It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Court May Force Mentally Disabled Nevada Woman to Have Abortion

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 08:54 AM
Hard to jump into a debate without the info, isn't it? She does take epilepsy meds -
And she is one of six adopted children. So her alcoholic mother has nothing to do with any of the decision making.

Years ago, women who had epilepsy were often discouraged from getting pregnant. Today, that's no longer the case. Thanks to early and regular prenatal care, more than 90 percent of pregnant women who have epilepsy deliver healthy babies, according to the Epilepsy Foundation.

Any medication you take during pregnancy can affect your baby. Birth defects — including cleft palate, neural tube defects, skeletal abnormalities, and congenital heart and urinary tract defects — are the primary concern with seizure medications. In addition, taking certain seizure medications, such as those that contain valproate, or more than one seizure medication during pregnancy can increase the risk that your baby will have impaired cognitive development. Valproate products include valproate sodium (Depacon), divalproex sodium (Depakote, Depakote ER) and valproic acid (Depakene, Stavzor). Other problems caused by seizure medications might include minor birth defects that affect the baby's appearance, such as wide-set eyes or a short upper lip — though it isn't clear whether this is related to the drugs or the disease.

The article did say that she is being treated for a high risk pregnancy so I would say she is getting good care.

reply to post by dawnstar

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 09:30 AM
Here is another source for this story, which may add to the discussion.

RENO, Nev. (KRNV & - Could a developmentally disabled woman be forced to have an abortion? At issue right now in the Washoe County District Court is if the pregnant woman's guardian’s wishes need to be respected or if the judge should and could step in to overrule them and possibly force an abortion.

The case Thursday had to be moved to a bigger courtroom after so many people shuffled in - including the pregnant 32-year-old who we're not identifying at the request of the judge.

“This case is really a life and death case,” attorney Jason Guinasso said.

Guinasso represents the woman's adopted parents and legal guardians who want to follow their religious beliefs to carry the child to term. But the attorney says presiding judge Egan Walker told him it's the court's power and responsibility to decide if the baby's born since the mother has the mental capacity of about a 6 year old and it's not clear if the pregnancy was consensual or rape.

“We fundamentally disagree with the court on it's ability to even conduct these proceedings. The guardians would like what they already have the right to do and that is make a decision,” Guinasso said,

A News 4 check of court filings show there have been no demands yet for the pregnancy to be terminated, and the judge hasn't told us if that option is even on the table, but multiple medical experts testified today this is a high risk pregnancy since the woman has epilepsy, bipolar disorder and the baby runs the risk of birth defects from mom's medications and STDs.

The one thing everyone agrees on is a decision should be made soon because as controversy grows, so does the fetus.

So, if the child has birth defects or is impacted by either the STDs, the bi-polar or the medications, the child will very likely need services through state and federally funded programs. These programs are struggling in all states to take care of the ever-increasing needs of a populace with more impoverished elderly on one side (who may very well have lost what they had due to the recent economic explosion) and increasing ranks of disabled and medically fragile children on the other (this is due to a multitude of factors that we do not yet understand, but the very clear and ominous reality is that the rates of disabled/medically fragile children are increasing - i.e. higher percentages, not just due to population increases or better diagnostics.)

So Federal and State funding is being cut and more people need help. Obviously the facilities that are available are not entirely adequate to meet the needs of this particular disabled person, and that is how she became pregnant. Literally, there was a failure in the system that led to this high-risk pregnancy, and would it be medically advisable to continue the pregnancy, or would the pregnancy itself constitute another form of abuse to this individual. That is the Big Picture from the government hard-reality side.

On a side note, if the birth-mother also has bi-polar, it is possible the alcohol her birth-mother consumed was self-medication which became uncontrolled alcoholism.

The other Big Picture is that the baby is developing as we speak. The fetus is here, now. It seems kind of late to be addressing the above factors. This was a totally preventable situation, as were her STDs, and ultimately, her fetal alcohol syndrome, but that goes too far back, no?

Who is to blame? Grown men who have the total lack of integrity to have sex with a disabled person (check!), a system that allowed this 32 year old woman to become a truck-stop whore (check!), did the adoptive parents not seek to correct the failures in the group home that led to her being sexually used by disease laden, integrity-bankrupt grown men?

