In Nevada, a county judge was fighting with the parents of a mentally-impaired adult woman over whether she should abort her pregnancy. I wrote an earlier post summarizing the case and the issues involved.
The Associated Press now reports:
While I have doubts about whether a person with the capacity of a six-year old can truly "want" anything regarding pregnancy and childbirth, the pregnant woman at issue is saying that she wants to go through with the pregnancy, and obviously her parents want that, too. (On that point, note that a Reno news station reports that an investigator with the county public guardian's office doubts that the pregnant woman has an opinion about her pregnancy beyond repeating what seems to please others.)
It sounds like the pregnant woman and her unborn child are both at some medical risk from the pregnancy. Setting aside the legal obligation of the judge to act in the best interest of the pregnant woman, from a purely strategic standpoint, if the pregnancy becomes medically fraught at some point, the judge can say he is not to blame-- and the parents won't blame him, either: He reluctantly agreed to let the pregnancy go ahead, consistent with their wishes.
Links:
Article by the Associated Press, on Fox News.com (November 15, 2012): Nevada judge won't force impaired woman to have an abortion
News report (video and text) by KRNV Reno News 4 (November 5, 2012): Previously confidential document sheds new light on Reno abortion case
Article in LifeSiteNews.com (November 14, 2012): Forced abortion no longer an option in case of pregnant disabled woman, judge rules
The Associated Press now reports:
A Washoe County district judge has decided against forcing a mentally impaired Nevada woman to have an abortion after all the parties involved reached a tentative agreement to help her through her high-risk pregnancy.
The 32-year-old woman's legal guardian told KRNV-TV on Wednesday that Judge Egan Walker had agreed that the woman wants to carry the pregnancy to term and that the evidence doesn't show it's medically necessary to abort the baby.
It is hard to know what motivated the judge to rule this way, precisely. One thing I think is clear is that this was the risk-averse choice, politically and legally. To order an adult woman, of any mental state, to have an abortion, over the objection of her pro-life parents, would have set up the judge for months of legal and political controversy.After taking the abortion option off the table, Walker said he plans to hold additional medical evidentiary hearings in the weeks ahead to determine the safest way to proceed.
While I have doubts about whether a person with the capacity of a six-year old can truly "want" anything regarding pregnancy and childbirth, the pregnant woman at issue is saying that she wants to go through with the pregnancy, and obviously her parents want that, too. (On that point, note that a Reno news station reports that an investigator with the county public guardian's office doubts that the pregnant woman has an opinion about her pregnancy beyond repeating what seems to please others.)
It sounds like the pregnant woman and her unborn child are both at some medical risk from the pregnancy. Setting aside the legal obligation of the judge to act in the best interest of the pregnant woman, from a purely strategic standpoint, if the pregnancy becomes medically fraught at some point, the judge can say he is not to blame-- and the parents won't blame him, either: He reluctantly agreed to let the pregnancy go ahead, consistent with their wishes.
Links:
Article by the Associated Press, on Fox News.com (November 15, 2012): Nevada judge won't force impaired woman to have an abortion
News report (video and text) by KRNV Reno News 4 (November 5, 2012): Previously confidential document sheds new light on Reno abortion case
Article in LifeSiteNews.com (November 14, 2012): Forced abortion no longer an option in case of pregnant disabled woman, judge rules
Note two things about this particular article: 1) Only the pro-life news sites publish a photograph of the judge in the case. Why is that, do you think? 2) The lawyer for the parents now wants to change guardianship laws to limit the power of judges to intervene in cases like these. Is that a good idea?
Comments