Judge orders abortion for disabled woman (Florida)

World Net Daily ^ | 5-23-03 | WND

[cgk]

MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH

Judge orders abortion
for disabled woman

28-year-old also to undergo tubal ligation to bar future pregnancies

---

Posted: May 23, 2003
4:45 p.m. Eastern

© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

A Miami judge has ruled a mentally disabled rape victim should have an abortion because the pregnancy could be life-threatening, according to local press reports.

The woman, whose identity is not being revealed, is mentally retarded with the cognitive abilities of a 4-year-old, deaf, prone to having seizures and has a shunt in her brain to drain excess fluid.

Police believe the woman was raped, and likely more than once.

Medical experts say carrying the pregnancy to full-term would be dangerous for her and may result in the baby being deformed. The mother of the woman asked for the pregnancy to be terminated.

"My main concern now is my daughter, she told the South Florida Sun-Sentinel. "When I heard that heartbeat, you will never know what it did to me. But I can't be asked to choose between my grandchild or my daughter."

Doctors at Jackson Memorial Hospital scheduled an abortion for last week, reports the Sun-Sentinel, but chose not to perform it because the baby appeared to be developing normally and there was no medical reason to terminate the pregnancy.

Yesterday, the woman's newly appointed guardians asked the court to decide the fate of the 23-week-old unborn baby.

"My baby no more" the disabled woman reportedly told the judge at the hearing.

Lewis Fogle, the woman's court-appointed attorney, told Circuit Judge Arthur Rothenberg that after looking into the case and communicating with her as much as he could, he concluded she wanted an abortion.

In a brief order issued today, Rothenberg agreed to the abortion and also ordered the 28-year-old woman to undergo a tubal ligation to prevent future pregnancies, reports the Miami Herald.

Rothenberg also ordered a DNA sample from the unborn baby be preserved so that police can identify the rapist, according to the paper.

The ruling may have an effect on the controversial case of a disabled 22-year-old Orlando woman who was also raped while under the care of Florida child-welfare authorities.

As WorldNetDaily reported, Gov. Jeb Bush intervened in the case, requesting a guardian be appointed to represent the interests of the unborn baby.

His involvement came after officials with the Department of Children & Families, or DCF, initially filed an emergency petition asking a circuit judge in Orlando to appoint separate guardians for the woman and the child, but later dropped the request, citing a 1989 Florida Supreme Court ruling in a landmark abortion-rights case.

Bush, who opposes abortion, overruled the agency and ordered lawyers to seek a guardian for the unborn baby.

"Given the facts of this case, it is entirely appropriate that an advocate be appointed to represent the unborn child's best interests in all decisions," Bush said in a statement. "While others may interpret this case in light of their own positions, we see it as the singular tragedy it is, and remain focused on serving the best interests of this particular victim and her unborn child."

The ACLU, along with the National Organization for Women and Center for Reproductive Rights, filed a court brief asking the court to deny the governor's request, claiming such a judgment would go against precedent that a "fetus" is not a person.

Previous article:

Governor seeks guardian for unborn baby

[Archangelsk]

Who are you talking about? The doctor who will perform the abortion or the sick, twisted eff who raped the girl?

[Texas Eagle]

Who are you talking about? The doctor who will perform the abortion or the sick, twisted eff who raped the girl?

Both.

[tgslTakoma]

Another very sad moment in our supposedly civilized society.

The hospital was going to perform an abortion but changed its mind when it was apparent that the baby (yes, a baby) was developing normally. Medical experts say the baby could be born deformed. Well, which is it? It can't be both. Is it developing normally or is it deformed? The judge plays God; I can't imagine that God is amused by this decision.

My hospital job brings me into almost daily physical contact with NICU babies, many of them born at 23 weeks, some even earlier than 23 weeks. Today I got to meet another of those 23 week old babies. She was beautiful. Pink and tiny, kind of skinny, breathing on her own, with teenie-tiny little IV lines in her. Did I already say that she was beautiful?

They are not "fetuses," they are babies, beautiful little human babies, and they struggle to live, and the docs and nurses work their asses off to help these sweet little things survive.

I read this article just now, and I can only think of that little baby girl who was born today at 23 weeks. A judge has just condemned an innocent baby to death. Pink and tiny, kind of skinny, capable of breathing on its own, able to feel the pain of the murder that the judge has ordered.

What a sad, sad story. I will pray for the baby. And our country.

[Jeff Chandler]

>>How about catching the rapist and have him forcable sterilized? <<


With a rusty knife.

[HairOfTheDog]

So, we need to "spin" this so "we" look "compassionate" to the "other side"? Is that the "important" thing off this? Lord have mercy.

