Judge 'Criticises' Council over Forced Contraception Attempt

Laodicia yesterday blogged that:

'A trailer just popped up on Radio 4 for a new debating programme. The first topic up is the merits of sterilizing the mentally and morally unfit. Yes that's right folks the merits of sterilizing the mentally and morally unfit. This is to be chaired by liberal pseudo-Catholic Edward Stourton. The problem here is not the result of any debate but the fact that such a topic is considered a fit topic for discussion in the first place. This is part of the softening up process for our Eugenic future.'

Let us not be in any doubt. This is where the culture of death is headed and the BBC will, as usual, be at the forefront of not defending us from it. It is inevitable. A society that embraces voluntary abortion, assisted suicide and artificial contraception is ill-equipped to stand firm and rejects these evils when these practises are suddenly touted as potential methods to be used on citizens in a compulsory manner. Euthanasia was voluntary in Nazi Germany before it became mandatory for certain groups deemed 'unfit' at a time of the State's choosing.

Now, today, we have the first hint of what is to come. According to a report in The Telegraph...

'A judge has criticised a council for trying to have contraception forced upon a woman with a low IQ, warning that the move had “shades of social engineering”.'

"Shades of social engineering" is putting it charitably and mildly. This is a dreadful, spine-chilling move by a local council on the 'reproductive health' and individual rights of a woman.

Nazi Witch: Marie Stopes
Meanwhile, I look forward, very much, to hearing Marie Stopes International's condemnation of this flagrant attack on the rights of a woman over her body, but I fear my hope of doing so may be unfulfilled, since 'reproductive health of women' was not the chief motive of their founder. The chief motive of Marie Stopes was the drive for racial purity and the elimination of the 'unfit'.

The article continues and I think you will agree that it is shocking, with my emphasis in bold blue, lightly fisked in brackets...

'Mr Justice Bodey said it would not be “acceptable” for police to take the married woman from her home before doctors sedated her and imposed birth control on her, against her will. He said the local authority’s plan, to stop the 29 year-old having more children, “would raise profound questions about state intervention in private and family life”.

However, the judge agreed that she lacked the mental capacity to make important decisions about her medical treatment, paving the way for the council to make a further request for force to be used (Sound alarm bells now!). It is the latest in a series of rulings published by the Court of Protection, which until recently always kept its judgements secret, that highlight the power that town halls and judges have over people with learning difficulties or dementia.

Earlier this year a High Court judge sitting in the Court ruled that a woman suffering from cancer, who has a phobia of hospitals and needles, should be forced against her wishes to undergo life-saving treatment. The Court, which was given the power to decide on personal welfare cases under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (Read about this Act and you'll realise just how dangerous this nasty piece of legislation is...), can also order the withdrawal of life-support from patients as well as making them have abortions or undergo “innovative treatment”.

In the latest case, a council in the Midlands (Great journalism. Which Council, please?!) initially wanted to force contraception on a married woman who has an IQ of 53. None of those involved can be named (How convenient!). She has already had two babies, both of whom were taken away from her at birth by social services and put up for adoption over fears she would not be able to look after them. The woman, known in the judgement as Mrs A, is now married to a man with an IQ of 65, and attends college as well as taking part in voluntary work.

A year ago social workers feared that she was suffering violence at the hands of her husband, and also that he had forced her to stop taking contraception because he wanted a baby, so the council began Court of Protection proceedings to “protect her interests” (Right...by "forcing" her to take contraception!)

Solicitors, doctors and psychiatrists interviewed Mrs A in order to find out whether she understood the choices she had regarding birth control, and their implications. The council argued that she was unable to understand the consequences of not using contraception such as the Pill or a coil, or to envisage what is involved in raising a child. (Read: 'She was not co-operating with the State's wishes'. The 'why' is between her and her husband and frankly, they must both be heartbroken that the SS have taken away their children at birth! Have Social Services no shame!? Apparently not!)

But the Official Solicitor, representing the woman, argued that such a wide approach would mean many first-time mothers would appear to lack capacity. The judge agreed that deciding whether a woman “understood enough about the practical realities of parenthood” would veer into a “paternalistic approach”.

