Contested Motherhood - Ms. Jo Chopra, LRF

Dear Friends,


Ms. Jo Chopra, Latika Roy Foundation, Dehradun is a fond mother and activist for the inherent human rights of those experiencing disabilitiies and particulary intellectual disabilities. This is subsequent to my earlier post reflecting my senior colleague Collin Gonsalves, Advocate, Supreme Court of India presenting the legal views and social implications of the judgement.


Click here to read from source: The Hindu - Contested motherhood
JO CHOPRA

Can the State order an intellectually-disabled person to have an abortion even though she wants to have the baby? A look at some of the issues regarding sexuality and disability…

What kind of sexuality education do children with disability need? Do people with disability even have sex lives? Do they have the right to reproduce and raise their own babies?

Of the issues confronting people with disability, sexuality is the most charged. A recent case brought many of the most compelling strands of this complex tapestry together and it took the Supreme Court to settle it.

A young woman with a mental handicap, living in a government institution as a State ward, had been raped repeatedly by two guards there. At 19, she became pregnant. When her condition was detected, the State determined she should have an abortion. The woman insisted she wanted to keep the child.
The matter went to court and it was decided she should be compelled to have the abortion. An advocate for the woman filed an appeal in the Supreme Court where, given the urgency, a speedy verdict was rendered: no woman, even one with a mental handicap, can be compelled to have an abortion.

Many people weighed in on this case but many important issues were ignored or not analysed:
A disabled woman was raped. People with mental handicaps are statistically more likely to be sexually abused. They are accustomed to being dependent on adults for many of their basic personal needs and submissive in their response to them. Vulnerable People with developmental disabilities may lack the social skills to assess a dangerous situation and the judgment to get out of it or raise an alarm. They are exposed to more “caregivers” than typically developing people. The more people one is intimately involved with, the higher the chance that one will be an exploiter.

The woman became pregnant. People with developmental disability are often assumed to be both asexual and infertile. While some disabilities do have an associated infertility component (only around 50 per cent of women with Down Syndrome, for example, are fertile), most otherwise healthy adults have the same chance of being able to reproduce as anyone and many have the same sex drive as normal people.

Her pregnancy was ordered to be terminated by the High Court, in spite of her insistence that she wanted the baby. Here is the heart of the issue. Can a person with an intellectual disability make a decision? Is intellectual capacity required for parenthood? What about the baby’s right to life? Is the State justified in forcing someone to undergo an invasive procedure?

Many who agreed with the court’s decision nonetheless believed the baby would have to be taken from the mother and reared by the State. It’s important to look carefully at biases and assumptions here.

Are we sure that a woman with a cognitive disability is incapable of taking care of her child? In theory, there is no reason to assume she couldn’t manage, albeit with support. Most able women need support to bring up their babies too. Motherhood is demanding and a high IQ may be one of the least important pre-requisites. As long as the mother is loving and attentive, as many mentally handicapped women are, and, crucially, has support from the community, a baby could prosper in her care.

Granted, that baby might not get the perfect intellectual environment, but is academic success the only goal in life? Does it guarantee happiness? A child brought up by a mother with intellectual impairment might still be deeply loved and cared for and might be satisfied and content — not things to be lightly discarded.

In spite of such logic, arguments were made about the State’s compelling interest in seeing that this child not be born. Because the baby would have to be brought up by the State, better not to allow it to be born in the first place. This reasoning is both specious and dangerous.

Many people who are not wards of the State might still be judged incompetent to bring up children. The socialite more interested in parties than in a baby’s needs, the workaholic whose ambition supersedes her parenting responsibilities, the habitual drinker, the poor woman living hand to mouth, the child bride, the list goes on.


Are we prepared to terminate the pregnancies of such women? The Supreme Court said no. Human rights cannot be granted to some people and denied to others without ensuring that eventually they will be denied to all.

What if the baby were born with a disability, as many opponents of the Supreme Court decision hinted darkly was likely?The real issue

What if it were? And here is the true heart of the matter. Disability is, I believe, “The Last Frontier” in the battle against discrimination and injustice. While people are indeed denied basic human rights for all sorts of reasons all over the world, no civilised person ever tries to justify it. When women are raped, when prisoners are tortured, when children are abused, when war crimes are committed, the civilised world recoils in horror. We speak out against human rights violations wherever we see them and so we should and so we must. Except when it comes to people with disability.

Abortion of girls because they are girls is called what it is: murder, brutality. Abortion of babies with disability is routine, sanctioned and worse, expected. In the U.S., it is estimated that 95 per cent of babies detected with Down Syndrome are aborted. Women who elect to have their babies anyway are made to feel irresponsible, reckless and unfairly burdening society. Chilling decisions
Eminent philosophers (Dr. Peter Singer of Princeton is one example) speak openly of the moral right of parents to abort handicapped babies before they are born and afterwards too. At the moment, it is acceptable only in early infancy, before parents have gotten “attached”. But as ethicists admit, if it’s acceptable to abort a disabled baby before birth, what’s wrong with doing it later? This opens the door to chilling possibilities.

Sexuality offers a prism through which we can better understand ourselves, the people around us and the values we hold most dearly. When we use it to look at disability, we may find, to our dismay, we are not the people we thought we were. Although we speak of tolerance and diversity, many of us are uncomfortable with people with disabilities making choices in their lives, distressed by the idea of them having sexual relationships and appalled by the vision of them bringing more people like themselves into the world.

The Last Frontier. It’s later than we think.

The writer is the Director of the Latika Roy Foundation ( http://www.latikaroy.org/) in Dehradun, a Resource Centre for People with Special Needs.

Motherhood is for all? Debate rages in SC- Hindustan Times

Dear friends,

A rather tricky legal entangle from High Court now in the Supreme Court. A tussle between pro-life and pro-choice activists and at stake is the life of a 19 year mentally retarded unwed and orphaned girl stranded in a state run home! Any delay can be a peril to her life. And I am sure the delay would not allow any abortion eventually in this legal entangle and pro-life activists are most likely to win - not because of their arguments for life of child and the rights of the girl to have her baby but because of the inherent threat to the life of the challenged girl that an abortion would pose after 20 weeks!!

Links of the News Items
Hindustan Times: Motherhood is for all? Debate rages in SC- Hindustan Times
Indian Express: http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/terminate-pregnancy-of-mentally-challenged-rape-victim-orders-hc/490988/

Here is the debate that went on on the Facebook for your information:

Subhash Chandra Vashishth
Would this be a travesty of justice and permanent addition to the miseries of the orphaned girl ? The supreme court has to take a decision on urgency taking a holistic approach and giving due emphasis to social, physical, mental capacity and financial conditions! Can't afford to prolong such matters before various courts!

Jo McGowan Chopra
Not that simple, I'm afraid. Leave aside the issue of the baby's right to life (which doesn't seem to even come into the argument), the young woman in question has expressed a strong desire to keep the baby. Are her wishes to be ignored? She is said to have the intellectual age of a nine year old. Nine year olds are very capable of making good decisions, especially if given support by wise, impartial older friends. Does the court feel that all people of limited intellectual ability should be prevented from having children? Are we prepared to make such decisions for other people, particularly when they have expressed their convictions repeatedly and with force?

Jamie Osborne
If the woman is a ward of the State, then what the State says goes. As far as I know, the UNCRPD doesn't ensure that people with developmental disabilities have more say over their possible futures than their guardians...

Subhash Chandra Vashishth
Thanks Jo for your view and I agree with your argument but where is the support by wise and impartial older friends. She is in a state run home for mentally challenged where two security guards were involved in raping her. God knows how many others have been treated there similar way. I am only worried about the future of the child who would have no support but to remain in the same home and the mother may not be able to look after the interest of the child. The fear is what if the child is a girl .... Thanks Jamie for your opinion, the girl is under the guardianship of the state, however, since it was a criminal case, the matter is subjudice hence any action needs to be okayed by Court.


Rama Chari
If the girl has desired to keep the baby, she should be allowed to do so.. She has equal rights like anybody else.

Jo McGowan Chopra
The wise and impartial friends have to be us, I think. Surely there is some NGO in Chandigarh which can help this young woman? And if we are truly concerned about the baby, is killing it the way to express that concern?

Subhash Chandra Vashishth
Between the two groups of Pro-life & Pro-choice activists the young girl is waiting for answers from the Supreme court. May be it is the right time that some NGO then takes her in to their guardianship and provide crucial support. My dear senior colleage Senior Advocate Collin Gonsalves, who incidently also heads HRLN is pro-abortion for he seem to... Read more believe that all those who are showing support to the girl to have a baby will not be found when she would need some support!

Jo McGowan Chopra
Colin may be right. But there are definitely pro-life people who WILL step forward if the baby needs a home. I think my husband and I are too old to do it ourselves, but I think I could find someone willing.

Kavita Agrawal
Another question that comes to my mind is that whether any one is coming forward to take care of the child should the girl be allowed to have the child. It is Ok to talk about society supporting the girl. I don't see any of the so called society people coming forward to take care of the girl and the child. if we had such responsible society probably the rape wouldn't have taken place at all......people would have been more sensitive....