I recently came across this article in Philly.com about a teenage mother whose social worker pressured her to abort her second child — or to face the possibility of being separated from her children. The foster mother, who speaks little English, says the girl had learned the child was a boy and was planning for the second child’s birth.

The first social worker finds out about the pregnancy, and is fired when she refuses to take the girl for an abortion (after DFS finds out about the pregnancy). The second social worker bullies the girl, threatening to take away her other child if she has the infant. Next thing you know, the girl is being carted across state lines for the procedure when she was 26 weeks along (Pennsylvania does not permit late-term abortions).

Before you conclude that this is an isolated incident, check this out …

Donald F. Schwarz, the city’s deputy mayor for Health and Opportunity, who oversees DHS, said that the agency “is supposed to take a neutral position and not supposed to be involved in the decision making” regarding an abortion.

Between September 2006 and March 31, Schwarz said, 335 minors under DHS care became pregnant. Of those, 119 resulted in abortions. Of those abortions, 54 were done by judge’s order.

Eight of the abortions were performed out of state, Schwarz said.

Although federal and state law forbid the use of federal or state money for abortions, and DHS is a recipient of state and federal aid, that money is not used to pay for abortions, Schwarz said.

He said that money only from the city budget is used to pay for the procedures.

I wonder how many of these girls were under Ms. Brown’s caseload …

Granted, a sixteen-year-old has no business raising one child, let alone two. Clearly this young woman is in need of some serious help — and, frankly, given the level of her maturity, adoption may indeed be the best option for her.

But on what planet is it the “best option” to take a teenager across state lines, without the consent of her mother, to undergo a dangerous medical procedure? Under duress, no less?

And how is it that Ms. Rivera, whose pro-life convictions led to her being fired because she refused to take the girl for an abortion, was terminated by Concilio, who one week claimed that they would “not get involved in that situation,” and the next send two of their workers and an agency van to facilitate the abortion?

Finally, now that the “situation” has been resolved according to Ms. Brown’s satisfaction … What are the chances that the girl is going to get pregnant again, or she’ll wind up losing her children anyway?

I’d bet Ms. Brown’s next paycheck on it.

Concilio’s subsequent efforts to cover up this story are detailed here.