Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge orders abortion for disabled woman (Florida)
World Net Daily ^ | 5-23-03 | WND

Posted on 05/23/2003 5:00:00 PM PDT by 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


TOPICS: Breaking News; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: abortion; abortionlist; democrats; disabled; fetus; florida; jebbush; nhs; prolife
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-195 last
To: Concentrate
You one of those DU types who have accounts here so you can yank our chains by posting stupid stuff and trying to get us to agree with you?
181 posted on 05/25/2003 8:24:34 AM PDT by ChemistCat (Disney won't see another cent of our money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: ChemistCat
Please note:
   There are 2 existing human beings involved. Not just one. 177 posted on 05/25/2003 9:49 AM EDT by Concentrate

I don't belive a DU denizen would make such a statement. Concentrate is definitely a Freeper and pro-life. And the point is well made, too, there ARE two human beings in this equation; both are dependant on others for life support.

182 posted on 05/25/2003 5:28:54 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote Life Support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Why can't they just take the baby by c-section at the point of being medically necessary for the mother's health? It would not even require general anesthesia and be over in about 20 minutes and the tubal can be done at the same time. It isn't as difficult as they make it out to be since the baby is developing normally according to the doctor's.

I am sure there would be someone more than willing to adopt the infant since the grandmother doesn't seem up to the task of raising a child.

183 posted on 05/25/2003 6:22:58 PM PDT by CajunConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: scriblett; Quick1
At 23 weeks, the intentional abortion and tubal ligation is just as risky as delivering a living child. There is no reason to kill the child to deliver him.

As of a week ago, her own doctors cancelled a scheduled abortion, because she was fine and the baby was fine. The intervention will change all that.
184 posted on 05/25/2003 9:51:31 PM PDT by hocndoc (Choice is the # 1 killer in the US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: ChemistCat
You one of those DU types who have accounts here so you can yank our chains by posting stupid stuff and trying to get us to agree with you?

Yeah, I'm a pro-life DUer! LOL!

185 posted on 05/26/2003 1:33:34 PM PDT by Concentrate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: Concentrate
Well, okay, but just as long as you are pro-life!
186 posted on 05/26/2003 5:25:53 PM PDT by ChemistCat (Disney won't see another cent of our money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: cgk
And all that would/should tell these people is what to be prepared for when the baby is born - which could be delivered by C-section. This is an outrage. ADOPTION is ALWAYS A CHOICE.

You are correct on all counts and I applaud you for the courage to say it. Most, if not all, of the nay-sayers in this thread refuse to admit to the humanity of the child or her mother. Those who concede the species of the unborn child insinuate that the possibility of it being deformed justifies its murder. I find these responses to be as tragic as the original situation.

187 posted on 05/26/2003 5:35:52 PM PDT by Ronaldus Magnus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cgk
When did come to live in CHINA?
188 posted on 05/27/2003 7:49:41 AM PDT by OXENinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OXENinFLA
When did "I"...... oops
189 posted on 05/27/2003 7:50:20 AM PDT by OXENinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: Texas Eagle
Please clarify your statement...For WHICH people?
190 posted on 05/27/2003 7:52:29 AM PDT by Hildy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Hildy
The people who are ordering the murder of this baby.
191 posted on 05/27/2003 5:29:46 PM PDT by Texas Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Texas Eagle
Shame on you.
192 posted on 05/27/2003 6:54:42 PM PDT by Hildy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Hildy
Shame on me? Your priorities are out of whack, lady. I'm not the one ordering the murder of an innocent little baby.
193 posted on 05/27/2003 6:57:50 PM PDT by Texas Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: Texas Eagle
sigh.
194 posted on 05/27/2003 7:03:00 PM PDT by Hildy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: skr
It would seem that a possible risk to a mentally retarded woman with serious health problems outweighs a definite and fatal solution for a currently normally developing baby. Nothing in the article indicates the woman is in particular danger right now, only that a late-term pregnancy might be dangerous. I'm not ignoring the problems, but why not wait and see if anything adverse actually starts before killing the child?

I agree completely. Try to save both lives. Give the mother the very close attention she needs, monitor the baby's development, and hope the either-or decision never comes up. If the mother's life ever comes in imminent danger, then I agree the judge can invoke the mother's right to self-defense. Otherwise try for a healthy baby and maybe that child will be the one blessing to come out of this otherwise tragic event.

195 posted on 05/27/2003 7:09:49 PM PDT by Puddleglum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-195 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson