Did Philly gov’t pressure a teen to get an abortion?
posted at 12:55 pm on May 3, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
Mind the question mark, because there are a few versions of the story as to how a case worker from the Philadelphia Department of Human Services procured a late-term abortion for a teen in the care of a foster mother who opposed it. The Daily News reports on allegations from the foster mother that not only did DHS pressure her foster daughter into the abortion, they threatened to take away the teen’s other child if she put up a fight over it. DHS says that a language difference created a misunderstanding:
A DEPARTMENT OF Human Services caseworker pressured a pregnant Mayfair teenager to undergo a late-term abortion by threatening to take away either her toddler or her unborn baby if she had the child, according to the teen’s foster mother.
The alleged strong-arm tactic happened one day after DHS learned of the pregnancy, when the girl was about 22 weeks pregnant, according to her foster mother and the girl’s social worker, Marisol Rivera. …
The Daily News also learned that:
* DHS got a Family Court judge’s order allowing it to take the girl for an abortion, after the girl’s birth mother refused to approve the procedure.
* By the time DHS arranged for the abortion – in March – the girl was 24 weeks pregnant. She had to undergo the procedure in New Jersey because abortions in Pennsylvania are illegal at 24 weeks.
* Although it is DHS policy that a DHS worker accompany any minor who has a court-ordered medical procedure, this did not happen on the girl’s first attempt to have the abortion. That attempt failed when the clinic wouldn’t accept her Medicaid card and wanted cash, according to the foster mother. A DHS worker did accompany the girl on a later, successful, attempt.
* Rivera, the girl’s social worker, said that she was fired by Concilio, which subcontracted with DHS to provide care, after she initially refused to accompany the teen for the abortion.
The “misunderstanding” explanation is certainly plausible, but given the foster mother’s story, it seems unlikely. She told the Daily News that the teen was excited to learn that the child would be a boy, had told her toddler that a younger brother was coming, and had already started picking out the name. The teen’s birth mother confirms this, telling the newspaper that the teen had come back from her ultrasound happy, and then suddenly she found out that her daughter had gone for an abortion.
It’s not the first time that the birth mother says her daughter had been bullied by DHS. The case worker became agitated when the teen had not taken her 1-year-old daughter to day care, and threatened to take the baby away at that point. The paper doesn’t give the context for that threat — had the teen left the child alone, or did she just not use a day care center the case worker wanted? If the former, then the case worker should have separated the baby from its mother then and there, and given that DHS didn’t initiate that kind of action, it would appear that the issue was less legal than preference.
Either way, it may surprise Philadelphia residents that they’re paying officials to procure abortions for teenagers — especially abortions that are illegal in the state of Pennsylvania. In the last three-and-a-half years, 119 of 335 minors in DHS care who became pregnant had abortions, and eight of them had to be performed out of state. DHS cannot use its budget money for abortions, but the city gets around that by using its general fund instead.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Something or somebody does not pass the smell test here. It’s all pretty much he said, she said at this point. I am reserving judgement for now.
Johnnyreb on May 3, 2010 at 12:57 PM
CA pressured my friend to have major surgery, “tube tying,” rather than give her a prescription for B/C.
She was on medicaid.
So yes, I believe it.
AnninCA on May 3, 2010 at 12:58 PM
The System……is working.
Big Brother don’t want no more kids. They eat, poop, sleep, cry, need clothes and they emit greenhouse gases. The foul the environment. They eat up tax revenue that could be used to improve the living standards of “those that need that wealth spread around.”
Apparently, it’s okay to spread the wealth, just don’t spread it too far. The priority is to “not spread it” and this story is a prime example of that. DHS position, “we’re going to kill that kid whether you like it or not. Because, the mother is already a ward of the state/city, and we don’t want another one.”
Eugenics… Sanger would be proud.
ted c on May 3, 2010 at 1:01 PM
All that is being made here is a value judgment. The DHS is weighing the perceived cost of caring for a child and her mother on the dole, against the value of human life. Obviously, human life is coming up short against the DHS value system.
Surprised? I’m not.
ted c on May 3, 2010 at 1:02 PM
If you view it in Obama’s sense, ‘burden’, then all is clear.
