Judge says he can order abortion for disabled Nevada woman
CARSON CITY, Nev. A Nevada state judge says he has the authority to order an abortion for a pregnant 32-year-old mentally disabled woman, even against the will of her Catholic adoptive parents.
Washoe County District Court Judge Egan Walker didn't make a decision, but asked the Nevada Supreme Court on Monday to let him go ahead with hearings as early as Tuesday to collect medical evidence about the woman's case.
The Las Vegas Sun reports that Walker called it "illogical and contrary to law" to prevent him from gathering evidence to determine if an abortion should be performed.
In a case being watched by national anti-abortion organizations, the woman's parents want the state high court to stop the proceedings.
The parents argue that as their daughter's legal guardians, they have exclusive authority over her health care decisions. They cite their religious beliefs and say they want the baby to be born.
Six couples have expressed an interest in adopting the baby, the woman's parents said.
- Court to consider Arizona's 20-week abortion ban
- Since 2010, 32 states have restricted abortions
- Court: Indiana can't defund Planned Parenthood
- Federal appeals court allows Texas to defund Planned Parenthood
The parents say their daughter has the mental capacity of a 6-year-old. She was living at a group home when she became pregnant.
The couple concedes the pregnancy poses health risks to their epileptic daughter and the baby, but they say medical experts back them in their decision to continue the pregnancy.
A lawyer for the parents, Jason Guinasso, told The Associated Press it's not known whether the pregnancy resulted from rape or consensual sex.
The woman became pregnant 13 weeks ago after wandering away from a Reno group home. The father hasn't been identified, and the circumstances are being investigated by county officials. AP isn't naming the woman or her parents because the issue remains unclear.
At a court hearing last week, two medical experts testified the pregnancy carries risks because the woman has epilepsy and is on medication. They disagreed on whether the pregnancy should be terminated.
Deputy Washoe County District Attorney Dania Reid noted there has been no motion or discussion to order an abortion in the case.
Popular on CBSNews.com
- Massive tornado hits Oklahoma 79 Photos
- Children rescued from two elementary schools in Oklahoma 18 Photos
- Oklahoma tornado leaves dozens dead, including many children 92 Comments
- Oklahoma tornado carves trail of destruction Play Video
- Oklahoma tornado as seen by storm chasers Play Video
- Severe tornado tears through Oklahoma City suburb Play Video
- More severe weather expected after monster tornado
- At least 51 dead after massive Okla. tornado
Not enough info to stand firm on either position.
Yuck.
Anyone having a child undergoes risk. This article fails to state whether it is significant or not. And at what point is it significant enough for the state to step in? Is the state going to suddenly get involved with anyone who happens to be mentally disabled or challenged and pregnant, if there happens to be sufficient risk?
Have any of you ever been involved with the court system or how it works? Have you ever heard a federal judge make a statement about a case like "It's not about justice, it's about who is prepared and who is not."? Have you ever had someone who as a slightly wierd and off-kilter ward of the state brings about lawsuit after lawsuit against family, and have a judge allow the madness to continue for no good reason, but seemingly because he felt sorry for the person? Have you ever been to a court room and watched someone who was known as a "hanging" judge because they almost always find against the person and invoke the maximum sentence possible (and do you know that most judges are given cases more or less at random, and so it's blind luck as to whether you get a hanging judge or not?) All the above examples are different cases I've heard or seen reported on in my life.
Now most parents aren't perfect. But we are in a world of trouble if we think the federal government is a better parent than the actual parents are. And there are times where most people or a jury of your peers (12 usually) would find that the person really isn't acting in the best interests of the child-- but that is a jury of peers and not a single person acting on their own opinion and beliefs (and hopefully within the legal guidelines of judicial process).
And for those of you who put down the religious beliefs of the parents, shame on you for elevating your "religious" opinion (that the state is a better guardian than a parent, or that anyone who doesn't think like you must be crazy, etc.) above those of the parents. Indeed you are hypocrites-- pointing fingers at others for the very thing you are doing.
As noted in my original post, this article failed to identify the risk levels. The judge is doing the proper thing gathering evidence to make a decision, (although it will still be in all likelihood one person's decision and not a jury of peers).
A jury of your peers gets rid of the opinion of one person. One could still have a randomly assigned biased jury, but it is much less likely.
My point is that this decision is not clear cut. It is wrong to assume that the parents are in the wrong and that the "state" knows better. Obviously in your examples, there are places where the state does know better. Is this such a case? Not clearly so *according to this article*-- I have done no research about this through other media outlets.
I would prefer to keep most decisions in the hands of parents (who usually invest alot more in raising their children than the state does ), unless it is a *strong* case of child endangerment, strong enough to convince a jury (not a single judge-- even if that's not the reality of our legal system), that the child's life is endangered.