Skip to comments.
Judge OKs Plan for Disabled Rape Victim
Guardian/A.P. ^
| Wednesday June 25, 2003
| MIKE SCHNEIDER
Posted on 06/25/2003 2:30:25 PM PDT by nickcarraway
ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) - A severely retarded rape victim who was thrust into an abortion debate when Gov. Jeb Bush said he wanted a guardian appointed for her fetus will be allowed to carry her pregnancy to term, a judge ruled Wednesday.
Circuit Judge Lawrence Kirkwood approved a medical plan for the woman - known as J.D.S. in court records - that allows her to give birth. J.D.S.' court-appointed guardian, Patti Jarrell, recommended the plan.
Jarrell wrote in a report to Kirkwood that ``completing the pregnancy/delivering the child is in J.D.S.'s best interest.''
The 22-year-old woman, who is more than six months pregnant, has the mental ability of a preschooler and has been living in the group home for 19 years.
Doctors have found J.D.S. to be in good health, and two sonograms indicate no obvious abnormalities with the fetus, Jarrell said.
Her case gained national attention last month after Bush said he believed a guardian should be named for the woman's fetus because the woman was unable to make to decision of whether to carry the baby to term.
Abortion-rights advocates attacked Bush's stance, calling it an attempt by the abortion opponent to force the woman to continue the pregnancy. J.D.S.'s guardian had not been appointed at the time.
The judge said there was no basis in the law for appointing a guardian for a fetus.
The case prompted Bush to appoint a panel to study what needs to be done to protect mentally disabled adults from abuse.
The identification of J.D.S.'s attacker has been hampered because the woman was unable to consent to a DNA test until someone was appointed to speak for her.
TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; Politics/Elections; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: abortion; disabled; florida; jebbush; law; prolife
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40 next last
To: nickcarraway
Too bad the same wasn't true in the Miami case.
2
posted on
06/25/2003 2:37:16 PM PDT
by
Sloth
("I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!" -- Jacobim Mugatu, 'Zoolander')
To: nickcarraway
"The judge said there was no basis in the law for appointing a guardian for a fetus."So? The you got the ball judge. Now show you've got more than that one and make precedent.
3
posted on
06/25/2003 2:42:40 PM PDT
by
spunkets
To: nickcarraway
This is good, very positive. I'm sure that this poor woman's trauma would in NO WAY be alleviated by having an abortion. Not to mention the risks to her health. I hope the baby is healthy and that some lovely people adopt it.
4
posted on
06/25/2003 2:56:59 PM PDT
by
jocon307
(You think I exagerate? You don't know the half of it!)
To: spunkets
The judge said there was no basis in the law for appointing a guardian for a fetus.
Shoot, there was no basis whatsoever in the Constitution for a womans right to abortion" so go ahead, Judge, drive another knife into respect for the rule of law: just make it up as you go. After all, YOU'RE a good person, anything you thinke therefore MUST be good, yeah just make it up as you go along!
A "pair" indeed!
5
posted on
06/25/2003 3:13:21 PM PDT
by
TalBlack
To: nickcarraway
At the risk of a major flaming, I'm wondering if one of the abnormalities they checked for was trisomy. Ultrasound wouldn't do it--you'd need amnio.
6
posted on
06/25/2003 3:23:00 PM PDT
by
Pearls Before Swine
(South-south-west, south, south-east, east....)
To: TalBlack
"drive another knife into respect for the rule of law: just make it up as you go...What the judge is faced with is the fact that the SCOTUS once claimed the fetus is a nonviable tissue mass. This judge is in a position to ignore that ruling and provide this child with a guardian to promote the kid's life, rights and other interests. The judge is under no obligation to duplicate the illogic of that SCOTUS ruling here.
Since the State of Florida provides for the appointing of guardians for the welfare of children w/o a competant guardian, this judge should recognize the child as such and appoint one. It's that simple.
7
posted on
06/25/2003 3:33:36 PM PDT
by
spunkets
To: Pearls Before Swine
At the risk of a major flaming, I'm wondering if one of the abnormalities they checked for was trisomy. Ultrasound wouldn't do it--you'd need amnio. No flaming here, but a level II ultrasound can detect many of the soft markers for Down's. The mother is 22 years-old, so her risk of having a child with Down's due to age is less than her risk of miscarriage due to the amnio (1 in 200), so it is probably a good thing they did not perform a routine amnio, absent other indications (AFP, abnormal ultrasound, etc.).
To: Pearls Before Swine
There are visual indicators of trisomy--almost always a heart anomily; a thickening of the fold of skin at the nape of the neck, and the pinky finger jutting away from the hand. In any ultrasound the heart is studied...if any abnormalities had been detected then further testing would be warranted. The least invasive testing (ultrasound) is done first (if no other condition is present). If the baby veiwed as normally developing there would be no reason to do any further testing (like amnio). MSAFP is done as part of the routine blood draw (in many OB practices).
