I am NOMAD. Sterilize. Sterilize!
Posted on 02/04/2015 8:53:58 AM PST by wagglebee
In the United Kingdom, a mother-of-six will be taken to the hospital and forced to undergo a sterilization.
In 2014, the department of health and social services applied for permission to enter the woman’s home and take her to get sterilized against her will. The woman, who has not been identified, reportedly has a learning disability.
At a hearing at the Court of Protection, they argued that sterilization is necessary because the woman’s health would be put at risk if she had more children. However, John McKendrick, who represented a health authority, hospital trust and council said the application for sterilization was “extraordinary” and would involve serious interference with the woman’s human rights.
According to the Daily Mail, the judge who’s going to rule on the case, Stephen Cobb, held a two-day hearing into the case and heard that health workers have struggled to get the woman to take contraception. The judge said that this case is one of “enormous gravity.”
Today, Justice Cobb ruled that the woman can be forcibly sterilized:
Mr Justice Cobb today granted their applications, describing the case as “exceptional” – branding the circumstances “extreme” and stressing that “therapeutic sterilisation” would be lawful and in the woman’s best interests.
He declared that the woman lacked the mental capacity to litigate and make decisions regarding contraception.
He authorised medics and social services staff to: “Remove (the woman) from her home and take steps to convey her to hospital for the purposes of the sterilisation procedure.”
And he said “necessary and proportionate steps” could include “forced entry and necessary restraint”.
The Court of Protection in London is one of the United Kingdom’s most secretive courts that usually deal with cases involving vulnerable people who lack the mental ability to make decisions for their health themselves. A representative of the Court of Protection, Michael Horne, said, “The issues have nothing to do with eugenics. It is a 'therapeutic' sterilization in that it most effectively mitigates the grave risks to health and life that a further pregnancy could bring."
As LifeNews previously reported, in 2012 the British government gave $268 million to the government of India for a program that forcibly sterilizes poor women and men. Wendy Wright explained the inhumane act of forced sterilization. She said, “Men and women are rounded up into makeshift rural camps to be sterilized, many left in pain with little or no care. Some women, sterilized while pregnant, suffered miscarriages. Some were bribed with less than $8 and a sari, others threatened with losing their ration cards. Some died from botched operations.”
Additionally, in the United States parents of a 32-year-old pregnant woman, known as Mary Moe, withdrew their request to subject their daughter to a forced abortion and sterilization. Moe was being treated at a Massachusetts hospital for schizophrenia and bipolar mood disorder. When she became pregnant, doctors were purportedly concerned that her medications could harm the unborn child. So they recommended an abortion. However, Moe is a Catholic and expressed vocal opposition to abortion.
Since Moe planned to keep her baby, her parents, in conjunction with the doctors, filed a petition with the local courts, which would give them the power to force her to get an abortion. Massachusetts justice Christina Harms not only granted the petition, she went a step further. She told Moe’s parents that it didn’t matter how they got Moe to have the abortion, even if it meant she had to be “coaxed, bribed, or even enticed … by ruse.”
No, it's eugenics, they can relabel it however they want, but in the end it's just another way of saying, "three generations of imbeciles is enough."
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Well, their royal family is German, so that makes sense.
Oh, there’s nothing to worry about. This will be a unique one-time-only case. Trust me. /sarc
So... when do they start adding Depo-Provera to municipal water supply for Southside Chicago? That would be an excellent solution to the "gun violence problem" Chicago seems to have.
Sarc tag or no? Hmmmm?
Either way I will be flamed by the Catholics, like I just invited them to my annual kitten barbeque.
As much as I want to scream at the government for this one, we need to actually look at the decision making capabilities of the woman. My wife worked as a social worker in NJ, and there were women with “learning disabilities” who had no capability of saying “no”.
I am going to research this, but I have a feeling the six children are from different fathers who took advantage of her learning disability.
I am NOMAD. Sterilize. Sterilize!
“...different fathers who took advantage of her learning disability.”
THAT right there is criminal.
Carrie Buck all over again.
The health department’s argument was that having more children put her health and life at risk. Like you I will reserve judgment without more information. If this woman does not have the cognitive ability to understand the health risks that further pregnancies could bring, they may have a case. I would need to know what those “serious health risks” are.
Many women in America can’t say no. Look at our welfare rolls. This is not justification for involuntary sterilization. Sexual intercourse with a person who is a ward of the state or has a guardian due to diminished mental capacity would be rape and the offender (s) should be charged and prosecuted.
I am a former public health nurse myself, and different children from different fathers is the norm these days. Involuntary sterilization won’t change the culture that promotes fornication with whomever is around at the moment.
Correct, but the “privacy” of the mother is more paramount than catching some felon abusing women. Just like not snitching on the adults who abuse young girls then force them to get abortions.
The solution is to cut the welfare rolls and not to infringe upon people’s inherent freedoms...
Pro-life organizations should interview this woman and her children as soon as possible, taking days, if needed, to produce a full length movie showing her to be human and worthy of the rights of humans.
Note that the government has gone to lengths to prevent her from being humanized. No pictures of her or her children, no sympathetic points of view. Just to keep it in terms of a “sterile”, laboratory point of view. As if she was a lab rat.
This eugenics will only end when people see her human face, and can imagine themselves in her shoes.
If forced sterilization is intended to protect her life, then what’s going to protect her from deadly STD’s? Whether they sterilize her or not, her life is still at risk!
As much as I hate those things, why don’t they just insert the sticks in her arm? Those are good for years.
bump!
You are of course correct and that is the meaning I meant to infer with my comment.
And yes, it is rape. The solution however is not to take away the freedom of the victim. I am assuming you are not suggesting that once she is sterilized then raping her becomes OK, because while pregnancy may not be possible disease and death certainly still are.
What do they mean by “a learning disability”? That’s so broad a category as to be almost meaningless. Is there any evidence that she is a bad mother? Are her children abused or neglected? Why did the Court of Protection think that they should step in? Was it simply the number of children to which this one woman had given birth?
It’s shocking to me that government has so little regard for the rights of its citizens.
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.