The young woman in question reportedly has the mental capacity of an elementary-school child, but her mother had promised to take full responsibility for raising the child. The mother and a social worker involved both spoke adamantly against the abortion, which the National Health Service doctors responsible for the pregnant woman’s care were recommending.

In an expedited hearing a few days later, a higher court thankfully overturned the ruling.

The fact that the initial ruling was made at all is troubling – here is a judge who believes it could be justified that the state would have so much control over a woman as to go into her body and kill her child without her consent. It also shows how little value is placed on a pre-born child. It seems in this case the state did have some capacity as a medical decision maker for this woman. But abortion is not healthcare. It would not improve this woman’s health, and definitely not do anything for the health of her pre-born child.  This is a misuse of the government’s responsibility to care for those who are unable to care for themselves.

Add to this that it is also against the woman’s expressed wishes. Both pro-life as well as pro-choice advocates who staunchly defend the “my body, my choice” rhetoric must oppose this completely. It reeks of China’s one-child policy, or horror stories from North Korea, where forced abortions and sterilizations are a known occurrence. This is not the type of state power we expect or can allow to go unnoticed.

Further information and context will hopefully be forthcoming when the reasons for overturning the decision are released in the near future.

The current debate comes on the heels of a Parliamentary Inquiry launched by MP Fiona Bruce into whether the Abortion Act 1967 unjustly discriminates against disabled babies by permitting abortion up to birth on disability grounds. Currently, the United Kingdom has a gestational law prohibiting abortions past 24 weeks for other reasons.

We read here that,

“The Inquiry concluded that the law on abortion for disability could fall foul of both the 2010 Equality Act and UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which states that a child “needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.”

A report on the findings of the Inquiry revealed that:

• Approximately 90 per cent of unborn babies who are diagnosed with Down’s syndrome in England and Wales are aborted following prenatal testing.
• Around seven terminations for cleft lip, and five for cleft palate, have taken place in England and Wales since 2002.
• Following a disability diagnosis, many parents feel that they are“pushed towards” having an abortion without due consideration of other options, and many who decide to keep their child face discrimination.

The Inquiry recommended Parliament to remove the discriminatory aspects of the Act either by repealing section 1(1)(d), which permits terminations on disability grounds, or as a minimum, reducing the upper limit for disability abortions to make it equal to that of abortion on other grounds.

Let’s hope the UK Parliament will listen to this courageous MP and reviews the eugenic practice of terminating pregnancies on the basis of ability.