Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Father loses fight to halt wife's abortion

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

A father has no legal right to prevent his wife from aborting their unborn child, a Scottish judge ruled yesterday in a landmark judgment.

The ruling from Lord Eassie provoked the condemnation of pro-life groups and Cardinal Thomas Winning, the leader of Scotland's 750,000 Roman Catholics, who recently mounted a campaign, including offers of financial support, to try to persuade women not have abortions.

But the decision confirms, as is the case in England and Wales,that a foetus has no legal rights. Nor do fathers or the courts have the power to override the opinions of doctors under the 1967 Abortion Act.

James Kelly, of Inverkeithing, Fife, went to the Court of Session in Edinburgh to stop his estranged wife Lynne, a 21-year-old singer, from having an abortion and to seek custody of the baby and the couple's daughter.

Mr Kelly launched an immediate appeal, but Lord Eassie said it was clear that the law intended doctors to make the decision. Quoting from an earlier case, he said: "The great social responsibility is plainly placed by the law on the shoulders of the medical profession."

The judge added that the Abortion Act only required two doctors to form an opinion in good faith on the grounds for an abortion. The court's only role would be to investigate a doctor's good faith where doubt was cast upon it. But such a question had not arisen in this case.

In a 1987, an Oxford student failed in a High Court bid to stop his girlfriend, a fellow student, having an abortion, on the ground that a foetus has no legal rights.

The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children said yesterday's ruling was a "travesty of justice".

John Smeaton, the organisation's national director, said: "Above all, the right which the law should uphold is the unborn baby's right to life."

Cardinal Winning said: "It is a sad day indeed. There is surely an extraordinary anomaly in the law when a father can be pursued by the Child Support Agency for maintenance of a child but has no say in protecting the child's life in the womb."

Cardinal Winning added that the case showed the inadequacy of the law in failing to safeguard any rights of the unborn child. "We have arrived at abortion on demand," he said. "Once again, it highlights the need for a complete review of the Abortion Act."

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in