The headline is unduly splashy. The issue surely has more to do with her having an IQ of 64 than with being autistic. The point is severe mental incompetence.
I agree. On the other hand, this court does seem to have a history of making similar decisions and it's not entirely clear that they've exercised a reasonable degree of caution in making all of them.
They have a great deal of power in an area that's particularly ethically complicated.
Autistic woman banned from having sex in latest Court of Protection case
This reminded me of previous LW comments about how we restrict the rights of children for their own good.
On the one hand, children can't understand the risks so we stop them having sex.
But on the other hand, animals can't understand the risks and we happily let them continue having sex.