Currently the laws on abortion are not changing, because there is no public push to change them. A majority of people in this country disagrees with us on this. So if you want to win hearts and minds to this cause, then yes, the message is important. If you just want to rant and have no effect, then no.

I can't stand abortion threads and I am on your side.

[cpforlife.org]

Dear hocndoc,

Thanks for all of your posts here. This a clear case of state sanctioned murder. At this rate it is only a matter of time before there are abortion AND euthanasia “clinics” across our dying Republic. (i.e.: the "useless non-productive" rape victim will be terminated along with her unwanted "product of conception")

---------------------------------------

A thought from a recent past president of the
Federation of Americans waiting to be born:

"Abortion? I am all for it…
for “certain undesirable organizations”

"Abort N.O.W., NARAL, and Planned Parenthood!
Abort Roe v Wade and all “laws” that allow the
MURDER of my unborn friends!"

"Life is Sacred from the moment of conception!"

Click here to read a press release from the current president of the
Federation of Americans waiting to be born.

[ladyinred]

Fetus translated means BABY.
I wonder how true it is that the Mother's life is really endangered, or is it just a case of they don't want her to have it?

[MHGinTN]

More frightening to consider, I wonder if they DO realize the thing in the womb is an alive, individual human being, yet they condone killing the child as an 'enlightened' way to deal with the complications of supporting the child once this retarded woman's body is no longer doing so. 'Expedience' trumping the unalienable right to LIFE for the innocent child! That scares the bejeebers out of me, for my nation! If people will condone that, then therapeutic cloning and harvestign of body parts is not a stretch ... cannibalism is in our future with minds that will condone killing little ones for the expedience.!

[ChemistCat]

I do not think it is wise to argue against abortion based on the pain the baby feels, or the breast cancer risk, or any other ancillary and curable side issue. Anaesthesia provided to someone before he or she is killed doesn't mean it's not murder. A breast cancer cure won't make abortion a better idea. Determine where you draw the line and justify it with the one good argument that will always hold water.

There are reasonable people who draw that line differently than I do. I won't demonize someone like Calpernia whose experience has led her to a different conclusion on this subject than mine on this subject. Her reasons for believing this pregnancy should be terminated, even at 23 weeks, are as rational as cgk's reasons for believing it should not be. At 23 weeks I lean toward cgk's take...but if this was 3 weeks I think I'd agree with Calpernia.

I agree with Calpernia that profoundly retarded and mentally ill persons ought to be sterilized for their own protection and that of the children they ought not conceive. Where to set the bar for that is really the only question, in my opinion. I believe it is something that parents can get done, but they have to fight for it at this point. Maybe that's how it ought to be.

[Wilhelm Tell]

I agree. Life is inherently unfair. Sometimes there are no good choices -- all you can do is select from bad choices.
If they can have the victim's tubes tied, I hope they will also suggest a surgical procedure for the rapist. The rapist should be given the choice of a long prison term or being physically castrated. On second thought, why not do both? Have him castrated, don't allow him any hormone replacement therapy, and put him in the roughest prison possible. He needs to be "educated" on what it feels like to be helpless. When he finally dies of rough justice, his body should be cremated and his ashes should be flushed down a toilet.

[MeekOneGOP]

Thanks for the ping and the post, folks.

What a pitiful case, a terrible thing for this retarded woman and her mother:

The woman, whose identity is not being revealed, is mentally retarded with the cognitive abilities of a 4-year-old, deaf, prone to having seizures and has a shunt in her brain to drain excess fluid.

Police believe the woman was raped, and likely more than once.

Medical experts say carrying the pregnancy to full-term would be dangerous for her and may result in the baby being deformed. The mother of the woman asked for the pregnancy to be terminated.

"My main concern now is my daughter, she told the South Florida Sun-Sentinel. "When I heard that heartbeat, you will never know what it did to me. But I can't be asked to choose between my grandchild or my daughter."

[dsc]

"This woman has severe health problems and could very conceivably die from delivering a child."

Let me start by saying that I claim no slightest degree of heroism or courage for myself.

Nonetheless, if I were ever put to the test--if, for instance, some madman drew a gun and said, "Okay, it's either you or the kid here. Which one shall I shoot?" or if one of my kids needed a kidney or half my liver, and the doctor said my child would die without the operation and I might die from it...well, if I were put to that test and failed it, life just wouldn't be worth living. I wouldn't even have the nerve to ask God to forgive me for that.

You seem to be assuming that a mother, told "You *might* die if you don't kill your child," can answer, "Yes, kill the child," without transgressing against any moral principle.

I don't deny that this is a very thorny issue. One thinks of a panicked woman, in fear for her life, being told that she may not escape the danger.

But I have to ask, by what right do we take that child's life? We don't require people to donate kidneys to save people's lives, or even blood. Why do we require infants to donate their very lives to mitigate a *possible* danger to the mother's life?

