Court May Force Mentally Disabled Nevada Woman to Have Abortion

Originally posted by shadwgirl


ok, I am officially appalled with the way our country is going. A mentally handicapped woman is in court fighting for her unborn child. She does admit that she can't raise the poor thing but has 6 couples willing to adopt. What right does the state have to force an abortion and sterilization on this woman? If she chose the abortion it would be one thing but the state is going to court to force her.


mods if this is in the wrong category, please move. thanks

www.lifenews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

The state has no right to tell a person to have an abortion. This is Nazi Germany right here. There is no if and or buts about it. 6 couples are willing to adopt this child and the state wants to tell her to murder it?

This is dictatorship.

reply to post by shadwgirl

they should let her keep the baby. maybe under supervision or with part time foster family arrangement.

reply to post by TKDRL


In fact, many disabled people think of sex often. They masterbate in public and private. They have desires of girlfriends/boyfriends. If you have worked in the field, you would know. And why would anyone deprive them of a basic desire? I think maybe some condoms might have been used. Many people are under the false assumption that handicapped people lack sexual desire or can't become impregnated. Both assumptions are wrong.

reply to post by shadwgirl

It would be different if this was her and the family's decision but it isn't. It is some social worker who doesn't believe that mentally retarded people should be allowed to procreate

No, that is not the stated case. You had to have other posters include the parts where the Social Services have ASKED a judge to CONSIDER the health ramifications on both the BABY and this VICTIM of abuse.

They have REQUESTED a judge to REVIEW the data and, if necessary, to take guardianship (making the woman a ward of the state). First of all, this woman was SEVERELY disabled by her biological mother's persistent drinking during pregnancy. She has adoptive parents who have allowed her (!!!) to live in a group home with inadequate SUPERVISION. Going to truck stops and servicing truckers? Really?

If the parents were such great "guardians" that would NOT HAVE HAPPENED.

We don't know a THING about her "group home" -- it could be a private, or state/local facility, but in either case the GROUP HOME needs to be investigated. The woman has severe epilepsy, and horrible brain damage due to her prenatal environment (drunk loser of a mother). There may very well be congenital PROBLEMS with Elisa that the parents and the Social Services department are unaware of.

the department issued an informal report requesting that the Court set a status hearing to address the potential health effects Elisa’s pregnancy could have on her and her unborn child, and possibly override the mutual decision made between Elisa and her parents to have her baby.

They are not screaming for sterilization of mentally retarded people, and OP, you should be ashamed of yourself for inflating this into something it isn't.

Jason Guinsasso, the attorney for the Bauers, says that the court has no jurisdiction to intervene in any health-related decisions regarding Elisa — pregnancy included — because Elisa’s parents are the legal guardians. He adds that Washoe County Social Services Department must submit a formal petition based on substantial grounds to usurp guardianship before the County Court can get involved.

Are you familiar with a "guardian ad litem"? It's a TRAINED individual appointed to have the CHILD'S best interests at heart. These parents (the Bauers) are being unrealistic. Having sought out high-quality prenatal care is good, but one MUST consider how Elisa was in a position to be exploited to begin with!!

The Social Services department is concerned about the woman AND the baby's health. They ASKED a judge to have a look at it. That is not the monstrous behavior you are accusing them of.

But, seeing as it's coming from a pro-life newspaper, and IS SLANTED (just like your OP) from the actual truth of the matter, I'm not surprised that they found someone ready to froth at the mouth and decry all social workers and to distort what they do, why they do it, and HOW the process works.

In this case, having 6 possible adoptive couples arranged is good. As long as the BABY is genetically healthy and the pregnancy goes normally, fine. But we don't know what other sorts of "activities" Elisa gets up to. She might be a meth addict for all we know, or have severe issues beyond her brain damage that indicate the baby will ALSO have those disabilities.

Calm down, for crying out loud!! And yes, if she has the baby and it is adopted out, great! Then she should be "sterilized", but whether by keeping her better supervised, or by enforcing contraceptive use, or by physically disabling her fertility is another matter altogether.

Whoever allowed her to solicit at the truck-stop, or be gone from the group home without supervision, is the culprit here, just the same as whoever impregnated her. THOSE are the people to be held accountable.

NOT THE SOCIAL SERVICES DEPT.
Sheesh.

1. Why is this lady allowed to leave the "home" that is supposed to be protecting her from herself? Isn't that what those homes do? The families take their loved ones ( and sometimes not so loved ones) to these homes because they need extra care. Like 24 hour care. The kind of care that require eyes on them most of the time. How is this lady allowed to leave for days to go hang out at a truck stop?!