What about lack of adequate funding and care for this system which contributed to the poor supervision and open facility that did not protect this woman from herself (this is a form of self-injury as much as a child putting her hand on a hot stove for the first time doesn't know she will get burned - and in this case, she is driven by biology to get burned again and again with no understanding of how she is hurting herself)?
It is incredibly complicated. It is tragedy compounding tragedy.

My personal feelings/thoughts about this are too complicated to adequately express. My heart hurts.


posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 09:38 AM

Originally posted by glen200376
What i want to know is if she is that mentally handicapped what kind of pervert impregnated her.
No matter how retarded some people are they always know how to have sex.

Exactly my sentiment, where is the father and why the court and "selfrighteous people" are not in open arms looking for the pervert. I imagine that the state tax payers will be very magnanimous offering their tax money to pay for the child care.

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 09:51 AM
reply to post by shadwgirl

there are alot of babies who already need adopted.

If you cant handle the responsibility of raising a child dont go making them. If your still dumb enough to get prego then i agree with society preventing it.

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 10:31 AM

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by shadwgirl

there are alot of babies who already need adopted.

If you cant handle the responsibility of raising a child dont go making them. If your still dumb enough to get prego then i agree with society preventing it.

The girl is not “dumb enough”, she is disabled. There’s a slight difference there. I have to disagree with you strongly mostly because there is no way from stopping that ball from rolling down hill. Who then determines who is and is not eligible for birthing children? Should we have a licensing system? What other criteria will be added to the “you have to be smart enough” clause? Will we be able to forcibly abort the children of those who are not financially able to carry the burden or of those who have had run-ins with the law?

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 10:40 AM
reply to post by Philodemus

Should we have a licensing system?

In my perfect world, Yes.
A prospective parent (whether pregnant at the time or not) should be required to attend parenting classes (just like the parents who already HAVE children and wind up abusing, neglecting, exploiting, and otherwise being unfit parents) at the very least.

Getting pregnant is free and easy.

Raising healthy, productive children IS NOT!!

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 10:50 AM
reply to post by AboveBoard

Thank you AB, for this less biased report. So now we know she has MULTIPLE high-risk factors; which the OP's source omitted entirely. (Also, the OP seems to have lost interest or bowed out??

I have faith that the judge will approach the case with some wisdom and thought....which is more than the pregnant woman is capable of, and apparently her "religious" adoptive parents as well.

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 11:32 AM
reply to post by wildtimes

Who sponsors the licensing? What is the curriculum? What concessions and state approved activates must you engage in to receive it? If we have separation of church and state, will the parent’s religious persuasion affect the licensing process? How would you pre-emptively determine an unfit parent? What’s to stop the state from determining how many children you are allowed regardless of your personal means to provide for them? How much will these licences cost? In a time when big government is already bloated and bleeding our money, will the revenue generated pay for the bureaucratic red tape that such a program would create?

You do realize that what we are talking about is not the same as the privilege to operate a motor vehicle, right? I have an innate right to father children, and spank their asses when they’re out of line. Being a parent is not a privilege. It is a human right, has been for 250,000 years or more.

Getting pregnant should remain “free and easy”. Legislating reproduction is a nightmare of an ethical quagmire.

Our system habitually leaves children in abusive homes and regularly rips children from loving and nurturing environments due to its fumbling inefficiencies. I think it a ridiculous proposal to allow the state more sovereignty in an area that they fail the mark so often already.

All things considered, I do agree that it needs regulation. I often say it outloud. "See, people like that shouldn't be allowed to have kids". I say that, and I mean it. Too bad it would never work right.

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 11:41 AM
reply to post by Philodemus

Who sponsors the licensing? What is the curriculum? What concessions and state approved activates must you engage in to receive it? If we have separation of church and state, will the parent’s religious persuasion affect the licensing process? How would you pre-emptively determine an unfit parent? What’s to stop the state from determining how many children you are allowed regardless of your personal means to provide for them? How much will these licences cost? In a time when big government is already bloated and bleeding our money, will the revenue generated pay for the bureaucratic red tape that such a program would create?

You do realize that what we are talking about is not the same as the privilege to operate a motor vehicle, right? I have an innate right to father children, and spank their asses when they’re out of line. Being a parent is not a privilege.

Being a parent IS a privilege.....and probably the most demanding and important job on this planet.