9
posted on
06/25/2003 3:50:01 PM PDT
by
PennsylvaniaMom
(Don't mess with a SCOWderPuffGirl!)
To: nickcarraway
The identification of J.D.S.'s attacker has been hampered because the woman was unable to consent to a DNA test until someone was appointed to speak for her.What a crock. She'll never be able to consent, because she can't consent to the choice of the person to "speak for her". No one can speak for her ever. How convenient for her "attacker" (nice little euphemism there) that he gets months to disappear and leave a cold trail, while idiot lawyers advance theoretical and procedural arguments as to why a simple amniocentesis can't be performed to help find out who the creep is.
To: PennsylvaniaMom
The amnio was needed for DNA testing, so the perp could be identified and caught before leaving a cold trail. He's probably fixed himself up with a new identity by now, and is in another state or country, again working with vulnerable people.
To: GovernmentShrinker
The DNA testing you're referring too can only be done when the father has given a sample of his DNA as well. Unless they have some sample from a suspect, taking the DNA (via amnio?) wouldn't be of any use. What they may have been referencing is a semen sample taken at the time the rape occurred.
12
posted on
06/25/2003 4:03:09 PM PDT
by
PennsylvaniaMom
(Don't mess with a SCOWderPuffGirl!)
To: PennsylvaniaMom
They may also have a number of "samples" from a group of possible suspects. Cells from a cigarette butt are enough. I'll bet that within minutes of the child being born there'll be a DNA sample on the way to lab. This case has been batted around the press enough that some senior politcal figures will apply the heat to get a suspect nailed down. Once they get a DNA match, the perp can deny all he wants, he's toast
13
posted on
06/25/2003 4:16:58 PM PDT
by
cavtrooper21
("..he's not heavy, sir. He's my brother...")
To: GovernmentShrinker
At least in this case, they didn't give her a tubal ligation, making her fair game for all future rapists.
To: nickcarraway
Whether or not she had a tubal ligation has no bearing on her being a rape victim.
15
posted on
06/25/2003 5:24:33 PM PDT
by
Mfkmmof4
To: PennsylvaniaMom
No, every news report, including this one, has stressed that they couldn't do a DNA test without the woman's consent. There was no semen sample taken at the time of the rape because no one knew there had been a rape until she showed signs of pregnancy. The list of likely suspects is probably pretty short, as it would be limited to people who had access to this home. And employees may well be subject to a requirement that they submit to such testing in the event of any criminal investigation. But testing the male employees and any other likely suspects would be pointless without the DNA sample from the fetus, since they obviously can't require a number of suspects, most of whom are innocent, to remain in the area under surveillance for months, while they waited for the baby to be born to see whose DNA matched it. The really ludicrous thing about all this is that after the baby is born, it wouldn't be capable of giving consent either, but due to the cirmcumstances of its birth it would automatically be put in state custody and have one of those famous Florida child welfare workers "speak for it".
It would have made a lot more sense to give priority to the criminal investigation, and apply common sense to the question of the woman's consent -- she is mentally unable to give or withhold consent, but any reasonable person would assume that if she were capable of comprehending the situation, she would consent. That ought to be good enough for any sane court.
To: GovernmentShrinker
The problem is that amnio has a small risk of causing miscarriage (someone above posted 1 in 200)...we can't assume that she would accepted that risk had she been of normal intellgence.
17
posted on
06/25/2003 6:13:43 PM PDT
by
LWalk18
To: cavtrooper21
Once they get a DNA match, the perp can deny all he wants, he's toastTrouble is, the perp has probably long since disappeared, quite likely to the third world country he came from. Nursing homes and homes for the retarded and mentally ill are largely staffed by minimum wage workers, many working under assumed names to avoid detection of their illegal immigrant status and/or their criminal record.
To: LWalk18
Given the circumstances, she probably would have. But common sense dictates that somebody else has to make the decision, when the subject is unable to, and appointing an individual as legal guardian, who has no more knowledge of the subject's wishes than anyone else, is an unnecessary obstacle to making a time-sensitive decision. The rapist was probably laughing his head off as he watched the TV news explaining why he had plenty of time to get away before being identified as the perp. And given the absolute inability of the victim to give any indication of her wishes, catching the perp should have been the priority.
To: GovernmentShrinker
You might be right, but I like to think there just might be some justice in this case. There doesn't seem to be a real surplus of it in the world right now. I get really hacked when I see people like this woman abused. I hope that the scumbag that is resonsible gets to spend some "quality time" with Bubba playing "Little Cell in the Prison".
20
posted on
06/25/2003 6:27:38 PM PDT
by
cavtrooper21
("..he's not heavy, sir. He's my brother...")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson