A court has ordered that a mother with a learning disability who is 22 weeks pregnant must have an abortion. The woman is understood to be in her 20s and has been diagnosed with a moderately severe learning disability.

Completely ignoring her unborn child, the woman’s doctors claim that an abortion is in her best interests, despite the fact that the woman herself wants the child. The mother's social worker disagreed with the doctors and the woman's legal team has said there was “no proper evidence” for their claim.

The pregnant woman’s own mother has offered to care for her grandchild when he/she is born and argued that her daughter’s doctors have “underestimated her ability and understanding...”

Mrs Justice Lieven said that she believed it would be too difficult for the grandmother to look after both her daughter and her grandchild.

The Judge said it was an “enormous” decision and that she was “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”.

After making this concession, she proceded to order that this woman have an abortion against her will.

“I think [the woman] would suffer greater trauma from having a baby removed [from her care],” Lieven said, because “it would at that stage be a real baby.”

Lieven clarified that the pregnancy “although real to [the woman], doesn’t have a baby outside her body she can touch.”

Lieven’s claim that her decision is in the best interest of the woman and “I have to operate in [her] best interests, not on society's views of termination,” is extremely disingenuous.

The Judge’s pro-abortion ideology is on clear display and her past abortion activism leaves her unfit to adjudicate this case. In 2011, she represented the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, Britain’s largest abortion provider,and in 2016 she argued in court that Northern Ireland’s abortion laws were a violation of the United Kingdom’s Human Rights Act.

In 2017, she said that Northern Ireland’s abortion laws were akin to torture and were discriminatory.

She is evidently allowing her own view of “termination” to cloud her judgement.

The Judge has basically stated that it is better for this woman to be forced to have a late-term abortion, than for to have her baby and have her own mother look after him/her.

Her name, location, NHS trust and MP are unknown, so please sign this petition to the Secretary of State for Health, Matt Hancock, urging him to intervene in this case and do all within his power to prevent this gross overreach of the state. This is an utterly despicable decision which must be opposed.

It is imperative that you sign this petition now. We do not know how long this woman and her baby have left before the State forces the mother to have an abortion.