Outrage Switched On

Weigh in… by southernfried, http://morguefile.com/archive/display/93433

Sometimes I wonder just how true Reno 911! is…like when I read this story on KHOU yesterday.

Let’s break it down.  Parents are trying to keep “exclusive authority” over their daughter’s health care decisions.  Here’s the thing; their daughter is 32, but she only has the mental capacity of a 6 year old.  She had been living in a group home in Reno, but 13 weeks ago, “she wandered away” and got pregnant.

Wait, I want to say that again.  She wandered away and got pregnant.

The attorney for the parents, the ones who claim that they should have “exclusive authority” over the woman’s health care decisions, stated that the father of the child hasn’t been identified and that it is “unknown whether the pregnancy resulted from rape or consensual sex.”

Wait, now let’s go over that – it is “unknown whether the pregnancy resulted from rape or consensual sex.”

She has the mind of a six-year-old girl.  How can a six-year-old girl consent to sex?  How can you ask if it was rape or not?  What are the odds she wandered off for a quickie?  I’m thinking that’s not what happened.

So let’s go back to this.  A woman with the mind of a six-year-old girl manages to wander away from a home and comes back pregnant.  I would think that would be the focus of the parents.  But, nope, I’m wrong.

The parents, you see, are upset because the doctors are recommending that the woman has an abortion because she is not mentally or physically capable of having the child.  In addition to her mental disabilities, she also has physical issues, including epilepsy.  She does not understand the pregnancy (again, so how the hell can you even question if it was rape or not??), and she would be in physical danger if she went off her epilepsy drugs because of her physical issues.

I’m not even going to argue the abortion point here.  That is, I think, irrelevant to the real issue here.  The real issue is that this was a rape.  Plain and simple.  She could not have consented.  But no one is fighting that.  The only mention of the rape is that “the circumstances are under investigation.”

Which is why I’m even more outraged – an anti-abortion group is claiming that it is the parents’ right “to protect their daughter’s right to have a child…There’s no reason for this woman to be subjected to the danger and risk of an abortion because someone else thinks she’s not worthy of having a child because of her medical condition.”

Okay, I’m going to have to ask you to wait again.  Did anyone mention the girl being unworthy due to her medical condition?  No.  But is it true that she is physically and mentally incapable?  Probably.

Again, though, the point here is that it has nothing to do with the abortion.  Why isn’t this same group upset about the rape?  Why aren’t they up in arms about the fact that this woman was ignored long enough to wander off and get raped?  If this had been a six-year-old girl with epilepsy, what would they do?  If she hadn’t gotten pregnant, would they care?


Eugenics part two…

NASA StarChild image of Stephen Hawking By NASA [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
NASA StarChild image of Stephen Hawking By NASA [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
So I already got all up in arms against Oprah.com calling my son “creepy” and “weird” because of his autism.  And then I got mad at the doctors rejecting a boy who needed a heart because of his autism.  But now a politician from Alaska wants to stop some children (does he mean those with autism, perhaps?) from getting a public education.

Mark Ewing, running for a new state House seat (thanks to some redistricting) was asked about the budget at a debate.  As was reported by the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman, “Ewing answered first, pointing out that the largest piece of that budget goes to the Department of Health and Social Services.”  Ewing pointed out, “We need to look at these big pieces of pie that we’re funding and try a way to reduce spending.”  Which is a good point, right?  But then he went on…he explained where cuts should be made:

“I got to be honest with you, I am not in favor of the No Child Left Behind Act.  We are spending millions and millions of dollars educating children that have a hard time making their wheelchair move and, I’m sorry, but you’ve got to say, ‘no’ somewhere. We need to educate our children, but there are certain individuals that are just not going to benefit from an education.”

Yeah.  That’s what he said.  (He did try to deny it, but the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman was kind enough to put up an audio clip of him saying it…)

So how is this any different from anything that’s come before?  It’s not.  It’s just another attempt by someone to control someone else that they don’t feel is “worthy.”  I’d love to see Hawking respond to Ewing.  Maybe we can compare their IQs and see which one “benefited” most from their education.