Sir Napsalot on May 3, 2010 at 1:04 PM
No, Ted. I’m not surprsied at all. Just very sad.
kingsjester on May 3, 2010 at 1:04 PM
Proud and self-satisfied with their forward-thinking sociological evolution and improvement of man, up until the moment she, and others like her, run smack into the throne of God, with legions of angels guarding the infants Sanger and Co. decided were little more than refuse.
Then the proverbial @#$# hits the turbine.
KinleyArdal on May 3, 2010 at 1:04 PM
So long as lotsa babies get chopped up, liberals are doing their job.
Akzed on May 3, 2010 at 1:05 PM
The State never once considered ordering the woman to place the child up for adoption.
The Liberals have gone from protecting a woman’s right to choose to dictating reproduction choices and practicing Eugenics, just as we all predicted.
Holger on May 3, 2010 at 1:09 PM
I have only known one social worker who actually cared for the children more than the system. She finally quit.
ladyingray on May 3, 2010 at 1:12 PM
This country is sounding more and more like Germany in the 1930 every day. Sad. We need to get control of our country or it’s doomed.
TheBigOldDog on May 3, 2010 at 1:15 PM
Let’s see. The one-year-old didn’t go to daycare. Think maybe the presence of, oh I don’t know—the FOSTER MOTHER in the house might have had something to do with it?
Why should she put a kid in daycare if there was someone in the house willing to care for it? And for the other baby too, were it born.
As for telling her to get an abortion or lose her other child, that is despicable.
Sekhmet on May 3, 2010 at 1:20 PM
I wonder when the Liberals will start pushing for a One-Child Policy.
Holger on May 3, 2010 at 1:20 PM
It makes me sick to think a baby about 6 months old in utero could be killed.
HellCat on May 3, 2010 at 1:21 PM
HellCat, there is a clinic less than a mile from my house that performs abortions up to 23 weeks for no reason whatsoever. I get chills every time I drive by.
Vera on May 3, 2010 at 1:25 PM
Although it upsets me when I see people who keep having children they can’t afford, especially when they are children themselves, it upsets me more to see the government attempting to force compliance with the decisions of some bureaucrat regarding procreation. And it is reprehensible for a government official to pressure a young girl into having an abortion.
mbs on May 3, 2010 at 1:25 PM
Don’t want the government getting involved? Telling your company how much your executives can be paid in salary?
Don’t want them telling you “your” kid has to have an abortion?
Tell you what to teach “your” kid?
Simple.
Don’t take their MONEY.
Foster parents get PAID by the government, (State or local) to “take care” of kids. And once they are paying you, they make the rules. She should have adopted the kid, but then she would not get any more MONEY from the State, so she didn’t.
Yeah, what was done was disgusting. But typical Statist behavior.
Once you let them in by taking an entitlement, they own you.
Opposite Day on May 3, 2010 at 1:28 PM
Opposite Day, many children who are in the foster system can not be adopted. While I agree that there are foster parents who foster only for the money, there are many more who foster to try to give these children some stability.
Regardless of standing withing “the system” the government should not have the ability to force a woman to have an abortion.
Vera on May 3, 2010 at 1:30 PM
I should clarify. By “can not be adopted” I mean they can not legally be adopted. Though there are definitely also children who could legally be adopted but are not because of behavior issues or whatever, that’s not what I meant in this situation.
Vera on May 3, 2010 at 1:33 PM
Exactly according to plan. Get as many people one the dole as possible, thus giving the government maximum control of said people. The problem is in striking a balance between keeping enough productive people around to fund the system. Obama is not doing to weel on that point.
Johnnyreb on May 3, 2010 at 1:33 PM
I’m not surprised that the teen was pressured to take her child to day care. Perhaps it was related to a desire to have the mother complete her education. My experience has been that agencies such as DHS typically require that pre-school children be placed in early intervention programs, particularly if the child has any special needs or has been labeled as at-risk. Being in foster care may in itself be deemed as being at risk.
obladioblada on May 3, 2010 at 1:34 PM
There’s one I’m aware of in LA that performs abortions as long as the child is still in the womb for no reason whatsoever. 37 weeks, doesn’t matter. I called to check… and they definitely do this.
theCork on May 3, 2010 at 1:35 PM
And you support government controlled health care?!?!