That said, you've asked a lot of questions, and then summed up your post with you think it should be regulated.

I worked as a professional with families and children, and was also a parent educator (funded by private philanthropists and the curriculum came from the Birth-3 research). I presented at a national conference for the Prevent Child Abuse America conference about babies' brains and early development. I would teach parents FOR FREE --
why does it always have to be about MONEY??

People need to be educated in parenting if they are going to be parents!! They need to know what to expect, how best to manage it, and what to do when the inevitable crises occur. A conscientious "expecting" parent should immerse themselves in child-rearing best practices, and strive to avoid damaging their children via ignorance. But, seeing as becoming a "parent" is a "human right", many don't bother.

They just continue on with the way their own parents raised them, or the way their emotions lead them.....

IT'S HARD WORK being an effective parent, even for those who DO know about early childhood development and brain-training that occurs due to external circumstances. There is no question about that.

There are good-enough parents (none are perfect), and there are CRAP PARENTS. And the crap parents are the ones who "lose" their parental rights, but only if their parenting is so crap that their kids are suffering, regardless of how much "intervention" comes (often too late). Why would you not want parents to have AT LEAST a basic understanding of the neurology and the cause-effect aspects of parenting styles??

edit on 2-11-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 11:57 AM
Are we coming full circle?

Two movements developed in response to these fears. Both considered the
nation a "race" that could be strengthened by keeping the birth rate of the
"fit" (the affluent) above that of the "unfit" (the poor). They differed
only in whose birth rate they wanted to change.

The eugenicists warned of "race suicide" if the nation's dominant group,
educated people of Northern European descent, did not increase its birthrate.
President Theodore Roosevelt expressed their view in March 1905 when he
attacked women who used birth control as "criminal against the race."[4]
This group wanted more children from the "fit."

The other movement, birth controllers, was more attractive to feminists such
as Margaret Sanger.[5] It did not demand that affluent women abandon careers
for large families. It planned to achieve race building by forcing down the
birth rate of the "unfit." In her autobiography, Margaret Sanger summarized
the differences between the two movements:

Eugenics without birth control seemed to me a house
built upon sands...The eugenicists wanted to shift the
birth-control emphasis from less children for the poor
to more children for the rich. We went back of that and
sought to stop the multiplication of the unfit."[6]
To stop this "multiplication," Sanger could be harsh. Her book The Pivot of
Civilization has a chapter called "The Cruelty of Charity." In it she blasts
as "insidiously injurious" programs to provide "medical and nursing
facilities to slum mothers." Such programs "facilitate the function of
maternity" when "the absolute necessity is to discourage it." Sanger believed
that a poor woman who died in childbirth gave other poor women more incentive
to visit her conveniently located birth control clinics.[7]

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 12:39 PM
reply to post by Philodemus

Here's a true personal story.
I have two grown children. A girl, now 23, and a boy, now 21.

When I had the girl, I had insurance through my husband, and it covered a state-of-the-art "birthing room" (1988), in a very good private hospital, as well as experienced OB/GYNs for prenatal care. I was very excited to be pregnant, and I dove into every bit of education I could find. I had nine months (an entire American School Year) to be ready.

The hospital in which she was born provided that I went through labor, delivery (when the Star-Trekky wall panels and ceiling tiles suddenly "opened" and ejected high-tech instruments and monitors to avail the process), and recovery all in the same room, the same bed. I had the same nurse throughout my 3-day stay. It was a wonderful, encouraging experience.

Two years and two months later, my second child was due, and we had lost our insurance due to economic factors and circumstances. So, I had to use the public health system......
and on the day after my baby was born, someone handed me a "questionnaire." It asked questions like "Did you want the gender of baby that you have?", "What do you want your child to be when s/he grows up?" and "What will you do if he or she fails to achieve that goal that you want?" and so forth. Probably a dozen questions.

I was appalled. (My answers were: I had no preference as to gender, and I wanted him to be happy and well-adjusted, and that as long as he was interested and happy pursuing his future I was fine with it.)

It occurred to me that, as the state hospital, they were screening parents for potential problematic attitudes and education. This was a good thing (though I found it insulting at the time), I've decided.

