In the United Kingdom, a mother-of-six will be taken to the hospital and forced to undergo a sterilization.

In 2014, the department of health and social services applied for permission to enter the woman’s home and take her to get sterilized against her will. The woman, who has not been identified, reportedly has a learning disability.

At a hearing at the Court of Protection, they argued that sterilization is necessary because the woman’s health would be put at risk if she had more children. However, John McKendrick, who represented a health authority, hospital trust and council said the application fo r sterilization was “extraordinary” and would involve serious interference with the woman’s human rights.

According to the Daily Mail, the judge who’s going to rule on the case, Stephen Cobb, held a two-day hearing into the case and heard that health workers have struggled to get the woman to take contraception. The judge said that this case is one of “enormous gravity.”

Today, Justice Cobb ruled that the woman can be forcibly sterilized:

Mr Justice Cobb today granted their applications, describing the case as “exceptional” – branding the circumstances “extreme” and stressing that “therapeutic sterilisation” would be lawful and in the woman’s best interests. He declared that the woman lacked the mental capacity to litigate and make decisions regarding contraception. He authorised medics and social services staff to: “Remove (the woman) from her home and take steps to convey her to hospital for the purposes of the sterilisation procedure.” Click here to sign up for daily pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com And he said “necessary and proportionate steps” could include “forced entry and necessary restraint”.

The Court of Protection in London is one of the United Kingdom’s most secretive courts that usually deal with cases involving vulnerable people who lack the mental ability to make decisions for their health themselves. A representative of the Court of Protection, Michael Horne, said, “The issues have nothing to do with eugenics. It is a “therapeutic” sterilization in that it most effectively mitigates the grave risks to health and life that a further pregnancy could bring.’

As LifeNews previously reported, in 2012 the British government gave $268 million to the government of India for a program that forcibly sterilizes poor women and men. Wendy Wright explained the inhumane act of forced sterilization. She said, “Men and women are rounded up into makeshift rural camps to be sterilized, many left in pain with little or no care. Some women, sterilized while pregnant, suffered miscarriages. Some were bribed with less than $8 and a sari, others threatened with losing their ration cards. Some died from botched operations.”

Additionally, in the United States parents of a 32-year-old pregnant woman, known as Mary Moe, withdrew their request to subject their daughter to a forced abortion and sterilization. Moe was being treated at a Massachusetts hospital for schizophrenia and bipolar mood disorder. When she became pregnant, doctors were purportedly concerned that her medications could harm the unborn child. So they recommended an abortion. However, Moe is a Catholic and expressed vocal opposition to abortion.

Since Moe planned to keep her baby, her parents, in conjunction with the doctors, filed a petition with the local courts, which would give them the power to force her to get an abortion. Massachusetts justice Christina Harms not only granted the petition, she went a step further. She told Moe’s parents that it didn’t matter how they got Moe to have the abortion, even if it meant she had to be “coaxed, bribed, or even enticed … by ruse.”