Forcing a mentally disabled woman to give birth

[kpmom]

The women of the Christian Homeschooling Forum are discussing this topic;

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/11/0 ... uple-fight s-judge-over-hearing-fear-could-force-them-to-end-disabled/? test=latestnews

The story refers to an intellectually disabled 32 year old woman who is pregnant. It is reported the woman has the mental capacity of a 6 year old, but then goes on to say it's unclear whether she became pregnant as the result of rape or consensual sex. (Can a person with a mental capacity of a 6 year old give consent? Well the story is from Fox so there ya go)

A judge in Nevada has ordered the pregnancy terminated (the woman lives in a group home). The woman's parents want the pregnancy to continue. In addition to this woman's mental capacity, there are health risks in continuing the pregnancy.

The good Christian women of the Christian Homeschooling Forum are all for this woman being forced to go through with the pregnancy.

Here's their discussion;

chfweb.com/index.php?t=msg&th=82102&start=0&S=7e1b7817e42ffcf628eb16fb21b18367

ETA: The link to the Fox news story copied kinda strange, but I think if you copy and paste the entire line it'll take you to it.

[SomewhatFundy]

I run a group home for adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. This is far, far too common. And frightening.

[RosyDaisy]

This is a heartbreaking story.

[keen23]

I know that forced sterilization is a very bad thing. It's always bad when someone makes reproductive decisions for another person, and it's a slippery slope argument as to who and what makes someone able to decide if they can or cannot reproduce (for example Buck vs Bell). But, cases like this and others that I've heard about, certainly make the argument that there are some cases where it should be allowed. This is a situation where a person is having sex- with or without consent, I don't know about the background of this specific individual- who in a very real way has no ability (mentally, physically, emotionally) to handle the consequences of having sex and getting pregnant.

[rock_girl]

Isn't Tracy special?

Seems like the baby is really wanted by mom, grandparents and six adoptive couples. sheesh...how can there be any question?

If your future child can be sold to the highest bidder or used by its twisted grandparents to replace a 'defective' child, then there's no reason to abort. No question at all, even if the incubator could face health problems for carrying through with the pregnancy.

[shesinsane]

The woman was living in a Reno group home when she wandered away from it and became pregnant 13 weeks ago. The child's father has not been identified, said attorney Jason Guinasso, who represents the Nevada couple.

Guinasso said it's unknown whether the pregnancy resulted from rape or consensual sex, and The Associated Press is not naming the woman or her parents because it remains unclear. The circumstances are under investigation by the county public guardian's office.

So fucked up on so many levels.

Olivia Gans Turner, spokeswoman for the Washington, D.C.-based organizations National Right to Life and American Victims of Abortion, said the Nevada couple have drawn the support of pro-life advocates nationwide.

"This is a cause we support," she said. "It's definitely their right to protect their daughter's right to have a child and to protect the life of their grandchild. There's no reason for this woman to be subjected to the danger and risk of an abortion because someone else thinks she's not worthy of having a child because of her mental condition."

But by all means continue the pregnancy, because that never does any damage or brings any health risks to the woman involved. :x

[YPestis]

The report says that the medical experts testifying are divided regarding the health risks associated with carrying the pregnancy to term. Are those experts hired by one or the other side or are they a neutral party hired by the court? It seems they should get a better handle on the medical risks before making this issue about her mental capacity to dealing with a pregnancy. If there are truly risks involved, I can see as a matter of looking out for the woman's physical health. However, if there's indication that this health concern is mild, and this about the best interest of the woman, I'd have to agree that the woman's legal guardians have the final say.

I'm wary whenever the courts decide they should take over a controversial case from the legal guardians. In a more conservative environment, that authority could easily be applied to a disabled woman whose guardians decide to abort and the court denying that request. To me, the case should focus on her mental and physical health. If it appears that health concerns are not there, then the legal guardian should have their final say. I don't believe a parents' religious wishes should supercede the woman's health concerns.

[emmiedahl]

I read in another story that she has epilepsy. This means that she is most likely taking teratogenic medication and will not be having a baby that people line up to adopt. In addition, many women have an increase in seizures and severity while pregnant. The choice may be to preserve her health or to risk it in order to have a child with severe birth defects.

