The concept itself is neither new (it goes back to English law) nor controversial in theory. It becomes controversial in a few cases (this one and Terry Schiavo come to mind), but judges in every state every day are making medical and other decisions for incompetent people.
Do you consider that forcing a mentally ill person to abort her child falls under such laws that provide for "juditical supervision"?
I think you misunderstood my answer. Read the post I was responding to. I was asked what law was involved in this case. The law is that a person who is mentally incompetent cannot consent to any medical procedure; the consent of a judge or a legally-appointed guardian is always necessary.
If you are asking if that is true of abortion, it is, in the sense that a doctor who performs an abortion on a mentally-incompetent woman without the consent of a court or the woman's guardian is acting illegally.
If you're asking if the judge should have authorized this abortion, the answer is no, as the appellate court ruled. Had the abortion been necessary to save her life, the appellate court's answer would no doubt have been different.