The mother of a mentally disabled woman has appealed the ruling of a British judge has ruled that doctors can force her pregnant daughter to have an abortion. And the appeals court just overturned the ruling.

As LifeNews reported, a British judge ruled in favor of a government-run hospital to allow doctors to abort the mentally disabled woman’s 22 week old unborn baby against her will.

Doctors argued that the abortion is in the woman’s best interests — even though social workers and her own family disagree. Her legal team argued there is no evidence to show that aborting her baby is beneficial for her. The woman’s mother has even offered to care for the grandchild but the judge ruled otherwise.

Mrs Justice Lieven wrote in her ruling: “I think she would like to have a baby in the same way she would like to have a nice doll.”

But the woman’s mother is appealing the ruling. The woman’s mother, who is a member of the Nigerian Igbo community and a Catholic, is fighting the decision. She says abortion is against her Catholic religious beliefs and her cultural beliefs. She also said that she would be able to care for the baby, and that her daughter’s abilities and wishes were being undermined.

Barristers John McKendrick QC and Victoria Butler-Cole QC, who represented the woman at Monday’s appeal hearing, said Mrs Justice Lieven’s decision was wrong and should be overturned.

And the lower judge’s ruling has now been reversed:

Doctors must not be allowed to perform an abortion on a pregnant mentally-ill woman, Court of Appeal judges have ruled. But three appeal judges on Monday over-ruled that decision after the woman’s mother, a former midwife, mounted a challenge. Lord Justice McCombe, Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Peter Jackson had considered the challenge at a Court of Appeal hearing in London. They said they would give reasons for their decision at a later date.

Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

After the ruling, John Deighan of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children told LifeNews:

“This is amazing news. The initial decision to form an abortion on a disabled woman against her will, when her mother had promised to look after the child, caused shock and outrage around the world. A forced abortion is one of the worst things that can be done to a woman, and it is beggars belief that a judge of this land advocated this kind of cruelty and barbarity. We rejoice that common sense and basic decency has prevailed, and the mother and baby have escaped this appalling fate.The attention must now turn to giving this family all the support they need in an undoubtedly difficult situation. Serious questions must now be asked about how this decision happened, and the country will need assurances that this will never happen again.”

Meanwhile, pro-life members of Parliament have spoken out against the Judge’s ruling:

Jacob Rees-Mogg, MP for North-East Somerset, told CNA that “This is deeply troubling but there is no Parliamentary route to challenging this decision.”

And British Catholic bishops have condemned the decision.

Bishop John Sherrington, speaking on behalf of the Catholic Bishops in the UK, said, “Forcing a woman to have an abortion against her will, and that of her close family, infringes her human rights, not to mention the right of her unborn child to life in a family that has committed to caring for this child.” “This is a sad and distressing decision for the whole family whom we keep in our prayers,” he added. “This case, for which all the information is not available, raises serious questions about the meaning of “best interests” when a patient lacks mental capacity and is subject to the court’s decision against her will.”

Fiona Paterson, the barrister for the trust, said that doctors caring for the woman, who is in her 20s and diagnosed with a ‘moderately severe’ learning disorder and a mood disorder, believe an abortion is in her best interests.

“(Her) treating clinicians consider that on balance, a termination is in her best interests,” she said, in a written case outline.

“In broad terms (they) believe that as a result of her learning disabilities, (she) would find labour very difficult to tolerate and the recovery from a Caesarean section very challenging.

“(They) consider that (she) is likely to find the loss of a pregnancy easier to recover from than separation from the baby if he or she is taken into care.

“They also consider that (she) is at increased risk of psychosis if the pregnancy continues.”

The woman’s mother, who is a member of the Nigerian Igbo community, is fighting the application. She says abortion is against her Roman Catholic religious beliefs and her cultural beliefs. She also said that she would be able to care for the baby, and that her daughter’s abilities and wishes were being undermined.

Follow LifeNews.com on Instagram for pro-life pictures and videos.

Barrister John McKendrick QC, who is leading the woman’s mother’s legal team, told the judge: “It is accepted that (the woman) lacks capacity to conduct these proceedings and to make a decision in respect of whether or not to consent to a termination and associated ancillary treatment.

“That being said, (her mother) considers that the applicant has underestimated (her) ability and understanding, and that more weight should be place on her wishes and feelings.”

Mr McKendrick said “Termination is not in (the woman’s) best interests.”

He also said that the judge had “no proper evidence” to show that allowing the pregnancy to continue would put the woman’s life or long-term health at grave risk.

“The applicants have failed to carry out a proper best interests analysis,” he said.“Their evidence is premised on a narrow clinical view. The application must be dismissed.”

The woman herself is independently represented by staff from the office of the Official Solicitor, who help mentally-ill people at the centre of litigation. Susanna Rickard, the barrister who is leading the woman’s legal team, also said abortion did not appear to be in her best interests.

Leading pro-life groups are outraged by the decision, including the UK-based Society for the Protection of Unborn Children.

SPUC’s deputy chief executive John Deighan said:

“This is an outrage which should shock every right-thinking person. It is a level of cruelty and barbarity reminiscent of how people with mental health issues were treated in the 1930s of Nazi Germany. To force abortion on any person is abhorrent and to do so in the name of medicine and in the complete defiance of the religious and cultural values of the mother concerned calls into question the structures of law and justice in our society.”

Police are investigating the circumstances of how the woman became pregnant.