Skywise on May 3, 2010 at 1:36 PM
Remember:
In the U.S. each year, 555,000 married couples seek adoption. More would seek this if more children were available.
(source: Center for Disease Control)
Only 22,000 infants are adopted.
(Source: National Council for Adoption)
And 820,000 abortion were performed.
(Source: MMWR Surveillance Summaries, November 28, 2008 / Vol. 57 / No. SS–13)
theCork on May 3, 2010 at 1:37 PM
theCork,
I’ve heard so many post-abortive women say that they “could never” give a child up for adoption because it would “be too hard for them to give away their baby.”
Ripping that same baby apart in the womb? No problem.
Of course, if the story is true, this poor young woman will likely suffer greatly from being forced to kill a much wanted child. DHS should be ashamed of themselves, but I’m sure they’re not.
Vera on May 3, 2010 at 1:40 PM
If she spoke english, this might not have happened. Just sayin. ;)
lorien1973 on May 3, 2010 at 1:40 PM
I actually favor this. If you are on the government dole, you should be on birth control till you can support yourself.
lorien1973 on May 3, 2010 at 1:41 PM
The article contains no direct quotes from the girl who had the abortion and there was a court order. So, call me more than skeptical that she was coerced.
Blake on May 3, 2010 at 1:52 PM
These just so proves my point that the biggest enemy of the family values in America today is not Hollywood, not gay marriage, not pornography. It’s the pro-life movement that is responsible for kids having kids. And kids aren’t competent to raise kids, especially as single parents. If we even remotely desire an America of decent family values, conservatives need to renounce the pro-life movement.
If were up to me, government would pressure all teenage girls to abort.
thuja on May 3, 2010 at 1:52 PM
FIFY.
platypus on May 3, 2010 at 1:52 PM
Agreed. Having children is for the financially independent.
I don’t like pressure to abort on that basis though…
Dark-Star on May 3, 2010 at 1:52 PM
As long as we can do it retroactively to trolls like you.
platypus on May 3, 2010 at 1:54 PM
In Philadelphia, I would believe anything. There was an abortion doctor recently shut down in the city that had botched dozens of abortions, resulting in at least one death. The government isn’t paying much attention to any of this; it is too busy making work for all the relatives of the City Council and the state senators.
rockmom on May 3, 2010 at 1:55 PM
This story is disgusting.
Sultry Beauty on May 3, 2010 at 1:56 PM
Do you know how many ways that makes no sense whatsoever? The pro-life movement is responsible for kids having kids? Being pro-choice means you don’t get a choice if you are a teenager?
rockmom on May 3, 2010 at 1:58 PM
Of course, you’re a full-blown, old fashioned eugencist who doesn’t shun the title. You’d also whack all the mentally ill or disabled. We’ve had this discussion. Not sure that there’s anything to add to that.
theCork on May 3, 2010 at 1:58 PM
Wasn’t there a law against that?
Count to 10 on May 3, 2010 at 1:59 PM
And you got something to back up this claim? Of course you don’t because your claim is impossible. This happened in a Democrat Stronghold, not in Hawkins County, Tennessee. This happened in an area of the Country where politically, family values are laughed at and entitlements are handed out left and right.
You wouldn’t know family values if it was big, black, named Bubba and was shoved up your tailpipe.
Holger on May 3, 2010 at 2:03 PM
First of all, care to offer any evidence to back up your statement? It seems to me your making baseless claims.
Secondly, no one is saying that these kids should raise the children they brith. There is a little thing called adoption available to women who are not ready to be mothers. Pro-lifers support adoption.
Vera on May 3, 2010 at 2:04 PM
The legalization of abortion is what opened the door to this travesty. The who, what and when associated with abortion then only become administrative decisions.
docdave on May 3, 2010 at 2:07 PM
Sorry, I meant to type ‘punishment’.
/Butter fingers / brains.
