Court May Force Mentally Disabled Nevada Woman to Have Abortion

[Paradoxum]

The Constitution treats it as a violation of a right if done without due process. I think that sterilization would fall into a similar category.

I agree. Obviously you can't kidnap and sterilize random people.

Oh I agree, but when a person repeatedly demonstrates that they are a danger to children and haveand had due process of law, there comes a point where that might be the only realistic way to protect children from harm.

Maybe.

Disabled people are not animals.

I know. I'm saying you shouldn't think sterilization then straight away think it must be a punishment.

 

[Jade Margery]

I googled it and came up with some

There is an updated one from 8 hours ago:

Controversial Pregnancy Case Continues...


This article says she goes to truck stops and prostitutes herself out.

Looks like they have the case in court right now and will continue Tuesday morning - one doctor in the courthouse says she should be able to carry to term fine, and the second doctor is recommending an abortion

State is saying they have guardianship for right now I guess since the parents forgot to file a paper last year?

See, now this is making a bit more sense, and if everyone could lay off the 'gov'ment gonna take our precious fetuses!' scare, this actually seems pretty routine. I'll lay it out simply according to what's in this article.


Big medical decisions (like continuing pregnancy) for mentally disabled people are made by their legal guardians.

Due either to negligence or forgetfulness, her parents failed to file papers that continued their assertion of guardianship. The government therefore became her legal guardian.

As legal guardian of this mentally disabled woman, they are responsible for the big medical decision.

A court is appointed to make the decision.

That's it.


THAT DOESN'T MEAN THE GOVERNMENT WANTS TO ABORT HER BABY. I can't stress this enough. It means that they are fulfilling their legal responsibility to explore all of the options for a woman in their care and decide which is best. It is entirely possible and highly likely that the decision will be to allow her to carry the child to term. They have called in experts and doctors to give testimony, some of whom agree with allowing the pregnancy to continue, others of which don't. This is exactly what would have happened if the woman's parents were no longer in the picture at all, it just happens that they are and that they need to refile for guardianship of her or something.

So, put away your pitchforks with pictures of dead babies tied to them and go about your business. There's nothing to see here but propaganda and misconceptions.

 

[kittycat7]

Of course a disabled person hasn't done something wrong for that right to be taken away, I just think they never had the right to begin with. If someone will never be able to look after a child, then they should never have a child. Perhaps if the guardians accept the responsibility to look after the child then it makes sense, but one can't just be spiting out children and assuming it will be ok.

According to the first article, there are six potential adoptive couples lined up.