It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Brett Kavanaugh’s ‘Forced Abortion’

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 05:36 AM
link   
Let me start by saying that, I in NO WAY condone whats happening with this man, at all.....he deserves due process and he also deserves to answer for anything in the past.......

As many know, I detest what is happening with him and what the left is going to great lengths to do to him........

However....i came across this today.......and wondered what my ATS family would have to say...........




The case, Doe ex rel. Tarlow v. D.C., concerned three Jane Does with intellectual disabilities who said they were subjected to forcible surgical procedures in the 1970s through 1990s while they were under the institutional care of D.C.’s then-Mental Retardation and Developmental Disability Administration (now known as the Developmental Disabilities Administration).

They claimed they weren’t consulted in the decision-making process as stakeholders in choices about their own bodies, saying their due process rights were violated. They brought the case to court, challenging the district’s policy regarding obtaining consent for medical conditions. The lower court found a constitutional violation, which Kavanaugh overturned on appeal.





Discussion about the case has been complicated by some misconceptions on social media, including from reproductive rights thought leaders. Kavanaugh did not force these women to get abortions or say that he supported forced abortion.

This was a question of whether disabled people deemed incompetent can or should participate in medical decision-making, and Kavanaugh opined that their views on proposed medical procedures didn’t matter. In fact, the only mention of abortion in the decision was this: “the D.C. Code also explicitly provides that abortions, sterilizations, and psycho-surgeries may not be authorized [by someone empowered to make medical decisions for an ‘incompetent’ patient], at least absent a court order.”

At the time the procedures were performed, this law was not in place; Kavanaugh appeared to be referencing its protective effect for future patients.


Link

Again, this in NO WAY justifies what is happening to this man, ive been quite outspoken about that.......but it does make one think.....

I have not made up my mind one way or the other, as i need some time to ponder on it to do it justice........but I would love your thoughts.......




posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 06:04 AM
link   
......Don't know what to say.....First question....would be....who has....sex....with a mentally disabled person?....

....
...
.......



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 06:06 AM
link   

But Kavanaugh’s opinion that the voices of disabled people have no relevance to making decisions about their own lives if they’re judged “incompetent” should ring alarm bells, argue advocates.


What to say is it's GD hypocrisy coming from Kavanugh haters.

Millions of people that are not 'mentally challenged' get told they don't get to practice their civil liberty to own a firearm.

The difference is we know it and a mentally challenged person has no capacity to understand it.



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 06:07 AM
link   
One has to follow current laws as laid out
Even judges.
In those days they even gave forced lobotomies for the same reasons
Frontal lobe



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 06:13 AM
link   

They claimed they weren’t consulted in the decision-making process as stakeholders in choices about their own bodies, saying their due process rights were violated.


Sounds like 'someone' manipulated them in to filing.

Because those with intellectual disability aren't cognizant of it.

Hence intellectual disability.



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 06:19 AM
link   
you need to keep in mind that what a judge does is enforce laws, and to interpret laws. they are not the ones who make laws. they must obey the laws that are in place. (admittedly something that many judges, especially liberal leaning judges seem to forget about these days). often having to use past cases to determine what legal precedents have been set.


the whole eugenics thing is indeed a stain on our rather recent past. yet it is not something that a judge, except for possibly higher courts such as the federal and state supreme courts to rule against following the laws on. and just think, if Roe vs Wade was gone or non existent. which would have made abortion illegal. then he would have had to of ruled against the procedures. but the reality of those cases was what was really needed was for the law makers to change the laws. in fact if you want to lay blame on these cases, it is actually the federal supreme court, and their decision on the Roe vs Wade case. as well as the state law makers for it. not a judge that was following the laws, in making his determination. and why do i strongly suspect that if he had ruled the exact opposite, that the exact same people would still be using that against him?



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 06:22 AM
link   
dictionary.thelaw.com...

The LAW has multiple definitions of what is considered to be legally competent.

Makes those kinds of decision ALL the time for a myriad of reasons.



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 06:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: CADpro
......Don't know what to say.....First question....would be....who has....sex....with a mentally disabled person?....

....
...
.......


