BOSTON (AP) In an unusual legal move, the state is trying to take away a baby it has never seen and cannot prove exists.
But there is little outcry from women's groups. The case of Rebecca Corneau, a member of a religious sect, has drawn a quiet and sometimes conflicted response from those who normally seek to protect the rights of women.
Some advocates for Corneau and her husband, David, think it is because of a perception of the Corneaus as religious extremists and the history of the Christian sect, which has included the deaths of two babies.
''People in general are finding it difficult to find any degree of sympathy to what's happening to Rebecca's rights. They hear the story, they get turned off, and the extent to which these constitutional interests threaten the rest of us isn't as serious a problem,'' said Wendy Murphy, a Boston lawyer who tried to champion the couple's case in the fall of 2000, when the state ordered a pregnant Rebecca Corneau to deliver her baby at a secure institution after she refused to submit to a court-ordered prenatal exam.
The Corneaus belong to an Attleboro-based religious sect called ''The Body,'' which rejects modern medicine, government and education.
The group came under state scrutiny in 1999 after the disappearance of two children of sect members, including the Corneaus' newborn baby boy, Jeremiah. The Corneaus said their baby was stillborn. State investigators say the child died shortly after birth because of inadequate medical care.
No one was charged in Jeremiah Corneau's death, but three sect members have been charged in the death of the 10-month-old son of another sect couple who died of starvation.
The Corneaus are now embroiled in a court battle over another baby state officials believe was born shortly after Thanksgiving. The Corneaus have refused to say whether they have a newborn.
Two weeks ago, Juvenile Court Judge Kenneth Nasif ordered them held on a contempt charge after they refused to bring their baby to court. Their case is scheduled to go before a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court on Thursday.
Murphy said she became involved in the case over a year ago because neither the National Organization for Women nor other women's groups would. She argued that the juvenile court judge's order to hold Rebecca Corneau in custody while she was pregnant violated her reproductive rights, her right to privacy and freedom of religion.
Sixteen months later, women's groups are still reluctant to play a role in the case.
Melissa Walsh, president of the Massachusetts chapter of NOW, said the organization would have no comment. ''I think this is a more of a legal issue than a feminist issue,'' she said.
A spokeswoman for the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts said the group would have no comment. The Planned Parenthood Federation of America also declined comment.
Jane Cerilli, co-founder of Four Women Inc., an Attleboro-based women's health clinic, said the case presents a dilemma for pro-choice groups.
Cerilli said she supports the historic Roe vs. Wade abortion rights case giving a woman the right to choose and the right to bodily privacy. But she said she believes Rebecca Corneau's right to privacy is overshadowed by the rights of her child.
''I suppose when you look at the right to privacy in Roe, the taking of the child violates that,'' Cerilli said. ''But I think the right to privacy is negated by the fact that there are two dead children in their past.''
The state has taken custody of the couple's four other children and placed them with relatives who are not sect members.
Sarah Wunsch, a staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, said the ACLU hasn't decided whether to become involved in the Corneau case. But she said the group is concerned that the Corneaus' religious sect may have affected the judge's decision to hold them in contempt.
''The judge seems to rely on the fact that he knows this family and he thinks they belong to a horrible religious cult that doesn't provide medical treatment to children,'' Wunsch said.
David Lewis, an attorney appointed by the court to represent all of the Corneau children, said he disagrees with the Corneaus' assertion that the state is persecuting them because of their religious beliefs.
''It's not a freedom of religion case; it's a child welfare case where the parents happen to be devoutly religious,'' Lewis said. ''For four of their children, they've been found by clear and convincing evidence to be unfit parents ... once you've reached that threshold, the welfare of the children has to be paramount.''