How
Could
This
Happen
In
America?
In a
bizarre
case
that can
only be
described
as "can
this
possibly
be
happening
in the
United
States
of
America,"
Nevada
District
Court
Judge
Egan
Walker
is
presiding
over
hearings
to
determine
if a 32-year-old
mentally
disabled
woman
should
be
permitted
to carry
her
pregnancy
to term
or
whether
it is in
her
"best
interests"
to be
forced
to have
an
abortion
against
the will
of her
parents
who are
her
guardians.
Bill and
Amy
Bauer of
Fernley,
Nevada,
as judge
Egan
Walker
eloquently
notes,
adopted
and
rescued
six
children
from the
streets
of Costa
Rica
over 20
years
ago, all
of whom
have
fetal
alcohol
syndrome.
One of
their
children
is a 32
year old
woman
who is
mentally
handicapped
and has
the
mental
capacity
and
social
skills
of a 6
or 7year-old.
Since
she was
18 years
old, her
parents
have
served
as her
guardians,
something
typical
in cases
like
this.
Now she
is
pregnant
with a
healthy
14 week
old baby
boy or
girl as
a result
of some
sort of
elopement
from the
group
home she
has been
living
in. The
family
wants
her to
have the
baby and
then
place
the
child
for
adoption.
The
Bauers
have
said
that
their
disabled
daughter
wants to
have the
baby.
She does
not want
to kill
it and
several
couples
have
expressed
a desire
to adopt
the
unborn
child.
We also
know
that
Judge
Walker
could
intervene
to force
an
abortion.
How does
this
happen
in
America
where a
judge
can
intervene
in a way
that
could
force an
abortion
of a
mentally
disabled
woman
against
the
wishes
of her
family
who are
her
guardians?
Where
are the
allegations
of
abuse?
What
have the
Bauers
done
wrong?
How can
a court
interject
itself
into
family
decisions
like
this
where
there is
no
evidence
or even
charges
of abuse
or
incompetence
on the
part of
the
guardians
who are
her
parents,
to
overrule
their
decisions
and
possibly
decide
for an
abortion
of their
grandchild?
How can
other
guardians
and
families
be safe
from
state
intrusion
and the
prospect
of
forced
abortion?
It is
true
that the
young
woman
has
epilepsy
and that
she is
taking
medications
for it
that
could
possibly
harm the
unborn
child.
But
epileptic
women
have
babies
all the
time and
doctors
know how
to care
for
them.
Letters
from
epileptic
mothers
have
expressed
outrage
at
the
notion
that
their
condition
makes it
too
dangerous
for them
to bear
children.
The
mother
is
healthy
and so
is her
unborn
child
but the
court
appointed
attorney
has
acted
like she
is
prosecuting
the
unborn.
Her
arguments
demonstrate
the
corrupt
and
corrosive
nature
of the
abortion
mentality.
That is,
if any
risk, no
matter
how
minute,
can be
shown to
make
abortion
a
fraction
safer
than
child
birth (a
spurious
proposition),
then in
this
mind
set,
abortion
is
warranted.
This
says
that
innocent
human
beings
are
expendable
if they
pose
even the
slightest
risk to
us. We
even
heard
her ask
what the
psychological-emotional
damage
and
impact
could be
to the
mother
if, with
the
interaction
of her
drugs
for
epilepsy,
she bore
a
disfigured,
deformed
child?
This is
the ugly
face of
abortion
on
display.
Abortion
sends
the
clear,
unmistakable
and
absolutely
unconscionable
and
intolerable
message
that
certain
classes
of human
beings
are
expendable
for the
benefit
of other
people
and that
some
people
are just
not
acceptable
in our
society.
It sends
the
equally
clear
message
that
baby
humans
are
means to
our
ends.
What's
next?
There
are two
more
hearings
before a
decision
is made
on
November
27. The
Bauer's
attorney,
Jason
Guinasso--we
believe
Jason is
also the
attorney
for the
Bauer's
unborn
baby
grandchild-is
calling
expert
witnesses
to show
that
abortion
is not
safe and
that it
is not
in the
interest
of the
Bauer's
mentally
disabled
daughter.
And when
women
face an
81
percent
added
risk
for
mental
health
problems
as a
result
of an
abortion,
and when
10
percent
of all
mental
health
problems
are
related
to
abortion,
and when
abortion
poses so
many
physical
risks,
it's not
beneficial
for
other
women
either.
Judge
Walker
must
rule out
an
abortion.
To order
an
abortion
would
send a
clear
and
unmistakable
message
that
courts
can
intervene
in
family
matters
and
order an
abortion
against
the
family's
wishes.
Bioethicist
Wesley
J. Smith
warns,
"If a
court
orders
an
abortion
opposed
by the
parents/guardians
of this
woman,
and the
woman
herself
(who is
not
capable
of
informed
consent)-absent
clear
and
convincing
evidence
that the
pregnancy
poses a
substantial
risk to
the
woman's
life...
we will
have
entered
territory
once
inhabited
exclusively
by
China.
