Enemy Combatants Enjoy Rights Denied to Persons with Disabilities


The President of the US, the agent of hope and change, with his partner US Attorney General Eric Holder demand that enemy combatants enjoy US Constitutional rights. Concurrently lawyers, judges and courts deny to persons with disabilities the right to have children.

While the New York Times vigorously supports the rights of persons of color, homosexuals, illegal aliens, enemy combatants and women, the editors ignore an overt action by courts in violation of US and state laws banning disability based discrimination. Is it New York Times policy to deny to persons with disabilities Equal Protection Rights?

According to this report only with approval of a psychiatrist (and not always then) can a person have a child if they are perceived to have a disability. Yet the alleged often taxpayer funded disability rights organizations and the ACLU support this administration. Makes you wonder what the standards, focus and priorities are for these organizations. NAMI is known to be a front organization for the drug companies so they are not expected to support any Constitutional Rights.

Even in this report the idea of an actual illness is not alleged, only symptoms, which is what psychiatrists treat--speecha nd behavior that they do not like or they do not understand. Can we say that psychiaysts are the Conformist Party police?
[From the article]
"Ms. Baker had obtained a court order to retrieve them after learning that Ms. Kehoe was being treated for mental illness.
'I couldn't see living the rest of my life worrying and wondering what had happened, or what if she hadn't taken her medicine, or what if she relapsed,' said Ms. Baker."
[. . .]

"On Tuesday, July 28, the babies were born by Caesarean section. The following Monday, in court in Ann Arbor, Ms. Baker said she first learned of Ms. Kehoe’s psychiatric history.

During a hearing to transfer guardianship to the Kehoes, Scott Kehoe said his wife had paranoid schizophrenia. Ms. Kehoe’s psychiatrist listed the diagnosis as a “psychotic disorder not otherwise specified.” Ms. Kehoe takes an antipsychotic to control her symptoms.

Before her diagnosis in 2001, Ms. Kehoe told the judge, she had self-medicated, and that was the reason for her arrest on charges of cocaine use and driving under the influence.

Adoption experts said that mental illness was not a bar to adoption if the illness was under control and the patient went to doctor’s appointments and took medications. And Ms. Kehoe’s psychiatrist wrote a letter saying she would be a good mother because her disease had been fully controlled for eight years and she currently had no symptoms.

Ms. Baker, however, said she was stunned at the disclosure of Ms. Kehoe’s mental illness, which she believes she should have known in advance. And she became concerned that Ms. Kehoe might relapse and be unable to take care of the twins.

“I’m not going to be the one that’s going to feel guilty if something happens,” Ms. Baker said.

Ms. Kehoe said Ms. Baker’s decision made no sense in light of her doctor’s statement and other letters of strong support. “Does she really think she knows better than a psychiatrist who has known me for nine years?” Ms. Kehoe said.

Instead, she says, Ms. Baker “legally stole our babies from us.”

Because Michigan law states that surrogacy contracts are void and unenforceable, it was an easy matter for Ms. Baker to go to court and have the Kehoes’ guardianship rescinded."
[. . .]


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/13/us/13surrogacy.html?_r=6&pagewanted=all

Building a Baby, With Few Ground Rules
New York Times
Stephanie Saul
December 12, 2009