Sir Napsalot on May 3, 2010 at 2:09 PM
Irrespective of the specific facts of this case (which appear to be grossly inappropriate, if true), I get the impression there are a lot of cases like this where no one encourages a pregnant minor to get an abortion. Obviously, threats and intimidation by government flunkies are not the best way to do this, but I’m really uncomfortable with the assumption that it’s a bad idea (or an immoral idea, or whatever) for a teenager to have an abortion.
I’m no expert on abortion statistics, but I assume an unplanned pregnancy for a teenager is basically going to create a life of dependency. Ann Coulter’s chapter on single motherhood in “Guilty” touches on this. If you have a kid before you graduate high school, more than likely you’re not going to college, you’re not going to be able to embark on a lucrative career, and you’ll probably be on state assistance for a substantial portion of your life. If a teenager gets pregnant, someone needs to encourage her to have an abortion.
There’s only so much that can be done if the teen’s mother isn’t going to be responsible and help her daughter, but as a culture I think we need to start saying it’s okay to have abortions if you’re a teenager. In fact, we should say for pregnant teenagers that having an abortion is a more responsible choice than having the baby.
Everyone here agrees with that, right?
Enrique on May 3, 2010 at 2:10 PM
It’s a shame that more people don’t trust the government to raise (or kill) their children for them.
Vashta.Nerada on May 3, 2010 at 2:10 PM
So, basically what you are saying is that the ideal solution to the problem is to kill the only innocent party.
Vashta.Nerada on May 3, 2010 at 2:12 PM
Part of the problem is that Philadelphians don’t care. The Flyers are in the playoffs, The Phillies beat the Mets and Kevin Kolb is the new starting QB. Can’t be bothered with this other stuff.
“The King of America is sport and his Queen is named Entertainment.” – Leonard Ravenhill
knangle on May 3, 2010 at 2:13 PM
No! Every problem you bring up can be addressed via adoption. There is no need to kill a human being to solve our problems. Also, most “teen” pregnancies are actually happening to legal adults who may or may not be married. The real problem is unmarried teen pregnancy. The solution is to encourage adoption, not abortion.
Abortion either kills an innocent human being or it doesn’t. The mother’s age doesn’t change the equation.
Vera on May 3, 2010 at 2:14 PM
Define “someone”
lorien1973 on May 3, 2010 at 2:18 PM
The Ideal solution is not to get pregnant while still in high school. And the absolute most effective way of avoiding that is not to have sex! Don’t have sex, don’t get knocked up. Have sex, and you might get knocked up. So simple a caveman can do it!
Apparently this makes me a Theocrat.
Holger on May 3, 2010 at 2:21 PM
theCork on May 3, 2010 at 2:24 PM
Fixed the tags:
Fixed that for you, Enrique, I know that’s what you meant to say. That’s what “pro-choice” really means, after all.
And the answer is “no.”
theCork on May 3, 2010 at 2:26 PM
Yes, government assistance should be temporary. If someone needs it, the last thing they should do is add another dependent to the equation.
A Norplant-like solution should be reconsidered.
dedalus on May 3, 2010 at 2:35 PM
Even putting aside coercion, how the hell is it legal to abort at 24 weeks?? Horrible.
Dash on May 3, 2010 at 2:35 PM
Awesome post; nothing but facts and logic. Can’t wait for the reasoned reaction. (/sarc)
I’d agree with one minor change: that teenmoms should be severely discouraged from keeping their children. Adopt or abort. None of this playing favorites to either choice.
Dark-Star on May 3, 2010 at 2:41 PM
You forgot the /sarc tag.
You must have.
No one could be that full of sh*t.
VelvetElvis on May 3, 2010 at 2:43 PM
It’s amazing how quickly some here are to call on the government to keep people from having children. Many families with children with disabilities are on SSI medicaid, even if they receive no actual income from the government. Should they be forced into sterilization as well? How far are you willing to push this?
Vera on May 3, 2010 at 2:48 PM
According to Roe and Casey the decision after viability resides with the voters in each state. NJ and PA legislatures have passed different laws.
dedalus on May 3, 2010 at 2:49 PM
The government was exercising its freedom of choice. It can choose to pay for your kid, or not.
