Forcing a mentally disabled woman to give birth

[lilith]

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.

As I read it, it was her family, not the agency, referring to her intellectual age. So it would be more them talking about

their observations of her behavior and intellectual capacity than a professional opinion.

If she does have an understanding equivalent to an average six year old she should be respected if she says she wants to birth the baby. I think most six year olds could understand that, and I think most six year olds would take notice of a doctor telling them it would be risky to their health and should be allowed to make that choice. If her parents have always taught her to be anti abortion and haven told her that the authorities want to kill her baby the consequences to her wellbeing could be a lot worse from a coerced abortion than they would be from proceeding with the pregnancy and placing the child with an adoptive family. The fact that she herself is adopted may be making her identify with the fetus.

That said, she needs to have someone explain to her the importance of contraception and get her access to an implant. And the story of conception is horrifying. Even if she chose to consent, the men who slept with her at the truckstop should face sanctions. If she has a diminished enough capacity to consent that a court is even considering making her medical decisions for her and her parents still have medical authority, then she is in no way equipped to give legal consent to sex.

[Witsec7]

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.

SomewhatFundy, thank you for reinforcing the language format for me, it's something that I need to keep working on and be mindful of.

[Jana814]

Their really is no right answer for situcations like this. Maybe this woman should have been sterilized, or forced to have abortion. It has to be the choice of either the girl (if she can) or the people who have guardenionship over her.

[Deleted03]

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.

I agree with you and have said I was against sterilization.

But the whole discussion revolves around: who are her sex partner(s)? IF it's truckers at the truck stop then yes something is happening that is wrong since as you said there are problems to be raised when there is an imbalance of mental capacities. IF an adult fully functioning man is caught with a disabled woman, isn't there grounds for prosecution?

And again, more than contraception, what about telling her about condoms?

[Buzzard]

And again, more than contraception, what about telling her about condoms?

She's catholic so she cant use condoms (or have premarital sex but they turn a blind eye on that one). Abstinence only!

[Deleted03]

She's catholic so she cant use condoms (or have premarital sex but they turn a blind eye on that one). Abstinence only!

Silly me.

But isn't t here anything in the catholic faith that would say that mentally disabled individuals stand in a different position... if they can't understand sin, then shouldn't rules be different?

I know, I know, I'm expecting rational thought there.

[Aeryn406]

(I didn't read the links on pg 1, but I don't think it'll have any effect on my comment.)

What kind of person is even remotely attracted to or would willingly have sexual contact with someone who has the mental capacity of a 6 year old?! Yes, I'm referring to the men at the truck stop that this young woman visited. What kind of people are they?! Surely they can see that, even though she's physically an adult female with all the working parts, she's not talking to or flirting with them the way an adult woman would. I know when I see someone that is DD, I could never, NEVER think, "Yeah, I'd hit that."

I know the managers of the truck stop probably have more things to do than to watch out for the safety of the local girl that's "not quite right", but there should have been somebody heading her off and steering her away from the people that would take advantage of her. And, where are the morally upstanding, good-hearted truckers that *have* to be out there to help out and do the right thing - scare off the predators!

(** Background for perspective on this comment: My mother is epileptic and often abused her medication, as a revenge tactic when she was married to my father. She did it so much that she reduced her own mentality to that of about a 4th grader. During a fairly heated conversation with my father, I brought that up and asked him how he could ever be attracted to her, in her mental state - that it was just like molesting a child and it wasn't right. He explained that she was intelligent, caring and had a great sense of humor when he first met her and that letting herself go into seizures on purpose changed her personality and mental state into the one I knew.)

[tabitha2]

Because they are horny men who want to Fuck AKA hit and quit it.Very simple.

Talking much less flirting and attraction is the last thing on the mind.

[Terrie]

I'd say what they have to do is show that her life is in significant danger by not getting an abortion, that she is unable to understand the situation well enough to make an informed decision and that the parents (whom I'm guessing are her legal guardians) are making a decision based on something besides her best interest. That's a lot to prove, and it should be. My main concern is that if she lacks the capacity for medical consent, the parents are substituting their religious beliefs for her judgement. I don't think that children should be denied needed medical care based on their parents' beliefs, and while this woman is not a child, the same idea that other people should not be risking someone else's life without their consent applies.