2. These social service workers now a days are tricky. I think most of them do their best to protect, but some just go way over board. The problem is they have the power to do something like this. They know who to call and how to get it into court. (How did social services get involved anyway? Doesn't a call have to be made to get them involved?)

3. Where are all of the politicians that are against abortion? They need to stand up for this girl. They can't have it both ways on this one. If It was God's will for this baby to be conceived, why aren't they there for here? (Is it because she is disabled? Shhhhh....that must make it different, sweep this one under the rug.) Raped or not according to their political statements she should be forced to HAVE this baby. They want to take the abortion choice away, and this is going to the complete opposite direction.


Oh, so much more going on here, but it just gets my wheels in my head spinning and I can't focus on anyone point.

What is going on with this world?

BTW - If the home was told by the family to keep her there I find the home in fault. She wouldn't need to be sterilized if someone would do their damn job and take care of this girl. Either the family or the home, whoever wants the job, stand up and do it!

reply to post by Doodle19815

(How did social services get involved anyway? Doesn't a call have to be made to get them involved?)

Not if they were already monitoring the case. And if they weren't already involved with the family, it would have to be reported by someone; for examples, doctors and licensed educators, clinicians, counselors, etc. are mandated reporters.

Their responsibility is to bring attention onto questionable situations, if they fail to do so, they are liable.

reply to post by Gridrebel


So you are totally OK, with people like the one in OP having sex then? Someone with the body of an adult, and the mental capacity of a child? That just seems totally wrong to me.

Young teens also masturbate, think about sex, yet it is still illegal to have sex with one. I assume it would be just as illegal to have sex with a person with the mentality of a six year old. Am I wrong? I would assume places that take care of mentally handicapped would not allow sex between themselves, as they cannot even take care of themselves, let alone a baby. It just sounds totally insane to me.

reply to post by shadwgirl


What if a woman had lost a couple of children previously through some strange and unexplained deaths, or what if the woman was like one that I know who is such a severe drinker that she has already lost a number of pregnancies because the alcohol overtook the infant growing inside her. She did not need an abortion. Do you think it is right to sterilize either of these women? Probably not in fact I would have to question it myself although it seems like such a no brainer. I seriously think there are some decisions that need to be made by a persons loved ones and those that are responsible for caring for them, medical and psychiatric professionals and the peanut gallery should stay out of it.

reply to post by Doodle19815


Some consumers have what's called 'alone' time. It may be part of their goal plan. However, the lack of monitering is awful. There are state regulations and I think this home should be put out of business.

reply to post by Gridrebel


First off, you keep saying consumer, could you define that for me? Consumer makes it sound like they are buying a can of soup from you, not living under "protection". I would think of them more as clients, patients, or residents, consumer just sounds strange to me. (No attack at you personally, just a general rant.)

Secondly, I agree that the lack of supervision of a person with a six year old mentality is appalling. I assume that the caretakers have to note when their "consumer" is missing? Log it down in a book, call a relative to see if they checked them out, I don't know, something. So I really think that both the family and home knew the situation.

They allowed a girl to seak away for days at a time knowing full well where she was going. Maybe they want her sterilized so that eyes won't turn back their way if she gets knocked up again. Then they can continue to let her sneak away to a truck stop for days and do god really only knows what. Well, we know what she is doing, but what else could she be doing?

I would take her up to the truck stop and see if she runs happily into the arms of a certain trucker. Then paternity test the bastard,(not against his will I guess), and let him see what happened. That is assuming of course there is just one, doubtfully that would be the case.

Once again I apologize for the jumble of rant, but this makes me so upset. Wrong, wrong, wrong, on so many counts.

Originally posted by Gridrebel
reply to post by Doodle19815

 

Some consumers have what's called 'alone' time. It may be part of their goal plan. However, the lack of monitering is awful. There are state regulations and I think this home should be put out of business.

Homes for the disabled and elderly are too easy to open so desperate are they for people who need help to handle their loved ones, their parents in their old age. And of course some old folks just have no one and they are left on their own in the world.

And the disabled are also often not in a position to complain and so depend on family to intervene. I think all these facilities should be government regulated and yet we see people wanting gov to back off. The purpose of government is to assure the welfare of its people. Says very clearly in the preamble to the Constitution.

We see what private run facilities will do to people. At least in state and govt regulated special need care facilities they can be monitored visibly by the public. We have a right to transparency and I would not want anything less for the handicapped, and elderly. How did she get pregnant? Good question. We know Catholic Charities used to provide shots in the hip of a birth control they only had to administer 2x a year...just to avoid the pregnancies that occurred when staff raped the inmates...wards of the state or the church.
I think there is something wrong with a country that uses camera to catch red light runners but not to guarantee the vulnerable, disadvantage patients are cared for properly and humanely.