Price of abortion vs. price of a lifetime of welfare
cue sound of cash register and adding machine….
abortion, it is!
choice, Big DAddy Govmint don’t need no more kidz.
ted c on May 3, 2010 at 2:49 PM
This is one of the most ludicrous statements I have ever read. Kids have kids because kids have sex! Kids have sex because libs teach them that they are basically animals incapable of resisting their impulses.
Pro-lifers generally believe kids should do this little thing called “abstain” from sex until they are responsible adults (preferably – responsible, married adults!). And, if they fail to abstain, then to give birth and adopt out the child – which would solve all the problems you complain about regarding kids raising kids.
Sheesh!
Fatal on May 3, 2010 at 2:54 PM
Respectfully, I think you have to admit that’s no minor change.
DrSteve on May 3, 2010 at 2:57 PM
Insanity on display! No, I don’t “agree”, in fact I am abhored that you even think this way, sheesh!
Funny thing, pro-abortion folks always seem to forget about adoption. Never even crosses their minds, their first impulse is always to kill, kill, kill!
Innocent blood is all over your hands and someday you will be called to account for it.
Fatal on May 3, 2010 at 2:59 PM
Didn’t they offer the option of giving one of the children up? Apparently, this is what the social worker was faced with:
1.) The teen mom hasn’t finished high school.
2.) The teen mom hasn’t been getting her existing child to child care.
3.) The teen mom lives with a foster mom who barely speaks english.
4.) The teen mom’s biological mom was around to offer an opinion, but evidently not material financial support.
5.) No mention of the teen mom’s husband or her biological dad.
Doesn’t any answer to this involve taking one or both kids away from the mom until she can support herself?
dedalus on May 3, 2010 at 3:04 PM
It’s the pro-life movement’s fault that kids are having sex and doing it irresponsibly? I can’t tell you how completely stupid that is, but it’s a perfect liberal mindset where it’s always someone else’s fault when you f-up.
Esthier on May 3, 2010 at 3:05 PM
No. Not even one bit. Taking care of your responsibilities is responsible. Trying to hide from them (or cheating as South Park put it) is not.
Now, there is something to be said for knowing when you have too much on your plate, but that’s what adoption is for, and it’s much more affordable than abortion.
Esthier on May 3, 2010 at 3:07 PM
Can’t we just abort the teenage mother?
jacrews on May 3, 2010 at 3:18 PM
This couldn’t be more ignorant. Flipping burgers at McD’s pays more than foster care. People don’t do it for the money, and often it is impossibly to legally adopt the children in foster care, particularly if the birth parents won’t sign the papers.
Despite the limitations, foster care is still preferable to orphanages. Adoption is ideal. Abortion is murder.
tcn on May 3, 2010 at 3:19 PM
What? Not going to college means you have to have gov’t assistance? Give me a break.
How about the families of both teenagers help out until they are both working enough to get by on their own? I’ve actually seen that done by people who don’t turn to the government immediately.
MamaAJ on May 3, 2010 at 3:20 PM
Yeah, that’s insanely ignorant. College isn’t even a barometer of success anymore. The job I have and worked my way up in was one I never needed a degree for. The job my husband has is one he didn’t get a degree in.
College simply isn’t necessary. Its biggest help is in delaying adulthood.
That said, the poster may have simply meant that having a kid before finishing high school is the cause for all three, not that lack of a college education led to the other two. Of course, that too is baseless. People have gone much further with much less.
Esthier on May 3, 2010 at 3:23 PM
Philadelphia: Get to Know Us!
james23 on May 3, 2010 at 3:24 PM
i live like 2 miles from that abortion mill. I literally feel ill every time I drive by.
sbvft contributor on May 3, 2010 at 3:51 PM
If true, border-line ChiCom tactics….
juanito on May 3, 2010 at 3:52 PM
Forcing a abortion on a child that is 24 weeks pregnant should win you a very special place in Hell. I cannot adequately describe how horrible this story is.
TXMomof3 on May 3, 2010 at 3:54 PM
Why else have a Nutter for a mayor ?
J_Crater on May 3, 2010 at 3:58 PM
That may be one of the most evil things I’ve ever read. Of course, I omitted all your rationalizations beforehand, but that’s because it was all truly irrelevant. Nothing justifies killing babies just because the mother shouldn’t have been pregnant to start with.
tom on May 3, 2010 at 5:03 PM
When they stand alone even the strongest among us can be beaten down by a mob.