On the narrower medical issue, he agreed that Mrs A lacked the capacity to decide whether to have contraceptive treatment. The judge said her decision to stop taking birth control was “not the product of her own free will” because of the “coercive pressure” placed upon her by her husband. However, he said that the council’s application was no longer for “force and restraint” to be used “so that contraception could be urgently administered”.

The judge said Mrs A’s social worker admitted “there would need to be police involvement” and it would be a “horrendous prospect” for her to be “physically removed from the family home and taken to have contraception under restraint and anaesthesia”.

He declined to make an order as to her best interests, leaving it for the council to assess the couple’s parenting abilities if she did become pregnant and then take “appropriate” steps. The council said it “reserves the right” to argue that force should be authorised in the future.

But the judge said: “It is obvious on the facts of this case, that any step towards long-term court imposed contraception by way of physical coercion, with its affinity to enforced sterilisation and shades of social engineering, would raise profound questions about state intervention in private and family life. Whilst the issue of the use of force has not been argued out at this hearing I cannot, on these facts, presently see how it could be acceptable.”

David Hewitt, a specialist in mental health law at Weightmans, said: “It seems from the judgment that, at least at the outset, the council thought it might need to have the police enforce an order that the woman take her contraceptive medication. That seems quite striking, yet because of the route the judge chose to take, it's still in prospect.”'


George Orwell said, knowing what was on the way, "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever".

Social Services have a habit of doing just that. They are footsoldiers in the State's war upon the Poor and they and I do not call them the SS for nothing. This judge may not have agreed with the Council and may have made some negative remarks, but this woman is still not safe from the band of the wicked who seek to force a married woman to take contraception. He hasn't protected her! Which Council is this!? We the people should demand to know! Not content with ripping this poor womans babies away at birth and adopting them out to some randoms, the SS now wish to enforce contraception on her, the diabolical, wicked, savage group of men and women that they are!


Update: Sorry, I just realised, The Telegraph's image of the contraceptive pill in their article is highly misleading. You cannot 'force' someone to take the contraceptive pill, or 'patch', as you'd have to go round and restrain the woman everyday, nor would the simplest way of doing it be the 'coil', so forced contraception wouldn't look like that.

No. It would look like this:

 Dear, dear. Looks like journalistic standards at The Telegraph are slipping and perhaps their moral standards as well.

If we dare to tolerate the abuse of this 29-year-old's human rights, which we should hold as sacred and inviolable, we cannot complain when we are deemed, 'unfit' to have children. Remember, the male contraceptive injection is on the way too, folks!

As an aside I have heard from the organiser of the Abort67 campaign that they are planning next Tuesday a display outside Marie Stopes Clinic in London next Tuesday. Guess where the clinic is based...go on...one guess...

That's right!

Brixton! They're not subtle are they?

Comments

Peter Lewes said…
Bit off topic but it looks like you should celebrating Obama's new found Muslim faith. I quote from
'Globalization, Gender, and Religion: The Politics of Women's Rights in Catholic and Muslim Contexts' edited by Jane Bayes and Nayereh Tohidi (2001, Palgrave):

Writing of the 1993 Cairo Conference (attended by the Vatican), they note that: "an alliance of some Catholic and some Muslim delegations led by the Vatican (the Holy See) were united as a bloc in lobbying for a unified position on these issues (Moghadam 1995;Woodman 1995; Tohidi 1996; Afkhami & Friedl 1997). . . Why should some Catholics unite with some Muslims against equal rights for women?"

For more on this conference, and the alliance between Iran and the Vatican that it fostered, see:

http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Articles/POPCAIRO.txt

Moving on the a similar Conference in China they write:

"A related question that emerged from the Beijing conference concerned how religious Catholic and Muslim women who believe in women's equal rights were coping with the contradictions between their own beliefs in women's equal rights and the official positions of their religious authorities. More specifically, we were interested in the spectrum of opinion and the variety of strategies that women have adopted with regard to this contradiction in a variety of contexts."
Physiocrat said…
I can think of all sorts of people who are not fit to bring up children, not just ones with low IQs, whatever that signifies. And that includes quite a few of our bluebloods. Perhaps social workers too. Where does one draw the line?