To make a long story short I totally agree, this facility should be closed.
Trouble is where do the residents go?

reply to post by badgerprints


I often categorize myself as a Humanist and I find your accusation alarming. Can you please provide me with the information that you used to arrive at your conclusion?

Thank you in advance.

reply to post by shadwgirl


Honestly, no. I think people should be responsible enough themselves to not have kids when they aren't suitable. And I dont just mean in raising the child, I mean that it will probably not be a fully functioning member of society if it is born with disorders, so why bring it into this world? We are all already heavily burdened by others like this.

reply to post by shadwgirl


Perhaps we should allow severly mentally challenged women to become breeders to feed the adoption industry ...Especially with all the gay and lesbian couples out there looking to adopt. I see dollar signs here Look something needs to be done like one poster said,are we to allow this women possible get knocked up again that seems irresponsible. I could argue that it would be cruel to force this women to have a child without fully being able to comprehend conception or the process of birth. How do we know that she is speaking on her own behalf perhaps here drunk mom see's dollar signs too.

Just to throw it out there.....

Nevada prohibits public funding of abortion for women eligible for state medical assistance for general health care unless the procedure is necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman, or the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest and the woman signs a notarized affidavit or witnessed declaration attesting to the rape or incest. Div. of Health Care Financing & Policy, Nev. Dep't of Human Resources, Medicaid Services Manual, ch. 600, § 603.4(2)(c) (Sept. 9, 2003)

www.prochoiceamerica.org...< br />
I assume that being mentally disabled would put her on government aid. If so, the court will have to prove rape, (I think that would be hard to do), or show that pregnancy puts the mother's life at risk. Hmmm...a conundrum to be sure.

reply to post by shadwgirl


Would you enjoy having a world where most of the population is so mentally retarded that they can't tie their own shoes, knowing humanity may well die off because they're allowed to reproduce?
What about a world where nobody is mentally retarded or handicapped, and everyone is capable of advancing and helping humanity? Where everyone has the capacity to become a surgeon or a scientist or an engineer?
These are obviously two extremes, but one of those is obviously better than the other, and anyone who disagrees is not logical. Personally, I have no problem with the idea of people who would pass on mental retardation being sterilized... I honestly think it would be better for the world if we focus on improving intelligence, rather than glorifying the life of somebody who won't be able to contribute.

I know alot of people are going to get pissed at that, but I have no respect for the mentally average, let alone those that are mentally retarded.

reply to post by Gridrebel


Thank you for saying that.
Yes disabled persons might desire and enjoy sex. Depends on the individual, same as anyone else. Male or female. Sexual attraction is an inherent human trait .

I'm not really a pro lifer but I completely disagree one should not be forced to abort.
If she has adoptions lined up why can't that be allowed?

The article did say the anti epileptic medicine might cause abnormalities in the baby. I thought they could test unborn babies by an amniocentesis? Insert a needle into the amniotic fluid in the womb to test for birth defects, before the pregnancy progresses.

I truly believe nobody should knowingly bring a disabled child into the world. It isn't right. It doesn't matter if they think they are doing the right thing keeping it. It's just not right. Living as a handicap or mentally challenged is a miserable existence. If that's why they are doing it I don't know. It could be about funding. The state doesn't want to pay for this child's care if it ends up deformed.

I know that last paragraph won't digest well in some.

Wow. So much outrage. Why does anyone even care seriously..If you aren't fit to raise a child on your own you shouldn't have one, period.

What the idiots who think this is ok (or some who even think it is a good idea) don't seem to get is the fact that they would be giving government the power to decide who lives and who dies based on "whats best for society" to move forward. Since when has government been known to do what is best for people? Rarely if at all!

Giving them the power to force abortions and sterilization for any reason is just insane and it would not stop there as government is known for taking a mile when given an inch... They have already declared most of the population terrorists for one stupid reason or another like people who pay for things in cash are potential terrorists, and you geniuses want to give them the power to determine who should be sterilized or have an abortion... Sigh!

Geeze the thought process of some nut jobs here is just amazing...

reply to post by Domo1


In a bizarre twist, I find myself agreeing with Domo here. She's not fit to be a parent, and probably isn't conscious of what's even going on. I could get into the reasons for genetic screening and congenital disorders here, but since the mother's condition isn't a defect at the genetic level, that'd be a moot point.