or: maybe Der Trihs is on to something
http://salon.com/life/pregnancy/inde...forced_bedrest
A woman was, in other words, legally required to submit to whatever medical treatment her fetus's doctor deemed necessary in order to protect its life.You guessed it: At least one court decided that the woman's constitutional rights should be suspended to protect her "unborn child."
In March 2009, Samantha Burton was 25 weeks pregnant and at risk of miscarrying. A doctor ordered bedrest, but Burton, who had two small children and a job she depended on, said that would be impossible. So the doctor asked the State to intervene and, according to a brief (PDF) filed by the ACLU on Burton's behalf -- the case is currently before the First District Court of Appeals -- "At the State's request, the Circuit Court, Leon County, ordered Ms. Burton to be indefinitely confined, which had her pregnancy gone to term would have been up to fifteen weeks, to Tallahassee Memorial Hospital and to submit, against her will, to any and all medical treatments, restrictions to bedrest, and other interventions, including cesarean section delivery, that in the words of the court, 'the unborn child's attending physician' deemed necessary 'to preserve the life and health of Samantha Burton's unborn child.'" As it happened, Burton was there for three days before the doctors ordered an emergency C-section, only to learn that the fetus had already died.
There's reason, sadly, for the government to step in and force parents to obtain medical treatment for children -- cases like that of Kara Neumann, whose parents stood around her and prayed as she died of untreated diabetes, are horrifying and I have no problem when the courts step in in that kind of situation.
But for the court to legally force a woman to submit to bedrest and a C-section to save the life of her unborn child is appalling. She was also not permitted to switch hospitals when she asked. The idea that the courts can bring to bear the power of law to save the life of a fetus against its mother's wishes -- particularly when it comes at substantial cost to the mother and her other children -- is chilling, and it says something about the mindset of the anti-abortion movement in this country.
I'm not versed enough on the law to know even if there's any possibility of having this decision overturned at a higher court, since now that the fetus is dead the mother probably no longer has standing to challenge the decision.
It's easy to dismiss arguments that anti-abortion laws are based upon the devaluation of women and their rights to personal autonomy as overheated rhetoric. But in this case, where a woman was literally imprisoned in order to preserve the life of a fetus, is there really any doubt that that's exactly what happened?