In a tragic case, a division branch rejected a 16-year-old rape victim’s request to immediately abort her 27-week-old unborn baby. “Don’t ask us to be a part of foeticide. Every endeavour must be made by the state to protect life,” the bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Anish Dayal told the counsel for the survivor,” according to Sohini Ghosh.
The All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) “highlighted that aborting the 16-year-old girl’s pregnancy at 27 weeks may harm her reproductive health permanently and amount to foeticide as the baby will be born alive.” The teen and her mother “agreed to carry the pregnancy under court supervision.”
On June 30, Justice Manoj Jain, citing “the grave mental injury and trauma inflicted upon the mind of the minor on account of sexual assault,” had authorized the abortion. The 2021 Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act sets a 24-week limit but allows judicial exceptions for minors or serious health concerns.
REACH PRO-LIFE PEOPLE WORLDWIDE! Advertise with LifeNews to reach hundreds of thousands of pro-life readers every week. Contact us today.
AIIMS appealed the order. AIIMS told the court
that with regard to the totality of circumstances, the direction issued by the single judge for making arrangements for the termination of pregnancy of a minor rape survivor is not only in derogation of provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act 1971 but also runs contrary to the medical opinion expressed by the board comprising experts including a psychiatrist.
Abhinav Garg, reporting for the Times of India, explained “In response to the court’s query on whether it would be safe for a child to be born after 34 weeks [solicitor-general Aishwarya] Bhati said yes. At that point, “the bench decided to hear the AIIMS panel doctors as well as the counsel for the girl and her mother.”
In the afternoon, the medical experts submitted that if the procedure was performed right now, it would be a pre-term delivery. The child would be alive and require medical intervention. There would be a possibility of severe neurological or other problems for the child too.
The doctors said that it would amount to foeticide, only permissible in medical issues. It would also hamper the survivor’s reproductive health.
Laying it out that frankly appeared to sway Chief Justice Upadhyaya. After hearing the two doctors, he addressed
the counsel for the rape survivor, orally remarked, “Termination of pregnancy here would mean delivery of a child… it is not an induced abortion, it is foeticide… Unless medically required, it is a criminal offence… Asking us to be party to foeticide, which is permissible for medical requirements only, that I do not agree to.”
At that juncture, according to Garg, the court
asked the lawyer to make her clients understand that it would be in the interest of the survivor and her child to continue with the pregnancy. After delivery, if she wished, the infant could be given up for adoption.
After a brief gap, Madhukar told the bench that the survivor had agreed to continue with the pregnancy. The girl should remain admitted to AIIMS for the entire gestation period and until her delivery. She should be allowed to stay in AIIMS until she felt fit after delivering the child, it added. The court directed AIIMS to provide free treatment to the girl and the child for five years and asked Delhi govt to file an affidavit giving details on helping them.
“A follow-up hearing on the court’s welfare directives and potential adoption pathways is scheduled for October 15.”
The decision came down July 3, and I was unable to find any later information.
LifeNews.com Note: Dave Andrusko is the editor of National Right to Life News and an author and editor of several books on abortion topics. He frequently writes Today’s News and Views — an online opinion column on pro-life issues. Image shows an unborn baby at 27 weeks.
The post Court Refuses Request to Kill 27-Week-Old Unborn Baby in Abortion appeared first on LifeNews.com.
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: Dave Andrusko
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://www.lifenews.com and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.
