Update: For whatever reason, many folks might still believe that the United Kingdom--especially England--is more advanced than the former jewel of its imperial crown, India. Such is certainly not the case when it comes to protecting the liberty of the disabled and the rights of the unborn. (Or many other things, for that matter.)
Below the fold you can read my discussion about the judgment of the Supreme Court of India where it vindicated the right of a young pregnant woman who suffered from mental disabilities to carry her child to term. Even though she was a victim of rape, the mother's wishes received judicial vindication.
Not so in England. Go here to read a summary in the Independent of how an English "Court of Protection" [sic] sided with government authorities and ordered an abortion over the objection of the pregnant mother and her mother, who had offered to provide care for the child following birth. According to the authorities, the pregnant woman "has a mood disorder and a learning disorder." Oh dear. The unborn child? Who cares. According to the judge, “I think she would like to have a baby in the same way she would like to have a nice doll.” Alternatives such as foster care? Oh no, because the young mother "would suffer greater trauma from having a baby removed." The "best interests" of the state are clearly more important than the actual interests of the mother, aren't they?
It will be interesting to see if disabilities rights organizations step up to take this matter further on appeal.
For others of my posts about the law in India and the judgment of its Supreme Court go here, here, and here.
(For a claim that the mother is Nigerian go here. Not that her ethnicity might have anything to do with the court's decision.)
________________________________________________________________________
On 4 September 2009 I posted here about the Indian Supreme Court judgment barring the abortion of the unborn child against the wishes of a mentally retarded 19-year old. I have since read the court’s judgment and corresponded with Bedi Tanu, the appellant's advocate who has practiced law for only six years. Along with her senior advocate, Ms. Bedi argued the case to the High Court in Chandigarh but lost. Nevertheless, through the efforts of friends and colleagues in Delhi, an appeal was delivered to the home of the Chief Justice of India at 9:00 pm on Friday night, only hours before the abortion was scheduled to take place the next morning. Bedi argued the case on Monday after which a three-judge panel of the Supreme Court issued a short written order indicating its decision in favor of life, which was followed by the lengthy written judgment the last month.
I can’t summarize the meaning of this case any better than in the words Bedi wrote to me:
Below the fold you can read my discussion about the judgment of the Supreme Court of India where it vindicated the right of a young pregnant woman who suffered from mental disabilities to carry her child to term. Even though she was a victim of rape, the mother's wishes received judicial vindication.
Not so in England. Go here to read a summary in the Independent of how an English "Court of Protection" [sic] sided with government authorities and ordered an abortion over the objection of the pregnant mother and her mother, who had offered to provide care for the child following birth. According to the authorities, the pregnant woman "has a mood disorder and a learning disorder." Oh dear. The unborn child? Who cares. According to the judge, “I think she would like to have a baby in the same way she would like to have a nice doll.” Alternatives such as foster care? Oh no, because the young mother "would suffer greater trauma from having a baby removed." The "best interests" of the state are clearly more important than the actual interests of the mother, aren't they?
It will be interesting to see if disabilities rights organizations step up to take this matter further on appeal.
For others of my posts about the law in India and the judgment of its Supreme Court go here, here, and here.
(For a claim that the mother is Nigerian go here. Not that her ethnicity might have anything to do with the court's decision.)
________________________________________________________________________
On 4 September 2009 I posted here about the Indian Supreme Court judgment barring the abortion of the unborn child against the wishes of a mentally retarded 19-year old. I have since read the court’s judgment and corresponded with Bedi Tanu, the appellant's advocate who has practiced law for only six years. Along with her senior advocate, Ms. Bedi argued the case to the High Court in Chandigarh but lost. Nevertheless, through the efforts of friends and colleagues in Delhi, an appeal was delivered to the home of the Chief Justice of India at 9:00 pm on Friday night, only hours before the abortion was scheduled to take place the next morning. Bedi argued the case on Monday after which a three-judge panel of the Supreme Court issued a short written order indicating its decision in favor of life, which was followed by the lengthy written judgment the last month.
I can’t summarize the meaning of this case any better than in the words Bedi wrote to me:
Every life is very precious. We have to see the world of others from their eyes and not our eyes. This girl has her world. We are doing nothing for her. We have no right to interfere in her world. Her rape was and is a heinous offence. The offender is the rapist; the child is innocent. If the mother wants her child for any reason, we can’t question her motherhood instinct on the parameter of IQ analysis. The disabled may not express their desires so easily (though this girl expressed her's unequivocally) but that does not mean they have no wishes. Disability is more in our perception, in our bias, than in the world. Life for the disabled is difficult and now, when the law is recognizing their rights, we cannot allow our prejudice, our ignorance, our stereotyped approach, to come in the way of life of self-determination of the mentally disabled.
This is a rare glimmer of pro-life encouragement from a most unexpected quarter! I will link this on Law in the Catacombs (http://believersrights.blogspot.com/) and Just a Blog of Protoplasm (http://abortionliability.blogspot.com/).
ReplyDelete