I agree that this is a slippery slope though, in regards to personal reproductive rights.

[Witsec7]

I had an older cousin who was legally blind and developmentally delayed due to a bran tumor (and 1950's era brain surgery). When her mother discovered she was having sex she had her sterilized. At the time it was pretty hush hush, but in later years another relative informed me that she had been pregnant and a pre RvWade abortion took place. This relative was an RN who attended the abortion that was performed in a cooperating gyno's office. It's a tough call and it shouldn't be played out in public.

[misslady]

I read in another story that she has epilepsy. This means that she is most likely taking teratogenic medication and will not be having a baby that people line up to adopt. In addition, many women have an increase in seizures and severity while pregnant. The choice may be to preserve her health or to risk it in order to have a child with severe birth defects.

I agree that this is a slippery slope though, in regards to personal reproductive rights.

Depends on the drug. Depakote and some of the older drugs are bad for pregnancy, but there are some newer drugs that are safe. I have epilepsy and am on Keppra and have a perfectly healthy 18-month-old.

That said, I definitely had more problems with my epilepsy while I was pregnant. Hormones mess with your brain function. I had to increase my dosage to a really high level and stop working to reduce stress levels, as well as seeing a high-risk pregnancy specialist. If she is in a group home that allowed this to happen in the first place, I'd doubt that they'd be willing or able to provide an appropriate level of care if it was decided to continue the pregnancy. I also have real problems with forcing someone to go through the stresses of pregnancy and pain of labor who isn't capable of understanding what's happening to her - that seems cruel to me.

[RosyDaisy]

I have a cousin who has the mental capacity of a 8 year old. Back in the 1960's and under her doctor's recommendation, my aunt had my cousin's tubes tied when she was 18. Neither my Aunt or the doctor felt she was capable of taking care of a child. My cousins home life also wasn't that good. My Uncle was a drunken, abusive jackass. So, in light of all of that, I think my aunt made the right decision. I'm not for forced sterilization, but in the case of my cousin and her circumstances, I think it was the right decision.

[Deleted03]

It's so fucked up. If no one knows what happens and she wandered out of the group home, and considering her mental age... I'd say it was a rape.

I think it's a tough call. Obviously she must be looking up to her parents and grandparents. And if they tell her she carries a life and the judge wants to kill her baby.... does it mean abortion becomes something extremely traumatic for her regardless of her feelings on it?

I also think that there are other methods than plain sterilization, she must be taking medicine at that place and they could put her on the pill. I say that on the off chance that by some miracle therapy, medicine, advances enough that she ends up being in a position where she can actually decide to have children. I think this takes away the ickiness of sterilizing those women.

I know a catholic family with 10 kids, one of the last ones has Down Syndrom she's 26 and of course the parents are unhappy that she has a boyfriend, they are unhappy that they would try to have children... but I think that sometimes it is hard to tell if they can consent or not, and if someone else can make the unrevocable decision for them not to have children.

[Burris]

I don't like this whole idea of taking basic rights away from people with disabilities merely because they are disabled - and that includes people with developmental disabilities. People who work with those with developmental disabilities no longer talk about 'developmental age' such that the woman in question actually had the mind of a six-year-old, etc. People with DD can be extremely disabled in one area and only moderately effected in another.

This human being is a free agent to whatever degree that is possible. (As to who the father is, it may be a man who is himself developmentally disabled. People with those disabilities still have sex drives, but generally not the life experience or the mental capacity to consent – except perhaps in cases where they're evenly matched to a partner with the same general abilities. It might even be that she wandered from the group home to meet this guy after they worked it out beforehand. People with these disabilities do have friends of both genders – and some can tell time as well as memorize directions.)

How the pregnancy is handled should hinge first on one question: Can she understand enough about the situation and the dangers thereof to consent either to continuing her pregnancy or to an abortion? If so, then questions about what her parents or what the court or what doctors think are all of far less interest than they would be otherwise.

If she cannot understand, then the question is one of whether her parents, who have presumably been her guardians since birth, have her best interests at heart or not. There is some precedent that, no matter how stupid their beliefs or their rationale, they're still 'close enough' that they can not only make decisions on her behalf that strip her of bodily autonomy entirely - to the point where they can authorize unnecessary surgeries designed specifically to make it easier for them to “care for†her.