The same type of person that would molest a child... or rape a senior citizen in a nursing home... or have their way with a dead body in a morgue... there are a lot of sick people out there... and all the therapy and medication in the world won't fix them... but there is a really cheap eco-friendly renewably sourced cure... you may have heard of it... it's called "hemp rope"...



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 06:33 AM
link   
What is the RIGHT thing do ?

Obviously no one should be forced to undergo an abortion or sterilization, but at the same time an intellectually disabled person has no capacity to safely parent.

It's hard enough for normal people to do it.

What do you do?



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 06:42 AM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Why would someone deemed incompetent to make informed decisions about their care be allowed to make decisions about their care?

Kavanaugh got it right.



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 07:11 AM
link   
If someone is mentally retarded (intellectually disabled) and unable to understand the decisions they need to make about their body and medical procedures, then the doctors need to make those decisions. It's literally no different than a parent deciding whether or not their 4-year-old should have a needed surgery. Obviously we don't allow 4-year-olds to make those decisions, because they're not yet intellectually capable.
Now, let's say it was the other way around, and we let mentally retarded persons decide for themselves. They're allowed to decide if the symptoms they have are worth seeing a doctor. They're allowed to decide if this or that surgery is worth it. They're allowed to decide which foods and medications they should or should not be taking. We give them those choices, and then they start dying of easily treatable or avoidable conditions. There would be a mass outcry against the obvious medical neglect.
See the video below: This person would never survive without direct supervision of every aspect of their life. If medical decisions were left to them, they'd simply die. Is anyone going to watch this and say "No, that's wrong! Nobody has the right to make decisions for that person!" Whether you like it or not, some people are not intellectually capable of making important decisions about their own bodies.



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 07:11 AM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Firstly the title of this thread seems misleading, from your own linked source.


Kavanaugh did not force these women to get abortions or say that he supported forced abortion.



At the time the procedures were performed, this law was not in place; Kavanaugh appeared to be referencing its protective effect for future patients.


And this law which he was referencing states


“the D.C. Code also explicitly provides that abortions, sterilizations, and psycho-surgeries may not be authorized [by someone empowered to make medical decisions for an ‘incompetent’ patient], at least absent a court order.”


So Kavanaugh opined that disabled people deemed incompetent views on medical procedures didn’t matter and because the above law wasn’t in place at the time of these procedures, those empowered to make medical decisions on their behalf weren’t breaking the law. But with the new D.C code they would need a court order to perform such.

It’s my opinion that this law should have been put in place sooner to protect disabled people deemed incompetent with a court decision on wether any medical procedures are appropriate. Better late than never I suppose. Kavanaugh was just going by what the law stated as any judge must.



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 07:15 AM
link   
a reply to: surfer_soul

It's crazy. These people are looking for anything to hang on him no matter how insane.



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 07:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

Sounds like 'someone' manipulated them in to filing.

Because those with intellectual disability aren't cognizant of it.

Hence intellectual disability.





Not to mention social workers make those type of decissions on a regular basis.

regarding *The fitness and capability of the intellectual disabled* ....Dont they??



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 07:19 AM
link   
a reply to: surfer_soul

its not my title , its the title of the source..........just so were clear

And thank you for your contribution to the thread...........



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 07:26 AM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Ok that makes perfect sense, typical spin from the source relying on people to not fully read the article or understand the law. Just emotional baiting.



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 07:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Why would someone deemed incompetent to make informed decisions about their care be allowed to make decisions about their care?

Kavanaugh got it right.


Indeed. Taking nothing away from the OP, because it's definitely interesting, and completely valid as a mental exercise and/or a discussion, but if you drill down to "the letter of the law", Judge K. is correct, and so are you.

Judges shouldn't legislate from the bench.

I like the way you think.



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 07:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: CADpro
......Don't know what to say.....First question....would be....who has....sex....with a mentally disabled person?....


You obviously haven't met my first wife.



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 07:32 AM
link   
a reply to: MteWamp

I work in a psychiatric hospital and deal with people mentally unfit on a regular basis.



posted on Sep, 30 2018 @ 07:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Ok that makes perfect sense, typical spin from the source relying on people to not fully read the article or understand the law. Just emotional baiting.



Indeed my only objective is to get peoples thoughts.....weigh opinions and whats presented........thats all, no partisan crap on my part.......



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join