Posted on 02/14/2020 12:28:52 PM PST by Morgana
A refugee adjudicator in Canada is under fire for saying she did not believe a woman’s report of rape because she chose not to abort the child who was conceived as a result. The adjudicator, a female, Sarwanjit Randhawa, repeatedly asked the woman, “If you’re raped, why would you keep a child of rape?”
According to an article in Global News, the survivor said “it was her first child and she is against abortion. She also said she knows what it’s like to grow up without parents and that it isn’t the baby’s fault how she was conceived.”
This was not good enough for Randhawa, who wrote, “(I am) sensitive to the subject of rape, but the claimant’s explanation does not make sense as to why she would keep a child who would remind her of being raped, unless that is not the case.”
It is likely that the common pro-abortion narrative which presents abortion as the only natural ‘solution’ to a pregnancy resulting from sexual assault contributed to Randhawa’s decision. Pro-abortion advocates have frequently argued that a child born from rape will be a constant reminder of the trauma to the mother, and many in the public have come to believe that narrative.
The adjudicator’s decision stirred protest and was reversed on appeal, but it is uncertain how many similar determinations have been made in the past.
The Global News cited a study published in the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology which found that 32% of pregnant rape survivors chose life and raised their children. Half of those in the study had abortions; the remainder, subtracting miscarriages, made adoption plans for their children.
Three other studies showed much higher numbers of women choosing life after rape. David Reardon, Amy Sobie, and Julie Makimaa found that 73% of pregnant survivors chose life and 64% of them raised their children. In Sandra Mahkorn’s two studies, up to 75% of rape survivors chose against abortion. These studies found that the women who carried to term did not regret their decisions.
Some women who gave birth to their children conceived in rape felt that choosing life “empowered” them and helped them heal.
Kaitlin Bardswich, communications and development manager at Women’s Shelters Canada, spoke out against the adjudicator’s decision and advocated for the victim. She pointed to the 1994 Rwandan genocide during which nearly 20,000 children were conceived in rape. Many of these women, she says, kept and raised their children:
Bardswich says Randhawa’s decision suggests she is ignorant of the lived experiences of sexual assault survivors, many of whom choose to keep children conceived by rape….
For a refugee judge to say a woman’s explanation for keeping a baby does not make sense is “horrifying,” Bardswich said.
“If that can happen in a genocidal situation, it can happen anywhere,” she said.
Harmful stereotypes about rape victims and their children, which are perpetuated by abortion supporters, lead to women not being believed when they make the heroic choice to give birth. In this case, a judge denied a woman’s claim of rape based on these stereotypes. Fortunately, the decision has been reversed. But the case makes it clear how much pro-abortion advocates harm women when they disregard the experiences of those who raise children conceived in rape and push the narrative that all pregnant rape survivors want and need abortions.
Her not erasing the rape evidence and saving the children is actual proof of where her heart is at, ie not with the rapist.
But since ghoul social service servants always protect the pimps and encourage erasing evidence of child...
Name sounds like a muzzy Liar. Lawyer.
“The adjudicator, a female, Sarwanjit Randhawa”
Any relation to Nimrata ‘Nikki Haley’ Randhawa?
Her name sounds Indian (Hindu) not Islamic.
Several months ago, I saw a talk by someone who was raped as a teen and became pregnant. She absolutely had to have an abortion, and her grandfather drove her to the abortuary. She said that not a day goes by when she does not regret killing that baby, and prays daily that one day, she will be reunited with that baby in heaven.
Perhaps more women who feel that their abortions of babies conceived in rape only added to their sense of shame and violation, and did nothing to put the rape behind them should speak up.
The abortion industry has been creating a narrative for a long time, and we are not doing enough to counter it.
Rwandan women who were raped probably didn’t have much choice whether or not to keep those children, because abortion is rare there, so I have to take those stats with a grain of salt. The refugee “judge” should have her head examined, what a disgusting woman.
I have known more than one woman who became pregnant from rape that kept the child and raised them as single mothers.
Projection- they expect hypocrisy from her (aborting for convenience) because they live it.
Randhawa is Indian (Panjab): Sikh name derived from the name of a Jat tribe.
Saranjit Randhawa is Sikh-Canadian pro-abort immigration bureaucrat?
God bless the woman who would not abort the child.
Former Fox reporter Kelly Wright’s mother was raped. She refused to abort His story is uplifting.
Many, perhaps most, rape victims whe get pregnant thereby want to keep the child abhorring the thought of answering rape with murder of a child, her child. Most are intimidated by family or even the rapist into getting aborted. Some are actually carried into the “clinic” and forcibly aborted by parents or a brother.
The only acceptable choice: execute the child & let the rapist go free.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.