[dairyfreelife]

I had an older cousin who was legally blind and developmentally delayed due to a bran tumor (and 1950's era brain surgery). When her mother discovered she was having sex she had her sterilized. At the time it was pretty hush hush, but in later years another relative informed me that she had been pregnant and a pre RvWade abortion took place. This relative was an RN who attended the abortion that was performed in a cooperating gyno's office. It's a tough call and it shouldn't be played out in public.

Agreed. I have a relative who ended up mentally disabled from a bad fever in the 1950s/60s, not sure. She was in an institution for a time and ended up pregnant by man in the institution who was also mentally disabled. She did give birth and had a daughter. The daughter was born mentally disabled. It's a very tough call. Forced pregnancy/birth, forced abortion, forced sterilization, it all gets into uneasy terrritory and making the call on those who are unable to make them themselves, it's hard. I wish this would not have been made public. It just adds fuel to the anti-choice fire and it's a private matter really. It should be like any medical decision really. If the person is old enough and capable of making a decision of their own and understand what's happening, then they can make the decision. If not, someone appointed makes the call. That's really the only way I can think of to make a decision on such delicate matters.

[Deleted03]

I don't like this whole idea of taking basic rights away from people with disabilities merely because they are disabled - and that includes people with developmental disabilities. People who work with those with developmental disabilities no longer talk about 'developmental age' such that the woman in question actually had the mind of a six-year-old, etc. People with DD can be extremely disabled in one area and only moderately effected in another.

This human being is a free agent to whatever degree that is possible. (As to who the father is, it may be a man who is himself developmentally disabled. People with those disabilities still have sex drives, but generally not the life experience or the mental capacity to consent – except perhaps in cases where they're evenly matched to a partner with the same general abilities. It might even be that she wandered from the group home to meet this guy after they worked it out beforehand. People with these disabilities do have friends of both genders – and some can tell time as well as memorize directions.)

How the pregnancy is handled should hinge first on one question: Can she understand enough about the situation and the dangers thereof to consent either to continuing her pregnancy or to an abortion? If so, then questions about what her parents or what the court or what doctors think are all of far less interest than they would be otherwise.

If she cannot understand, then the question is one of whether her parents, who have presumably been her guardians since birth, have her best interests at heart or not. There is some precedent that, no matter how stupid their beliefs or their rationale, they're still 'close enough' that they can not only make decisions on her behalf that strip her of bodily autonomy entirely - to the point where they can authorize unnecessary surgeries designed specifically to make it easier for them to “care for†her.

This is so wrong... then what you do it on autistic children? Insurance companies will ask for it because it means less cost in care?

[valsa]

There is some precedent that, no matter how stupid their beliefs or their rationale, they're still 'close enough' that they can not only make decisions on her behalf that strip her of bodily autonomy entirely - to the point where they can authorize unnecessary surgeries designed specifically to make it easier for them to “care for†her.

I'd not sure why "'care for'" is in quotes here. There were legitimate ethical issues in that case that required weighing medical pros and cons with regard to the little girl's care. It's not like her parents decided one day to have her undergo surgery just for the fun of it.

[Buzzard]

Here is the "pro life" links on this case

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/10/31/cour ... -abortion/

https://www.facebook.com/SaveElisasBaby

A neutral site

http://www.mynews4.com/mostpopular/stor ... VUrHQ.cspx

No one has reported the actual medical findings because it does not appear they have been fully presented to the court. If her life is in danger and she doesnt have the capacity to make the decision herself, than thats why we have guardians. Honestly, they knew she was engaging in sexual activity. It seems shockingly irresponsible that they didnt give her an implant and a talk about keeping herself safe. Even a 6 year old knows not to touch a hot stove, you teach her the same about dangerous sexual activity.

[chaotic life]

If her parents were seeking an abortion against her wishes, most courts and DSS employees would be fighting tooth and nail to stop her parents from violating what *she* wanted, as they should. If she wanted an abortion and her parents were refusing to allow one, those entities would be fighting to advocate for her as well, and they should be.