And then again, it is inconsistent with the notion that it is OK for children to be fostered with same-sex couples, which cannot be ideal for the children.

That said, it is not a good thing for adults who obviously not up to the task to go ahead and have children. In the olden days a girl like that might have been sent off to be looked after by nuns, but unfortunately it now turns out that nuns were not always the best of carers.
Peter Lewes said…
I think our most Holy Father, Cardinal Ratzinger expressed the Church's position on restricting the rights of the mentally ill best when he said:

"the state may restrict the exercise of rights, for example, in the case of contagious or mentally ill persons."

Oh no wait, he is all for it

[From: http://www.slate.com/id/2131019]
I think that given the Church's position on contraception, you will find he is utterly opposed to this.
Danny said…
Re: "Brixton! They're not subtle are they?" - Who? MS or the Canadian funded evangelical nutters of Abort 67? If the former then I fail to see the relevance of their being a clinic in Brixton (London's second most populous sub-district). There are 4 MS clinics in W1 (I presume the implication is that, as Brixton is a quarter Afro-Carribean, the presence of a clinic there represents some sort of eugenic function). Well, why are MS eugenics bods present in fourt times the numbers int he largely white and mostly affluent W1? Once again, not done your research/rather lie to get people to follow your mental crusade of self-denial
Because Marie Stopes hated the blacks, Danny.

Even Wikipedia will tell you that much.

Sorry, I was clearly wrong. It's just a coincidence MS have a clinic based in a dense populus of black people.
Danny said…
Brixton's population is one quarter Afro-Carribean, though as I say, it is one of the most populated boroughs. There are 4 clinics int he far less populated W1 boroughs of Angel and two in the affluent Russel Square area. If having one clinic in an area with nearly 300,000 people is a sign of direct racism against Afro-Carribeans, surely having 4 in an area with about 60,000 people (mostly whites) is a sign to the contrary. As I say - not done your research. Also, the point remains - the protest is in Brixton because the protesters CHOSE to go to Brixton. They could have chosen to go to one of the 4 in Angel, they just didn't
It's up to the protesters where they want to protest, Danny.

All I'm saying is, Marie Stopes would be happy with the Brixton location because she was a massive racist - she'd love the idea of black babies getting aborted.
Interested observer said…
This is the most ridiculous post yet, I can,t respond now coz I.m going away for a week but I will when I get back. The woman in question has subnormal intelligence, she is severely learning disabled - she deserves to be protected from this situation. It is right that the court of protection and social services intervene to prevent her repeatedly having babies which she would be unable to look after, and which will need to be taken into care (as history has already shown). I'm surprised she was allowed to get married because it's unlikely she would be able to understand the consequences of such a decision and would not have had the mental capacity to give informed consent needed for the legal recognition for marriage.
Peter Lewes said…
As I said, in 1992 God's rottweiler stated in regard to exactly this type of issue:

"the state may restrict the exercise of rights, for example, in the case of contagious or mentally ill persons."

I don't know where you've got this idea from that the Church opposed all incursions into the freedom of individuals because, clearly, it doesn't
I didn't 'miss the point'.

If somebody is sectioned under say, the Mental Health Act, then they are deprived of their freedom because they are a 'danger to themselves and/or others'.

That may not be nice for the individual but it is for their own and society's good. That is an incursion into the freedom of the individual but necessary in extreme cases.

It is not permissable and the Holy Father would never defend, I am quite sure, the taking of someone against their will, to be enforced to take contraception.

Firstly, contraception of the kind administered to this person would defy the Natural Law. Secondly, the contraception would prevent the implantation of embryoes. Thirdly, given that the person was married, it is against God's loving plan for mankind to ensure that any sexual act is closed to new life, according to the act of procreation.

Therefore, you are wrong and are taking the Holy Father's words entirely out of context, applying it to a gravely sinful attack on an individual, by the State, to which neither he nor the whole Church could possibly condone.