Court May Force Mentally Disabled Nevada Woman to Have Abortion

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by badgerprints
 


No, I guess it's not ok. But somehow being forced to do it seems so much worse. Especially, since it is mentally handicapped people affected. If I chose to do something it would be on my conscious but this is more like rape to me. Someone decided to play moral police and figured that mentally handicapped people shouldn't be allowed to have children. That takes away free will.




posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 10:22 PM
link   
I work in a "vulnerable adult" home. It is coed and ages vary. We are not allowed to tell our "consumers" what they can or cannot do unless it can/will cause harm to themselves or someone else. We can merely suggest a specific behavior. During orientation, I was told that if the "consumers" wanted to have sexual relations, they had every right. Sexual relations are not considered dangerous. That's what the organization I work for is very stringent about, the rights of consumers are the same as non-vulnerable adults. If they want an aclohol drink, go gambling etc., they have every right. Fortunately, the town is small and the consumers don't wish to partake of these type of behaviors. Also, their legal guardians - family members - have the final say. They can impose regulations and rules that we cannot. We can enforce these rules that the guardians set. If the guardian doesn't set them, we can't either. The only way a court could decide on this woman's termination of pregnancy is if she is a ward of the court. If she has family, then they don't have any say because they either willingly relinquished care and responsibility to the courts or it was taken from them because of some form of neglect or abuse. The courts will have the final say unless the family can somehow regain custody and care of this woman. Just my opinion. I don't think that in this instance, the judge is correct in ordering an abortion, given that there are people waiting to adopt the baby unconditionally. If the woman isn't in danger, he really has no right. Otherwise, one could impose a "no conception" order for people with IQ's under _______________ (insert your opinion of IQ level here). It just isn't right.
edit on 31-10-2012 by Gridrebel because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Gridrebel
 


The family does have guardianship of this woman and they agree to adopt out the baby with this young lady's consent. Social services doesn't care and is forcing a court hearing any way.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by shadwgirl
 


The family can and should fight it then. The court should have to prove why she can't (in their opinion) complete the pregnancy. The family could take her to a secret place and shelter her until it would be very unfeasible to terminate the pregnancy. Wait, I think I saw a movie about this in the 90's......yup "Invasion of Privacy". A man holds his pregnant gf in a cabin in the woods until it is too late to abort the baby.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 10:47 PM
link   
I don't see how a reasonable person could support this.

This is neither pro-life nor pro-choice.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   
I don't get it..... How does a retarded person get pregnant in the first place? I thought having sex with a retarded person was looked at by law as the same as having sex with a 12 year old. Neither are capable of informed consent, and both were considered rape. Am I wrong?

Forced abortion seems wrong to me, forcing someone that can't care for a baby to give it up I can see. Only way I can see forcing a retarded person to have an abortion, is if it posed a serious risk of death for some medical reason, even then seems iffy to me.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 12:21 AM
link   
What if the parents are religious junkies, and brainwashed the girl and some social worker saw what was really going on and tried to press the issue. The press gets a hold of it and its an easy spin tword their reported story.

This is the problem with media.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by ubeenhad
 


Then it is still NOT the social worker's place to do this. Also did you miss the part about forced sterilization? This is a family issue and a personal choice. The government has no part in it. If this is due to the family's religious preference then it is covered under separation of church and state. Government has no right dictating what this woman does with her body and is trying to take her choice away.

off topic---love your avator
edit on 1-11-2012 by shadwgirl because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
I don't get it..... How does a retarded person get pregnant in the first place? I thought having sex with a retarded person was looked at by law as the same as having sex with a 12 year old. Neither are capable of informed consent, and both were considered rape. Am I wrong?

Forced abortion seems wrong to me, forcing someone that can't care for a baby to give it up I can see. Only way I can see forcing a retarded person to have an abortion, is if it posed a serious risk of death for some medical reason, even then seems iffy to me.


