase is to convince them that Big Brother knows best about just who should breed.(sorry about the run on sentence)
0 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "AltaD"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
Comments:
The judge's decision is based on what is in the best interest of the NHS. The state does not want to pay for this child so the state has decided to terminate the child's life.