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
© 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
I question the term "expert", as that usually means a liberal phoney...but...assuming these claims are valid, why would you want to move forward with a handicapped child? What good would it do to risk the life of this incapable person just to bring another incapable person into the world? I'm not following your "hell" logic.
I have MS and found out I was pregnant. It was suggested to me that I terminate so as not to jeopardize my own health, as MS medication was not conducive for "fetus development." I chose to skip the meds, keep the baby I felt I had been blessed with, and you can see the result in my profile. That is just one reason this issue is so sensitive for me. I apologize if I offended you.
I understand the point you are trying to make, but I don't see them as equal evils. It is not certain that bringing this baby to term will kill the mother, while it is certain that aborting the baby will kill him or her, and the baby is not at fault for being conceived during an act of rape. They are not equal evils at all.
Although, I would defer to the grandmother's judgment in this because we never have nor will live in a perfectly just world, and this decision to abort doesn't seem to have been taken without serious consideration.
It is not unlike the rationale we used to assuage the guilt we felt at the killing of innocent Iraqi children in the service of a greater good.
The stresses put on this woman's body at 2 months is not the same as it will be at 6 months. People with seizure disorder, who are not pregnant, often become unaffected by their medication. Brain damage can occur from massive seizures. If this happens during a critical moment in the pregnancy, I do have a genuine concern that Russian roulette will be played with this woman's life.
Let's try to play with her meds just enough to help her seizures "We believe"... so as not to damage the baby.
This is heart wrenching and it stinks. Her mother's first concern is her child though.
What risk becomes too great? That is the key question I believe. If there is a nominal chance of med probs, then there isn't an issue. For me at least, if there is a 90/100% chance of severe medical complications, sadly the abortion must occur.
I am pro-life. I believe that there should not be selective abortion. This one bugs me though. I just don't know how to draw the line in health risk cases. This woman is mentally unable to give consent to risk her life to deliver a child.
Her mother's choice is terrible. She is saving the one she knows. I hope people will not think of her unfavorably. Not one among us would want to make this decision.
If she didn't do this and her daughter died, and took the baby with her... could you imagine living with that? Her choice as it is, is difficult enough. She needs our prayers.
I think you are being a bit harsh here. I am for making elective abortion illegal. I am not an advocate of killing the unborn and I resent the implications. In my ideal world, there would be dozens of abortions per year. Only in cases similar to this, and all others would be outlawed.
I don't consider the convienance factor, or the fact that the woman decided not to wait, or use condoms, or decide that her figure would look bad if she had a kid.
The medical issue is something I feel strongly about however. My gentle criticism of some people on the no exceptions side is that the life of the matter does matter as much as the baby's life. It is not a simple moral issue here, where selective abortion is easy to denounce.
I am just trying to get some understanding here. What is your line? Is there one? If hypothetically a woman is told that she has a 90% chance of death delivering a child, should she be allowed to save her life? 80% chance? 100% chance?
What risk level should a mentally retarded woman with uncontrolled seizures, and fluid build up in the brain, who was raped be ordered to accept? I honestly don't know. I wrestle with it. My opinion would be different if there were no health concerns, but life can be messy, and for those of us who don't have all the answers, we struggle, and we pray.
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.