This woman is DD but she still has rights to make her OWN reproductive choices! Forced sterilizations were done in the dark ages of the 20th Century. Court case after court case has CLEARLY established the rights of the disabled to their own reproductive autonomy. Even the neutral sources specifically state that this woman and her parents are in agreement to not terminate the pregnancy. The courts have NO business forcing an abortion, denying her basic rights and stepping back 50++ years in rights for the disabled in this country.

I am all for any woman's right to choose abortion, but rights of those with DD is a very touchy subject. In this day and age, parents/guardians must clearly demonstrate to a court why sterilization is in a DD person's best interests before it is acceptable to pursue. Why would anyone think it's okay for a court to override what both the woman and her parents/legal guardians want?

[Deleted03]

I find several things disturbing:

1- she goes to a truck stop and has sex there often.... Anyone telling her about STDs? Making sure she is not taken advantage of by random guys?

2- it is EXTREMELY disturbing that the parents have found 6 couples to adopt the baby. First, I hope those couples realize there is only one baby coming, Second why would you keep saying that?

3- Why isn't there a quote from that woman somewhere? If I hear her (catholic) parents say she is agreeing with them, it's really not the same as her saying it.

[MarthaMarcyMayMarlen]

I don't like this whole idea of taking basic rights away from people with disabilities merely because they are disabled - and that includes people with developmental disabilities. People who work with those with developmental disabilities no longer talk about 'developmental age' such that the woman in question actually had the mind of a six-year-old, etc. People with DD can be extremely disabled in one area and only moderately effected in another.

This human being is a free agent to whatever degree that is possible. (As to who the father is, it may be a man who is himself developmentally disabled. People with those disabilities still have sex drives, but generally not the life experience or the mental capacity to consent – except perhaps in cases where they're evenly matched to a partner with the same general abilities. It might even be that she wandered from the group home to meet this guy after they worked it out beforehand. People with these disabilities do have friends of both genders – and some can tell time as well as memorize directions.)

How the pregnancy is handled should hinge first on one question: Can she understand enough about the situation and the dangers thereof to consent either to continuing her pregnancy or to an abortion? If so, then questions about what her parents or what the court or what doctors think are all of far less interest than they would be otherwise.

If she cannot understand, then the question is one of whether her parents, who have presumably been her guardians since birth, have her best interests at heart or not. There is some precedent that, no matter how stupid their beliefs or their rationale, they're still 'close enough' that they can not only make decisions on her behalf that strip her of bodily autonomy entirely - to the point where they can authorize unnecessary surgeries designed specifically to make it easier for them to “care for†her.

I wish I wouldn't have clicked on that link. :(

[SomewhatFundy]

I find several things disturbing:

1- she goes to a truck stop and has sex there often.... Anyone telling her about STDs? Making sure she is not taken advantage of by random guys?

It's......not that easy. I wish there was a way to protect everyone. But in situations like this, there just isn't always a good answer.

My residents are fairly independent. They really only need guidance with finding employment, behavioral issues and social appropriateness. They are their own medical advocates. Which means I cannot tell them not to have sex, and I cannot force them to get birth control be it temporary or permanent. I can educate them about sexual health, but if they don't want to have the discussion they don't have to. They are adults, and they are free to refuse my advice at their own will. This is a VERY important right to maintain, because for years adults and children with developmental and intellectual disabilities were treated as if they were incapable of making even the most minute of decisions regarding their life.

On the other hand, they are just like any other adult. They have sexual urges, urges that aren't always satisfied by masturbation. Most of them want to have sex, and provided they aren't having sex with someone at a much higher or lower level of functioning than they are...there is nothing I can do to stop them. They have community access. They have friends outside of the agency. They have their own bedrooms....there is nothing I could do to keep them from having intercourse even if I wanted to. And I don't want to. Imagine if any of us were told we couldn't express ourselves sexually. None of us would accept that, and they shouldn't have to either.

But then the kicker. As much as I want to treat my residents just like any non-disabled person...they aren't always just like every non-disabled person. Some of them struggle with understanding their sexuality, and act out in sexually inappropriate ways. Some of them are easily manipulated, and are conned by people without disabilities into doing things sexually. Some of them have severe emotional disturbances and are the manipulators who will abuse other residents with less independence and a lower level of functioning (I hate using that phrase, but I can't think of another way to explain it.) And many of them are not able to maintain a healthy pregnancy or raise a child (although some certainly can.)