Either they were helping with a grad student "psych" or "parenting" thesis research project, or they were genuinely concerned there, as staff in the maternity ward, about how prepared people are, and how much support they might need. So, there you have it (method of delivery)>>>>>>>>

The nurses and social workers and doctors/interns/residents (or whoever) at prenatal clinics and maternity hospitals can provide at LEAST rudimentary literature and have conversations with pregnant parents, just like a doc will give aftercare "instructions" to a surgery patient on discharge as part of the routine care. WHY is there no "New Parent Discharge Instructions" booklet given to new parents?????

For the time being, parenting skills generally reflect what upbringing the parent had. That's why it's important. If a person comes from a dysfunctional (beyond the norm) family that promotes unhealthy coping skills, inadequate nutrition, lack of education, abuse (of others or substances), etc., THAT IS HOW the child's early trajectory will be.

Without knowledge of any other way of parenting, the child will USUALLY (not always, some are more resilient and know instinctively the way they were raised isn't good) be that same type of parent.

It's cyclical. It's about teaching people to raise children, WHICH ARE OUR MOST PRECIOUS ASSET.

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 12:57 PM
I think that the court should have the women sterilized.

Sex feels good and if you're mentally challenged you shouldn't have kids that you can't take care of.

The abortion part of this is a tough issue. Is her condition genetic? Can she follow basic health instructions to take care of herself while pregnant?

I don't think that a knee jerk reaction is the best in this situation regardless of your feelings on abortion.

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 01:22 PM
reply to post by wildtimes

Thank you for your replies. I can clearly see where you are coming from. You've given me a bit to think about.

One thing that I will put forth now, is that much of the modern child psychology based parenting strategies both change on a regular basis, due to this study or the next, and are unproven in their long-term effectiveness. I can see your heart is filled with love and good intention but I have to be just as sceptical about the “new” way of parenting as I am the “old”.

How I raise my children is ultimately up to me and should stay that way. I don’t need the governments help in determining the best way to discipline, educate, nurture or provide. If they feel inclined to offer me services that I can take advantage of if I so inclined, then fair enough. Furthermore, and more to the point of this thread, I do not need them to help me determine if I'm ready to be a father. It's sort-of like the whole, "innocent until proven guilty" kind of thing. We can assume people will do right by their children and intercede when they don't or assume that they will not do right by their children and intercede before the children are even born. Besides, from one parent to then next, you know there is no such thing as truly being “ready”. There is no way of being prepared for something you’ve never experienced.

Parenthetically, here in Ontario, due to the high number of Asian immigrants many ultra-sound clinics now refuse to tell you the sex of the child before 16 weeks. This circumvents some of the issues we face right away, without the need to encroach on the parent’s right to be a parent no psychological profiling questionnaire needed.

Later, I will try to elaborate more and give you a response worthy of your two posts.

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 01:29 PM
What absolutely gets me is WHO gives the judge the power to decide this? What law exists that says we, him or anyone has the power to decide the fate of someone else s unborn child? This is mind boggling. Its like the united states of twilight zone.

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 01:34 PM
reply to post by wildtimes

P.S. Birth-3 is federally funded. The PCAA is continually looking for federal funding and grants. It is always about money. I appreciate you altruism and I am glad that there are folks like you out there. But these things all take money to get started. And we always turn to the government for funding. And the government always turns to us.
My question is how much weight do we put on the opinion of “experts” and how much authority do we give the “enforcers” of this ideology?

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 01:42 PM
reply to post by Philodemus

My question is how much weight do we put on the opinion of “experts” and how much authority do we give the “enforcers” of this ideology?

By measuring "outcomes".
And, like I said, people can provide their knowledge without monetary compensation.

Education in parenting practices is FREE, if one has access to the internet. The problem is that too many people don't care to educate THEMSELVES; and wind up being poor parents.

I appreciate your thoughtful responses....I have to get offline and go outside to enjoy nature and the sunshine for now, but, I look forward to your future posts.

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 03:38 PM
reply to post by Philodemus

As a society we need to get together and decide these things... based on reason and evidence. Something religion has no part of.

The fact is that some people should not have children. Now lets start making some rules.

