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

[FITZ]

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

My Baby no more???? It sounds to me that this poor woman understand what they're planning to do to her poor baby. This doesn't sound like someone requesting an abortion. She knows she has a baby.

[hocndoc]

congratulations on your beautiful baby and may God continue to bless you.

[ChemistCat]

I meant to add, however--if the pregnancy is 23 weeks along, I agree with docnhoc--there would seem to be very little purpose in doing an abortion now--it can't reduce the risk to the mother much to wait 7 weeks or so, unless there is some crisis. If she was in court, there doesn't seem to be a crisis involved...just the potential for one, and that could be brought about by an abortion, just as much as by birth, if I'm not mistaken.

You could say that the man who had unprotected intercourse with her could end up guilty of a double murder, if things go very badly here.

[hocndoc]

Please re-read the article, carefully. The woman is already 6 months pregnant and as of last week there was no medical reason, according to doctors who had already scheduled an abortion, to interfere.


""***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. ""

[Old Professer]

Were not talking cheerleaders; we're searching for champions.

Extremist is a label I gladly wear when it comes to the inhumane practice of abortion.

[FITZ]

on the one hand we have a severly disabled woman with no hope of a normal or even rational existence and a developing baby with no determined defects at this stage of development; were we to make a decision based on worth to society,

It's hard to know how much the disabled woman understands ---but if she can produce a perfectly normal child, maybe she can't raise that child but it may be her one big accomplishment in life and she might sense a lot of pride in that. If she is at the level of a 4 year old, we still don't know her inner-most thoughts but very likely she has no hatred for her own baby like the feminists have for theirs.

[najida]

If only people cared as much about the living.
_______________

Thanks.... I work with the abandoned these days...
The eldery, physically disabled, mentally retarded, the dying...

The silence (about their very existance)is deafening.

[Calpernia]

Wow this is NOT a simple yes and no answer. Have you worked in all ends of the system? Are you speaking in system availability or moral? this is NOT an easy answer.

I have to tell you stories.

I was employeed first in FEDERAL GRANT mode as a therapist.

Had success stories. However all success stories along with nonsuccess stories ended up in the state hospital.

QUESTION: so why the funded middle man?

STATE RESIDENTS:

Victims of LOTS of things. WHY? Primary daily care by cheapest found labor. Discipline targets the doctors, regardless. Why? Lawyers target them because of the pockets. Can't get much from the cheap state funded employees. Why are the 'doctors' responsible? Their patients. Who runs the state hospitals? State run people. They hire the docs.

ADOPTION:

The mentally 'retarded' are not in a position to say keep the child, abort the child, adopt the child.

Oh here is a fun road to go down. Their opinion can change by day, hour, specific med, continue on......

Where does it stop for the child? Guess what? I'm adopted. No fun trip. Should I've been aborted? Depends on what time of my life you asked me. Now? I say no. I have a husband and 3 great children. You ask me from 1972 until 1990 I would have said yes.

BUT, I can introduce you to a few adoptees that would say "yes, I should have been aborted."

In other words, there is no right answer. Morals say keep them alive. Current conditions say kill them. The state hospitals are a source to line the 'people in charge's pockets'. The services in place only divert money from tax payers with no REAL goals.

So what do you want me to say? I am a person who lived the Mental Illness track. I take in strays (animals) for a living. There is no real formula to cure mental illness. There aren't GREAT SUCCESS stories for adoptees. You also can't keep mental patients for adoptee farming. Yet, with the 'employees' you will have that.

So I say abort her. Make ALL State Qualified Mental Patients Sterile. Go ahead retort. Come in and see the sh1t first though.

[Bonaparte]

"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."

There you have it. No medical reason to terminate the pregnancy, and yet the woman's mother claims her pregnant daughter is somehow at risk. Hello? Not that this matters. The daughter has obviously been convinced to give her consent to murder.

[Arpege92]

"In this case, what?"


They could prescribe other medications to control the seizures during her pregnancy.

[Calpernia]

Read article, then see my post I pinged you to. You may not agree with my outcome; but I provided great state waste areas in my answer. Ask questions and then keep track for the state thread.

[Exit148]

To your #9 ----I never get involved in these discussions because of the extremism. I understand what you are saying and I'm with you.

[Calpernia]

If this is true, I support you answer. However, I don't believe that is a quote directly from the doctor. The doctor would not be allowed to quote. This is an odd case. I belive it is more media driven than medical.

[oceanperch]

Excellant Post(s).

[hocndoc]

I'm sorry you hurt. I'm so glad that you came through/ are moving through it.

I still won't kill, partly because I identify with the ones killed. A woman is not a person in some places. Christians don't have their rights as humans protected in some places.

The humanity and inalienable rights of an individual doesn't depend on his or her developmental stage, geography, race, religion, or the local laws. In fact, the legitimacy of the local laws is determined by how well they protect human rights.

[dennisw]

kill kill kill .... the little ones is what the devil commands.

[Bonaparte]

They have those bumper stickers here--

[Calpernia]

Thank you for your concern. Please reread my post. I have NO hurt now. I did before but I over came that (especially since I'm married with children. Makes a BIG difference in the adoptee circle).

I shared my storie to lend a view of adotptees. My main focus should have been on what the mentally challenged face in the system. Was that not clear? What do I need to clarify?

[Bonaparte]

Here's another nice one from the same site --

[oceanperch]

So you know the truth then. : )