SKYFOX on May 3, 2010 at 6:25 PM
Well, why stop there? If we’re going to take such a utilitarian view of human life, then it should be obvious that the teen mother is making a hash of her life, and will probably do so again. The unborn has yet to ruin its life, and, if properly adopted by a caring and responsible family, looks like a much better bet.
So why not force the teen mother to give birth, which will of course be punishing her with a baby for all her bad choices? Then give the child up for adoption and get rid of the trashy teen tramp. That would surely cut down the incidence of teen pregnancy.
I know, it’s a lot harder to kill a human being who’s been allowed to grow, which is why abortion is generally so much more popular. That way, you can off them before they get out of the womb and we have to be reminded that they are human.
But even that can be addressed under the new plan. Just send the teen mother away to what is euphemistically called a “boarding school,” and once the child is delivered and adopted, the tramp somehow never comes back. That way, the murder can be quietly conducted and no one has to be reminded that a human being was killed.
The only thing missing from this perfect plan is a better term for the disposition of the unwanted teen mother. Murder obviously won’t do, being a bit too … honest.
Maybe disposition would be a good word? Just make the verb form “disposited,” since “disposed” sounds too much like “disposable.” After all, it’s all about using the right words, even if you have to make them up.
/sarc, of course.
tom on May 3, 2010 at 6:46 PM
Of course that’s where the utilitarian view inevitably leads to. And where it’s proponents want it to go.
theCork on May 3, 2010 at 7:19 PM
You’re gross. One lives one dies.
CWforFreedom on May 3, 2010 at 7:36 PM
These liberal types always go for the lowest common denominator. See enrique’s views towards god forbid Arizona demanding the fed protect the border.
CWforFreedom on May 3, 2010 at 7:37 PM
This is criminal, if the procedure is illegal in Pennsylvania and they escorted her to New Jersey to have it they should be put in prison. If that were my child I would have left the state until the baby was born. It is getting to the point that they want to force abortion on girls and for that they will serve their time in HELL. God does not forget!!!!
old war horse on May 3, 2010 at 7:38 PM
Government forced abortions. Sounds like communist China.
mistythestripper on May 3, 2010 at 8:37 PM
REDRUM
serendip2b on May 3, 2010 at 8:39 PM
Speaking of language, I’m making it a point not to say that a mother “had an abortion.” Instead, I say “aborted her baby” or “aborted her son or daughter.” One may have “had an appointment” or “had a cheeseburger,” but an abortion is something that is done to a very small someone.
KyMouse on May 3, 2010 at 9:49 PM
“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put Darkness for Light, and Light for Darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!” Isaiah 5:20-21
The Judgment Day is coming, and One Great and Dreadful Day of the LORD, all those who are, directly or indirectly, responsible for the murder of the most innocent among US, will pay for the evil deeds they have done in the name of “choice.” That is, unless they repent, which is my sincere hope for those who are in sin…
True Light on May 4, 2010 at 1:19 AM
If killing for convenience or mere social goals is not evil, then evil has no meaning.
There Goes The Neighborhood on May 4, 2010 at 2:32 AM
From the Ministry of Safe and Natural Birth Control,
Congratulations, your situation has deemed you to be an unfit parent by the qualification standards enforced by MSNBC.
Please report for your birth control surgery at the nearest MSNBC office at 9:00 am on May ……
rukiddingme on May 4, 2010 at 10:46 AM
From the Ministry of Safe and Natural Birth Control,
We are pleased to inform you that through recent advancements in time travel, we have been able to go back in time and converse with your mother before you were born.
It has been brought to our attention that your mother was pressured by pro-life groups to carry you to term. She has indicated that she would rather have aborted the pregnancy.
Congratulations, we now have the technology to go back in time and correct your mother’s irresponsible choice.
Please report for corrective surgery at the nearest MSNBC office 9:00 am on May…..
rukiddingme on May 4, 2010 at 10:48 AM
The other folks at Faux News must be so proud of you.
Dark-Star on November 16, 2010 at 2:19 AM