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 10:02 PM
reply to post by Doodle19815

'Consumer' is the label we use for our clients that we care for. I don't like it all, it sounds cold and indifferent. And yes, this whole scenario is wrong on every level. Makes you wonder if they were prostituting her out and feeding their piggy bank. She was also possibly subject to STDs, not to mention the risk of rape and or murder. It appears the care takers aren't any more responsible that their ward. Also, I think the family is at least neglectful if not more. They should know of her daily schedule, what she does for fun, how much alone time she has, where and what she is doing with it.
edit on 2-11-2012 by Gridrebel because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 11:21 AM
reply to post by shadwgirl
what next force abortions sterlizations on poor people who cant afford children . i thought this type of practice was abolished 40 years ago. if you kill all the poor children nevada who going to come work your mafia based casinos ?

posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 10:51 AM
Joined this thread late, but did some additional research and the story just keeps getting weirder...

First off, the woman is now named - Elisa Bauer - and there is a Facebook page with a petition to save her baby.

Regarding the court stepping in to demand that her baby be aborted, there is more to that story than meets the eye. According to this article:

The Washoe County Public Guardian’s Office was appointed by Family Court Judge Egan Walker as a neutral fact finder to investigate the case of a mentally handicapped pregnant 32-year-old woman with the reported mental capacity of a six-year-old. The woman’s court-appointed legal guardians–who are her parents –had failed to submit required annual reports of her condition to the Court, resulting in a status review of the case by the Court. As is required by statute as a mandatory report, the woman’s physician had notified Washoe County Adult Social Services that his patient was pregnant and that he was concerned that as a vulnerable person, she had been impregnated by an unknown person, possibly against her will.

So the investigation was spurred by the adoptive parents not submitting the required annual reports, at which point an investigation was launched, which led to Elisa's condition and the circumstances surrounding it being discovered. The court appeared to be acting out of concern that Elisa's parents were failing in their role to act as proper legal guardians for her, supported first by their lack of required reporting as to her status (were they hiding something? Did they just not care?) and second given the state we find poor Elisa in.

And then it gets better. The article later goes on to state:

She has a history of eloping from her placement and engaging in risky sexual behavior for money.

So not only was it known that she was engaging in sexual activity, but she was doing so FOR MONEY. In addition to truck stops another source states she also frequented local casinos.

But wait, it gets even more bizarre (Note the "Bauer" referenced in the below is Elisa's adoptive father - more about him later).... (Link):

Dr. Torch also cites Elisa’s history of seizures, medications to treat them, and her obesity as justifications for possible abortion and sterilization. Bauer says Elisa has been seizure-free for eight years, and the medications aren’t a danger. Reno OB-GYN and four OB-GYN’s from Pennsylvania concur in letters to Bauer, and add that he and Amy were wise to have Elisa stop taking the contraceptive Depo-Provera because it contributed to her obesity.

So she is mentally disabled, leaves her group home to have money for sex, has STDs, suffers from seizures but is no longer taking medication, AND WAS TAKEN OFF OF BIRTH CONTROL BY HER PARENTS. What. The hell.

But wait - there's still more.... (Link):

According to court documents from Elisa Bauer’s neurologist Dr. William Torch, Elisa “stated that she did not want to have the baby” and “she wanted to be taken to the Emergency Room to ‘take the baby out.’”

Now clearly this is "he said she said" as the parents are claiming Elisa wants to have the baby, while the Allen Whitenack, who works for the Nevada Department of Health and Human Services (though his role there apears to be unclear) claims otherwise (from the lifenews article linked above):

Whitenack said he had spent “countless hours” with Elisa and did not believe she was capable of taking care of a baby, and would fight for her right and that of the developmentally disabled to “have a choice in their life [sic].” .... and asked why they weren’t fighting for equality for all people, not just unborn children.

So what's really going on here? The article also indicate:

Whitenack dismissed several offers by couples wanting to adopt Elisa’s baby as making Elisa “a surrogate for rich white people.”

Interesting. Her parents take her off of birth control while it's known that she has been frequenting truck stops and casinos soliciting sex for money, they fail to report updates as to her status, and now they conveniently have six couples lining up to adopt when she is pregnant. Really.

Oh and who are the Bauers?

Bauer is the rector of St. Columba’s Traditional Anglican Church in Fernley, which recently suffered a fire.

So there's the bigger story. I think it's clear who the real victim is here and it's Elisa Bauer. Not feeling like her parents are acting in her best interests in the least.

new topics

<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in