No. I'm not judgeing them. I'm proving they were trying to do something about it?
Did ya miss the '"?state law requires disabled adults to be cared for in the least restrictive environment that meets the needs of their disabilities
There is so much more. You have no idea. It's not all black and white. They have to consider her best interests. Do you really think that someone who has autism and seizures needs to be institutionalized? Because i really hope you or no one in your family ever has to make that choice.
No, I read that. Do you Really believe that those were the only two options? She didn't JUST have autism and seizures. She Was Having Sex with Strangers At A Truck Stop For Fing MONEY. That does mean institutionalization if you can't find a group home that will not allow her to leave. They were negligent. Her best interests were NOT taken into account here. Would you be saying the same thing if she'd gotten killed or had HIV instead of the least harmful thing to happen to her? Seriously, you guys think being institutionalized is worse than the natural consequences of prostitution? Even with the mentality of a 6 year old? Appalling.
eta- Her needs weren't being met.
Well when one cannot take care of themselves (due to intellectual delays such as this..I'm not talking physical) someone has to be appointed guardian. If there are no next of kin the govt. does have to step in. They do have to take it into account just like a parent or sibling would.
I agree that her needs are not and were not being met. Legally she is adult and mentally she is a child. She should not be able to come and go as she pleases and I don't think this is the least restrictive to meet her needs. Meeting her needs is to not allow her to leave for sex whether it is 1 hour or 5 days.
It appears as though the parents did know about the sex:
LifeSiteNews Mobile | Court may force disabled Catholic woman to abort her childThe exact circumstances under which Elisa became pregnant are unknown, but the young woman had a history of leaving Chrysalis to visit nearby truck stops and casinos, where she had sexual encounters with men. It is unclear whether these encounters were consensual, although Chrysalis staff suspect she had sex in exchange for money so that she could gamble. The nature of her mental impairment, however, suggests she is unable to legally consent to sex.
Concerned for their daughter, the Bauers worked with Chrysalis employees to try to stop her visits to the truck stops and casinos. They gave her a cell phone with a GPS tracking program, and tried to schedule more frequent home visits and other activities to keep her distracted. At the request of Chrysalis staff, the police opened a file and tried to follow her when she left the facility without a specific, safe destination in mind, concerned that she would forget to take her medication and suffer a life-threatening seizure. But the Bauers could not prevent her from leaving the group home without formally institutionalizing her – an option the family discussed and rejected because state law requires disabled adults to be cared for in the least restrictive environment that meets the needs of their disabilities.
This is a pro-life news site.
I agree that this whole story is sad and disheartening. I am against the forced abortion but do wonder what steps (outside of institutionalizing) would be in place to prevent this from happening. I know this is not the only woman with a mental disability in a group home setting that would be seeking sexual attention. When volunteering within these settings years ago, I remember that there was a debate going on in the news media whether those with mental disabilities had the "right" to have sex. One side argued that they sought sexual gratification as it "felt good" (a reason by many *normal* people too, right?) The others -- including many parents, felt that their adult child was not mentally capable of making the decision to have sexual relations.
For those feeling that this woman should have been institutionalized, do you feel that all mentally challenged adults should be sterilized or be institutionalized if they repeatedly (as in this case) were seeking to engage in risky sexual behavior? (I believe we can all agree that hitting the truck stop to hook up with strange men would be classified as risky.) At what point would be your cutoff to determine sexual "fitness"?
My other thought was if, indeed, she had the mental capacity of a 6 yr old, how could the group home not be responsible for allowing her to go out unescorted? I can't envision allowing my 6 yr old to head out down to a truck stop nearby (or beyond the mailbox for that matter! LOL)
Last edited by MissyJ; 11-02-2012 at 05:26 PM.
She is over 18 and it was consenual. The mental age means crap. It's the same thing like adults in nursing homes with memory issues. As long as they are a adult and it's consenual you can't stop them. It would be the same exact thing in an institution, legally they can not stop her from having sex.
Maybe the parents couldn't find a home that took there insurance? You have to think about all the varibles.
I wouldn't doubt there being alot more issues. People normaly don't just go and have sex with strangers. I know from personal experience that like drugs and drinking, having sex can be a way to deal with things. After Zachary was stillborn i went down a extremely dark road that included being an escort *gasp!* , it was my way of dealing with it.
Yes, i do think being locked up if my only disablitys are autism and seizures is a whole lot worse. What would a 6 yr old's feelings be? Then they would feel completely abandoned or "broken" and I can tell you they would have alot worse behavior issues.
With that logic, she should be allowed to purchase a house, join the military, and wouldn't need the government or guardians since she's technically an adult. It doesn't make any sense.
They're in Reno- you can't tell me this was the only option as far as group homes. I do think about all the variables. It looks like others aren't.
I'd rather deal with behavior issues than lose my child (whether 3 or 103). That's just me though.
eta-You being an escort has jack **** to do with this debate; unless you have miraculously recovered from having a 42 IQ.
David Letterman is retiring. Such great memories of watching him over the past thirty-two years!
Really? It doesn't matter to you at all that she KNOWS there is a baby growing in her belly? You'd still opt for abortion over adoption despite the fact that neither the baby nor the mother is in any danger?