[Calpernia]

Thank you ChemistCat.

That was a VERY well thought out rational response.

There is no right or wrong, yes or no, simple answer to these situations. Especially from a news release.

There are alot of things that need to be fixed first. I think sterilization is a great start for state patient residents.

[najida]

I do understand what you and others are saying.

I work at a hosptial that has a 45 bed MR/DD unit. Most of them haven't seen their families since they were infants. They range from mild MR to extremely profound. Their care is good (that is why I like working there). But you are constantly battling UTI's, decubitus ulcers, feeding problems, injuries from seizures, injuries from others etc. Suffering in some degree is there.

They can get sick in a minute, drop 20 pounds and you never know (even after tests) what happened.

Their quality of life is as good as we, the staff, can make it, but it is hard. Many need constant, one on one supervision. Some of the bigger ones now can hurt you (no joke.)

And males (staff included) are kept away from the female unit. Granted, if a sicko has a will, he will find a way. I have seen and heard of the same with geriatric females in LTC. The abuse with them could be worse simply because they can't get pregnant, and there isn't M/F segregation.

What is the kicker is that 75% of these kids (mostly now adults) were adoptable. And the state rosters are packed with 'special needs' kids needing homes.

As an aside, they do keep menstrual records on all the females. Probably a two-fold purpose. So I do agree, sterilization or at least birth control for these sweet girls.

[anniegetyourgun]

And who knows what her comment really means? She might be simply repeating what she heard some abortion proponent say in the exam room.

The really sad truth is that the judge would probably like to be able to rule for the termination of life in two cases - the baby AND the mother. After all, if one can so easily rule to off one...how long before it is determined that the disabled are too much of a burden too?

[MHGinTN]

Speaking only for my motivations, I refer to the pain the unborn child feels in abortion in order to point out the degree of dehumanization defenders of abortion on demand have achieved ... even the excruciating pain inflicted upon these alive, sensitive little ones as they are being slaughtered does not move some people to open their eyes to the wrongness of abortion on demand, the inhumanity of arbitrarily killing the little ones to serve the expedience of a selfish society or selfish individuals. As you may know, the Brits have even had medical review boards address the torturous pain to the little ones as they are being killed in utero, and the 'enlightened Brits' have decided to authorize 'pain managemment/anesthesia administration for the victims'. In citing that amazing disconnect, I'm trying to draw attention to the absurdity of the killing which defers to dealing with the symptoms of an irrational society as opposed to facing the hard truth of the dehumanizing killing. [Not, I didn't write 'inhumane killing' for surely such people would consider their application of anesthesia to have solved the 'problem' of inhumane treatment for the tissue masses in the wombs.]

The breast cancer potentials associated to abortion are cited as evidence that the whole truth is not being given to women having abortions, prior to their having the early gestational age abortions. The true horror is not so much the pain of the infants slaughtered or the women endangered by a rise in breats cancer risk because of abortion becoming so pervasive in our society, the horror is the degree of dehuamnization we have already stooped to, how far down the slippery slope we've already slid. If as a society we do not see the gross inhumanity of our current policies, 'What's wrong with using the discards of abortion to treat alive individuals; what's wrong with conceiving individual human beings in vitro, then giving them life support until their body parts differentiate sufficiently for harvesting to use with older individual human beings?'

[Calpernia]

Thanks najida.

Bump!

[dram]

I agree to a point. Are you saying that only the unborn are innocent?

I just wonder why we don't see the same people who meet every year for Rov v. Wade in Washington and the ones who protest in front of abortion clinics at social service agencies.

I always get the feeling that people are much more concerned with a life in the womb, but once born, some people are more likely to look at that same life as a "welfare baby". Alot of these kids are simply not being adopted or even cared for properly.

[najida]

That is what I (keep) saying...and seeing....

For some reason (and I can understand it to a degree) folks visualize this healthy, pretty baby, once born, being carried off in a fluffy blankie in the arms of its loving mommy (birth or adoptive).

What I see is (days, months, weeks, years) later this same baby with tubes, bed-sores and contractures....and suffering. Or its the skinny, malnourished kid in foster care. It is all in the time line.

[MHGinTN]

Are you implying the enlightened solution is to kill them in the womb if someone deems their future to be less than fair to middlin'? Isn't the correct direction to change society's care for the little ones, toddler ones, teen ones, adolescent ones, middle aged ones, old ones? I get the sick feeling you're implying that killing is the enlightened way to avoid these 'problems' ... and avoid the harder but more loving alternative of working at these difficulties encountered when we care enough to care for others, individually and as a society. It is sad that killing the little ones has become so easy to do and happens so often that it appears to be 'the better alternative when weighed against the tax dollars to be spent and the time away from pursuit of recreation.'