The other day, I was revisiting the blog started by Ashley’s father in search for some information unrelated to the subject of this entry, and my attention was drawn to a part. I hadn’t heeded that part much so far. But just after reading the legal paper written by Christine Ryan, I was intrigued by that particular part. Ashley’s father wrote explaining his consultation with a lawyer at the request from the special ethics committee,
Upon consultation with a lawyer specializing in disability law, we found out that the law does not apply to Ashley’s case due to the severity of her disability, which makes voluntary reproduction impossible. The law is intended to protect women with mild disability who might choose to become pregnant at some future point, and should have the right to do so.
I didn’t know the law protects only disabled “women” from involuntary sterilization. I didn’t know that the law only applies to people with “mild disability.” I didn’t know that only women with mild disability should have “the right” to become pregnant, either. I wondered if this has been really the lawyer’s interpretation of the law and revisited the lawyer’s letter attached to the WPAS investigative report as Exhibit O. I found the first half of the above quoted blog part goes along with the lawyer’s advice, but the latter half goes a little too far from it.
The lawyer wrote, “Ashley will never be able to care for a child or even to understand the connection between sexuality and pregnancy,” but did not mention “the right” to get pregnant, disability mild or severe. I imagine the lawyer’s interpretation of the law in the letter was somehow stretched a little farther into a more unique and creative version as Ashley’s father tried to interpret the lawyer’s interpretation. Thus a new interpretation of the law, original by Ashley’s father, that the law applies only to women with mild disability and that women with severe disability are not entitled to “the right” of reproduction because they can’t choose to be pregnant due to their disability. That just makes me wonder how did Christine Ryan come to share the same uniquely radical rational in her paper.