Sex has consequences for everyone, but for my residents there is another set of consequences that most of us don't have to deal with. We had a woman who became pregnant while living at one of the other group homes. It ended badly, the child was removed from her custody within a week of her giving birth. She just didn't understand, and has become very withdrawn emotionally since it happened. She is a very different woman now than a year ago. But another woman in our agency became pregnant about three years ago, and is doing just fine. She moved out on her own, and is raising a beautiful daughter. She is doing a good job too, the kid is healthy and happy.

There is no way within the laws of the land that I could have prevented the one female resident the heartache and emotional distress without preventing another one joy and emotional growth. There is just no good answer. In order to preserve the dignity and human rights of all individuals with developmental disabilities, I cannot infringe upon the rights of one to save her from great trauma. I am guessing the woman in this article was in a group home who's hands were similarly tied.

[fauxmenno]

And what happens if she has an uncontrollable seizure as a result of giving birth and dies? Do her parents even realize that is a possibility?! :x Seriously, a grad student at my school died last week <24 hours after giving birth because it caused severe complications with her pre-existing epilepsy.

[javafriend]

There are no easy answers here. I have a relative who was labeled microcephalic - not sure if this term is still used. She lived in a group home for awhile but eventually was asked to leave because she wasn't following the rules. She ended up living in subsidized housing and wound up getting pregnant 4 times and having three live births. Her first child had no birth defects but was removed from her custody when he was about 2 yrs old. The next child was born after the first had been removed from the home. The second child had multiple special needs and was removed from the mother's custody within a year. The third live birth came after this, a severely disable child, and this time the mother lost custody immediately after the birth. The whole series of events was a tragic mess. My cousin really wanted a baby but her skills were so limited that she couldn't take care of a child. She didn't understand money, couldn't measure (couldn't make formula) and had difficulty feeding and caring for herself, let alone a small child. Even with the support of social workers, she was not equipped to handle the responsibility of taking care of children. (And in a sad twist, the oldest child was adopted by some kind of fundie types with a father who was a minister. That father ended up being accused and convicted of child molestation. The wife ended up raising a bunch of kids by herself.)

Anyway, I learned some time ago that another relative had lined up a doctor who was willing to perform a tubal ligation back when my cousin was a child (late 1960's) but my cousin's mother refused. Honestly, I can't help thinking that sterilization would have been a better option in this situation.

[SomewhatFundy]

And what happens if she has an uncontrollable seizure as a result of giving birth and dies? Do her parents even realize that is a possibility?! :x Seriously, a grad student at my school died last week <24 hours after giving birth because it caused severe complications with her pre-existing epilepsy.

It's certainly a possibility. Epilepsy can be controlled, but it's no joke. To make matters worse, the medications she might be using can do some real damage to the pregnancy. Due to the state I work in, all of my residents with Epilepsy use depakote. Because it's what our state medical card covers. There are meds that don't harm the fetus, but they aren't always covered by state medical programs til pregnancy is confirmed because then it's deemed medically needed (which could be a while for folks with these disabilities to realize they are pregnant depending on how vigilant the staff are). Which is what tons of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities rely on, Depakote.

Maybe this isn't the case anymore, but when I first became certified to oversee the resident's medication I was told that Valproate (Depakote) can be made ineffective by using hormonal birth control simultaneously. So the residents who had Epilepsy were more limited in birth control options. It's been a few years since I have had to oversee that in my job because it's not my area anymore, so maybe that's no longer the case.

The whole thing is just so sad. I hope this woman receives the support she needs one way or the other. And I don't know why they mention her "intellectual age" in the article. As someone else mentioned in this thread, we don't really identify people using those concepts anymore. At least not in my agency. They tend to be pretty inaccurate as a whole in my experience anyway.

[SomewhatFundy]

There are no easy answers here. I have a relative who was labeled microcephalic - not sure if this term is still used. .

It is still a medically appropriate term as far as I have been taught. The biggest thing with using terms like that is using what we call "people first" language. Some terms are medically inappropriate or outdated, and some are medically appropriate, but we don't use it to identify the person. Because the disorder or disease is not who they are, it's something they have.

In my agency instead of saying "Sally, the microcephalic" we would say "Sally is a 24 year old woman who has microencephaly". That way you are putting the person first.