I have to doubt this portion. It’s almost a legal impossibility. It violates both procedural and substantive Due Process to have a Court order action upon your body with no notice or opportunity to be heard.
If it did happen, they would have a juicy lawsuit against the government under 42 USC 1983, deprivation of Constitutional rights under color of state authority.
Mostly likely the legal facts are simply poorly described.
I also wonder if the woman had had FGM, which might have also factored into the mess. Women with FGM can deliver vaginally, but it’s been known to happen that such women visit a hospital in the West, the doctor’s get a look at her vay-jay-jay, say “OMG! She’s been mutilated!” and just rush to c-section.
I hope you’re right.
In fact, I hope the whole story is one huge urban legend.
Oh lordy, not this canard again. A U.S. citizen child can only petition for green cards for his/her parents once the child turns 21. And even then, the parents still have to meet all other criteria, such as not having ben out of lawful immigration status previously, etc. A long-term strategy, to say the very least, if it’s even possible at all.
Um, how does that jive with the whole “we have decided to endanger these three anchor babies” point of the story?
Well, here’s a more recent story with a much happier ending.
And before we discuss how the parents’ batshit religious objections overruled the correct and informed decision of the medical professionals:
I think c-sections are a wonder and a life-saving miracle and I’m delighted to live in a time and place where this kind of technology is possible. But the fact is that the rate of c-sections in America is just too damn high–almost 1 out of 3 births. Mindboggling. No way is that justified. And that kind of overuse is what’s driving women to seek out birthing centers (good) or homebirths with competent midwives (good) or homebirths with sub par midwives (bad) or homebirths with no midwives at all (worse).
I think most women would agree to a necessary c-section. But then you get some doctor spouting nonsense that the baby is too big or labor has dragged on too long, and bam: unnecessary major abdominal surgery. Horrifying.
Tracking down a cite on that forced c-section case is crazy hard. Most articles cite a Janet Gallagher 1987 Harvard Women’s Law Journal article. But that article cites Veronika E.B. Kolder, Women’s Health Law: A Feminist Perspective 1-2 (Aug. 1985) an unpublished paper.
The case is apparently unreported, too. The unpublished paper is “on file” at Harvard. Despite the Harvard aspect, there might be a bit of urban legend to it. Failure to notify the woman would be a violation of her due process rights, and you are correct, it would have been a huge lawsuit unless there is some crazy-good confidentiality provision on a settlement pre-suit.
Oddly enough, in trying to find out more about that case I learned that Nigerian women are more likely to have twins and triplets than other nationalities. Weird.
Yeah, I’m wondering how much of that Nigerian woman story is true, too. Some of the details seem unbelievably lurid, i.e. the part about how she chewed through her IV tubing or whatever.
There’s supposed to be a chemical in yams which make having twins more likely. Nigerians eat a lot of yams. That’s what I vaguely remember from a kids’ article about it, and a quick google turns up a bunch of articles that link yam eating and twins.
Don’t we have a poster named love, yams!!?
I think you’re being somewhat disingenuous with your question, and you’re not merely curious but are waiting for the chance to rebut. Either way, I’ll play along.
The risk of harm to mother and babies increases with multiple births. Many doctors are reluctant under the best of circumstances to vaginally deliver triplets, and the conditions under which it’s considered safe have a lot of variables. Birth weight, position of babies, health concerns for mother (such as GD or preeclampsia).
No, really, I wanted to know why it was different because it doesn’t seem different to me, and I’m curious about why it would be different for you. I want to know what I’m not thinking of.
You’re right, it would probably cause more doctors to insist on a c-section than a singleton or twin pregnancy would. I thought you meant it was “different” in that it changed your mind about whether it was right or wrong to force a c-section on a woman who had articulated and accepted the risks of not having one. So I just misunderstood you; sorry. I’ve never really cared much about whether the doctors were correct in their insistence that a c-section was medically indicated; I assumed it was medically indicated to safely deliver that pregnancy before we found out it was triplets.
I’m sorry if I misread your tone, WhyNot.
Not a problem. I can understand how it read as if I was setting you up, too. Isn’t perspective fun? 
Two completely idiotic posts . . .
Of course I do. You seem to think that a person should be allowed to let another person die simply because the second person happens to be inside the first person’s body. That’s a ridiculous position.
I realize you are an incredibly stupid person, so let me break this down for you. The following things would need to happen for this woman to be in the position you are worried about:
She would have to move to a country where she wouldn’t have access to a hospital that can perform a safe c-section.
She would have to get pregnant.
She would have to carry the baby to full term.
She would have to remain in that country for the birth.
There are all kinds of options available to that woman at each step of the way. It’s funny that you and your idiot friend are accusing me of denying the woman’s personhood when it’s really you who are doing that. You are treating her as a Nigerian baby-making machine who will inevitably at one point find herself giving birth in Nigeria. In reality, she can make all sorts of choices until that point that put her on a different path.
Double Post
No, I don’t think they “should” “simply because.” As I mentioned, I am morally pro-life. However, I think “life of the mother” exceptions are just that…exceptions to my moral stance, and I consider this to be reasonably within that boundary. ALSO, there was no certainty that the children would die, and I think the mother shouldn’t be under any LEGAL obligation to have invasive surgery to ensure that they didn’t, regardless of what was going to happen to her in the future. Morally is a different matter.
And here’s a reply to pbbth’s almost-argument (spoilered since it’s completely off-topic).
[spoiler]
You seem to be arguing that I’m being inconsistent when I argue that (i) people should be allowed to make choices that others would use the force of law to deny them and (ii) Phlosphr is an idiot for making the choice he’s making. But those two positions are not inconsistent at all–I believe that people should be allowed to make certain choices even if I myself would not make that choice and I think their choice is idiotic.
As an example, let’s take payday loan places (i.e., where someone gets a loan for a week at a huge annualized interest rate). Many liberal douches decry these places as “predatory lenders” because of the large interest they charge. However, the large interest is to compensate for the high default rate. I think that people should generally be free to enter into contracts even if I wouldn’t enter into that contract myself. In this particular case, someone could get a payday loan to avoid being kicked out of their apartment or losing their car (which would cost them much more than the interest they pay on the payday loan).
Now, some idiot may take out a payday loan, gamble away the proceeds, roll the loan into a new loan, do that a couple more times, and end up owing $2,000 on an original principal balance of $200 (or whatever). I may start a pit thread calling that guy an idiot, and that would in no way be inconsistent with my position that it should not be illegal to have loaned the money to that guy in the first place.[/spoiler]
Wait–in the abortion context, the “life of the mother” exception means that abortions are illegal unless necessary to save the mother’s life. Here you seem to be saying that you are normally for forced c-sections unless it can be shown that the forced c-section would cause the woman to die. If that’s your position, then see my responses to Broomstick–it is by no means certain (or even probable) that the c-section would later cause the death of the mother, and she is largely in control of whether that would happen.
Well, turns out that some doctors convinced a court that a forced c-section was necessary, so this is all just Monday morning quarterbacking on your part.