[BlueChair]

I had a client who lived in a group home but was fairly independent and used the city bus for transportation. She would have sex with homeless men she met on the bus. There were measures taken to educate her on safety and sexual health and make sure she did not become pregnant, but she still managed to contract an STD. There's only so much you can do.

[fauxmenno]

I'd say what they have to do is show that her life is in significant danger by not getting an abortion, that she is unable to understand the situation well enough to make an informed decision and that the parents (whom I'm guessing are her legal guardians) are making a decision based on something besides her best interest. That's a lot to prove, and it should be. My main concern is that if she lacks the capacity for medical consent, the parents are substituting their religious beliefs for her judgement. I don't think that children should be denied needed medical care based on their parents' beliefs, and while this woman is not a child, the same idea that other people should not be risking someone else's life without their consent applies.

By no means should she be forced to have an abortion IF all of the risks and implications are clearly explained to her by someone other than her parents (who could influence her decision), but this is my concern too. Has she really had everything explained to her? People obviously have trusted her to make her own sexual decisions so they believe she is capable of informed consent anyways.

As other people have said, the REALLY scary part is that she is having frequent, random sex with complete strangers. With all the news reports of women being raped, abducted, and murdered, why aren't her parents/guardians more concerned with this!?

[lilah]

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.

I suspect that the number is to prove the baby will have a family and not endup a ward of the state. What I suspect is that these famlies are from the parent's church or social circle and may not be liscensed foster care parents or have done the background work (homestudies, etc) to be eligble to adopt

[shesinsane]

By no means should she be forced to have an abortion IF all of the risks and implications are clearly explained to her by someone other than her parents (who could influence her decision), but this is my concern too. Has she really had everything explained to her? People obviously have trusted her to make her own sexual decisions so they believe she is capable of informed consent anyways.

As other people have said, the REALLY scary part is that she is having frequent, random sex with complete strangers. With all the news reports of women being raped, abducted, and murdered, why aren't her parents/guardians more concerned with this!?

Perhaps they fall into that pro life stereotype that only cares about the pre-born. Elisa's already out of the womb so aside from her potential incubator status, she doesn't matter. :roll:

[snarktastic]

She's going to be gutted when they take the baby away from her. I wonder if they've told her yet, that that's what they plan to do. :(

[SomewhatFundy]

Because they are horny men who want to Fuck AKA hit and quit it.Very simple.

Talking much less flirting and attraction is the last thing on the mind.

Yup. I doubt the guys at the truck stop were engaging in much communication with her. And some of my residents are so independent and well-spoken that unless you were trained to recognize it, you might not know they had an intellectual disability. One of the young women in the home I run I initially thought was a staff member when I was new to the agency. She has better reading comprehension skills than I do, by like a country mile. And very eloquent too. Most people in the community have no idea she lives in a group home for the disabled.

Now, this may not be a viable excuse for whatever scumbags were having sex with the woman in the article but it's not out of the realm of possibility. Even with the "mentality of six year old" she could still be very high functioning in communication areas (which would explain how she had unsupervised time or community access as we call it here) but struggles in other areas like maladaptive behaviors, personal grooming or money handling etc.

This sort of thing is just so scary and tragic. This particular population of individuals are outrageously high risk for emotional, verbal, financial and sexual abuse. And there are just too many people in the world who think nothing of taking advantage of them. It makes me want to puke.

To think of that woman, having to go through something as scary and physically demanding as pregnancy. Hopefully she has a good support system in place, but it seems to me like her parents aren't making great choices for her.

I understand religious convictions about contraception. Really, I do. But there comes a point where you have to use the common sense that God gave you and think to yourself "is this really the right choice? Or just the choice i've been told is the right one?" This woman should have been educated about sexual health. Maybe she was, and she ignored it. But somehow I doubt she was. Cause you know, God would really rather this mess happen than the girl carry condoms on her :roll:

[Shoobydoo]

Ho. Lee. Shit. I have just been informed that this is a fairly near relative of mine. :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: I can't tell you anything about it because I have relatives I have no idea existed. Like this one. I'm just reeling from this newsflash.