Well, if there are two "retarded" people having sex........still, the abortion is not legal IMO.
edit on 1-11-2012 by Gridrebel because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 01:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Gridrebel
 

Why the quotation marks? The article states she has severe mental and physical disabilities, and has the mental capacity of a six year old. She is severely retarded due to her mom boozing up while she was pregnant. Obviously another severely retarded person was not having sex with her..... Someone with the mental capacity of a six year old does not even think of sex. At some point, someone took advantage of her, be it a totally normal person, or maybe only a slightly retarded person in the group home. Someone introduced her to sex at some point.

It also states:

On several occasions, Elisa has left her group home for hours or days at a time to engage in sexual activity with men at a local truck stop.


If she is doing these kinds of things now, and they can't stop it now, why would sterilization after be wrong? She obviously cannot take care of kids, and does not have the mental capacity to know about birth control...... So she should just be allowed to run around getting knocked up again and again? At least with sterilization, another person isn't brought into the equation ever again......

On one hand we have the whole slippery slope to worry about, but what is a viable alternative in a situation like this? Someone who is not, and will never have the mental capacity to take care of them self, let alone a child is having sex with truckers. Were truckers ever prosecuted? They should have been IMO, it should be obvious she is retarded...... What else can be done to make certain that this never happens again?

edit on Thu, 01 Nov 2012 01:50:04 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


So you have no problem with someone being forcibly sterilized against the wishes of her or her family? Maybe birth control might be a better option? Regardless, this isn't a decision that should be left up to the state. It should be up to her family to decide. First they start with the handicapped, then who is next? Why don't we sterilize all the black people or gay people or libertarians? This is also one of the tools Hitler used for ethnic cleansing. No matter what the situation, this is just wrong and if the people of this country don't have a problem with this one case, we are all screwed cause who will stand up for you when it's your turn to be sterilized?



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by shadwgirl
 

Yeah, that is the slippery slope, isn't it..... Birth control is never 100%, both my sisters were conceived while mom was on the pill. Maybe she should be put in a better facility, where she is not allowed out without supervision. It is an adult with the mental capacity of a 6 year old we are talking about, I don't see how she could be allowed out without adult supervision at all. It's insane the whole situation.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 02:07 AM
link   
She can function, she has feelings, and she knows that she is pregnant. This girl does not want to have an abortion. There is a facebook page about it with petitions started by her family. I don't know how bad off this girl is but it is still wrong for any woman to be in this position. Adoption is always an option. 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. Yes it is a slippery slope, but it's one that no one should ever even attempt to go down.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 02:23 AM
link   
reply to post by shadwgirl
 


What about the slippery slope the other way? What is to stop the family of a retarded girl from taking cash from a couple that can't conceive, have the retarded girl have sex and get pregnant, possibly with the male adoptee, in order to hand the baby over to them? There is some sick people out there like that.

And if she gets pregnant again?

Sorry, it just seems absurd, this whole situation, makes my head and heart hurt........

We also must have different definitions of being a functional adult, or I have the wrong idea about what having the mental capacity of a six year old means.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 02:31 AM
link   
Explanation: Uhmmm?


This is a complete beatup! :shk:


Here is why ... and from the article linked in the OP



However, when Washoe County Social Services became aware of Elisa’s pregnancy, 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.

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.

“There are no statutes that give this Court or Washoe County the authority to compel Elisa to have an abortion. Such decisions are left to the sound discretion of the duly appointed guardian(s)… To date, Washoe County has utterly failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that Mr. and Mrs. Bauer’s decision to support Elisa’s efforts to carry her child to term is unlawful or that they are not acting in a manner consistent with the best interests of Elisa’s health and welfare.”


So an informal report ... SS dept must submit a FORMAL petition based on substantial grounds ... she has TWO legal gaurdians who endorse this pregnancy coming to full term and good on them for having the foresight to best place the child with others who have been vetted by these 2 gaurdians themselves ... and finally a word from the doctors ...


Medical insight

The Bauers have also consulted a number of doctors in an effort to provide the best care to their daughter and obtain expert opinion that debunks the notion that abortion and sterilization are the appropriate and only measures recommended in Elisa’s case.

Dr. Michael Czerkes, an OB/GYN at St. Mary’s Regional Medical Center in Lewiston, Maine reviewed all the medical facts and concluded that abortion was neither necessary nor prudent.


So she is fine with this ... so are her awesome adoptive parents [way to go Mr and Mrs Bauers, I bow to you both
] and the lawyer has it in hand and the doctors are also on board.

Personal Disclosure: Is it wrong for the SS dept to get a little bit of oversight into this?



However, when Washoe County Social Services became aware of Elisa’s pregnancy, 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.


Ok so the young lady ...


Elisa Bauer, who suffers from severe mental and physical disabilities attributed to fetal alcohol syndrome, is currently in the final weeks of her first trimester. The second-oldest of six children adopted by William and Amy Bauer in 1992, Elisa has epilepsy and is said to have the mental and social capacity of a 6-year-old.


... doesn't have the capacity to give consent to have sex ... regardless of her physical age.

This is the only place where I see the Bauers may have err'ed in their collective judgement ok.

However what is done is done and she seems to not be harmed by having sex, which she herself seeks out off her own accord, or being pregnant as a consequence of seeking the former.

If she was not in the care of these 2 fine upstanding [mostly] parents The Bauers ... and was therefor on her own ... would any of my fellow members agree with me that the State should and must look carefully into such wild circumstances?



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 02:33 AM
link   
It is highly illegal and that judge should be removed from the bench for even considering it! This would set a terrible precedent...



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by shadwgirl
 


What about the slippery slope the other way? What is to stop the family of a retarded girl from taking cash from a couple that can't conceive, have the retarded girl have sex and get pregnant, possibly with the male adoptee, in order to hand the baby over to them? There is some sick people out there like that.

And if she gets pregnant again?

Sorry, it just seems absurd, this whole situation, makes my head and heart hurt........

We also must have different definitions of being a functional adult, or I have the wrong idea about what having the mental capacity of a six year old means.


Ok, that is an excellent point. and in that case it would definitely be abuse and you protect the girl by placing her in protective care,you don't sterilize her .

By functioning, I mean she can think enough to know what an abortion is as well as know enough to sneak out of her home to have sex. I don't mean that she is capable of supporting herself, I do apologize because function should not have been the word to use.

This is an absurd situation and it really makes me upset because in my opinion, the government is way overstepping it's boundaries.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 02:41 AM
link   
Have a real hard time with her being forced to have an abortion, but do think she should be sterilized. I see OP Godwin's lawed us already but this isn't about being a Nazi. It's about protecting the public, the woman and future babies from herself. I don't think people with severe mental issues need to have children. I believe they should be sterilized. I get that it's hard to stomach, but for me the idea of some sexually curious woman with the intellect of a child having a child is horrific.

This woman is not capable of making these decisions, and if she is going to be sexually active (WTF to whoever had sex with her) she should most definitely be sterilized. I really think that certain people with certain maladies should be sterilized. They are not capable of being parents. There is no reason for them to have children.

What a sad story. I hope te baby lives and finds a happy healthy home and soon after giving birth this woman is sterilized.



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 02:51 AM
link   
reply to post by shadwgirl
 


I know I don't have the answers, that's for sure. We probably don't even have all the information. Going just by the article, she is not getting anywhere near the level of care and supervision she needs.

No matter what happens, it sets precedents that are ripe for abuse. Yes to sterilize, it has to be set in stone, and very specific the circumstances. Which rarely happens when it comes to laws, they are always vague and open to interpretation, and to misinterpretation



posted on Nov, 1 2012 @ 05:24 AM
link   
Originally posted by charles1952

The circumstances surrounding her pregnancy are unknown. Her family suspects she may have been raped,


Ok, that would sound like a reasonable explanation


but it’s possible the sexual encounter that led to her pregnancy was consensual.


Wait a minute


On several occasions, Elisa has left her group home for hours or days at a time to engage in sexual activity with men at a local truck stop.


So they know this has been going on? Who in there right mind would allow her to do this in the first place? Hooker anyone?
edit on 1-11-2012 by DarknStormy because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join