[Terrie]

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.)

Was randomly thinking about this. Maybe instead of "lower level of functioning" it could be described as a "higher level of vulnerability"?

[Buzzard]

http://www.ajc.com/ap/ap/kids-family/nv ... ncy/nSxKY/

Looks like its gaining a bit more traction. She is still on medication for the seizures and the doctors are split on whether the pregnancy is safe. This is exactly the case for a guardian ad litem. I'd also hope that this increased attention will draw out the father to determine if someone needs to be prosecuted.

[Guest Anonymous]

It's a really slippery slope. What does SHE want? Not the doctors, not her parents. Has she stated an opinion one way or the other? If people want to advocate for women's rights without a minimum age, and there are a lot of people saying kids should be able to get abortions without parental consent no matter how young they are, which means they should get to choose to continue a pregnancy, then what the woman wants is what needs to happen. You can't say women, no matter how young, have the right to choose, then turn around and start placing qualifiers. If she's got the mental capacity of a 6-year-old, and was a 6-year-old who was pregnant and wanted the baby and was willing to fight, would you force an abortion? If she was 6 and wanted to end it and her parents didn't, would you force a pregnancy?

So her wished need to be heard, and I'm not hearing that in any of the articles. It's like no one cares about what she wants. Maybe she doesn't want to be pregnant. Maybe she does. If you're going to be about women's rights, then this woman should have the say.

I'm really annoyed at the articles calling her a girl. Buzzard, look at the link itself. http://www.ajc.com/ap/ap/kids-family/nv ... ncy/nSxKY/ GIRLS PREGNANCY Not your fault, just pointing out that she's being taken out of the equation as a human, an adult woman, with feelings and thoughts. Even a 6-year-old knows what it means to be pregnant, and not every legal adult of average intelligence really understands all the risks of pregnancy with some conditions.

WHAT DOES THE WOMAN WANT??

[boysmom]

I agree, it's her decision. It doesn't sound like she's shared how the pregnancy occurred, or else that part's not being shared with the media (which is my guess.) If no one is being prosecuted then they might very well be relatively equivalent in cognitive functioning level and no crime has occurred.

[Coconut Flan]

Did someone at the group home disagree with what the woman allegedly wants and what her parents want that resulted in social services getting involved? I was wondering why the case was going to court. Supposedly she wants to carry the pregnancy but whether that's her decision or the influence of the parents who knows? Still, it seems odd for social services to butt in and try to force an abortion also.

[valsa]

Maybe one of her doctors?

I know there are issues with confidentiality but doctors are required to report suspected abuse of vulnerable people and I think there's a possibility that this case could fall under that. If her disability makes her unable to judge the risks of the pregnancy and her parents are pushing her to continue, when it could kill her, because of their religion, the doctor could feel it's his/her obligation to report that.

[boysmom]

I also agree with the person up thread who stated that saying that a 32 year old person has the cognitive functioning of a 6 yo is relatively meaningless. Without seeing a full scale evaluation, we just don't know what that means Everything that I know about evaluations says that we DO NOT use age equivalents, they don't give useful information. Sometimes professionals are forced into it though by the legal system or someone else, but percentiles, standard scores, stanines, etc are much more useful. I suppose that's why judges who are privy to all information make decisions and not people on message boards who read the article.

My point is just to point out that she may be capable of understanding what is going on and the implications.

[Mommy22alyns]

So fucked up on so many levels.

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

Exactly. If you don't want the government FORCING her to have an abortion, how can you then argue that the government should be FORCING her to give birth?

[emmiedahl]

This is going to be a hard one for the courts to sort out. The pregnant woman has likely been influenced heavily by her family, who lined up adoption prospects before even finding out whether the would-be mother could safely sustain a pregnancy. I doubt they would give her a choice in adoption. If there is a decent chance of harm (and it sounds like there is one), the court will need to sort out whether the woman understands the potential harm and the implications.