Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge orders couple not to conceive.
The New York Times | May 8,2004 | AP

Posted on 05/08/2004 7:19:53 PM PDT by GODFEARINGWOMAN

Judge Orders N.Y. Couple Not to Conceive By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: May 8, 2004

Filed at 12:14 a.m. ET

ROCHESTER, N.Y. (AP) -- A couple has been ordered not to conceive any more children until the ones they already have are no longer in foster care.

A civil liberties advocate said the court ruling unsealed Friday was ``blatantly unconstitutional.''

Monroe County Family Court Judge Marilyn O'Connor ruled March 31 that both parents ``should not have yet another child which must be cared for at public expense.''

``The facts of this case and the reality of parenthood cry out for family planning education,'' she ruled. ``This court believes the constitutional right to have children is overcome when society must bear the financial and everyday burden of care.''

The judge is not forcing contraception on the couple nor is she requiring the mother to get an abortion should she become pregnant. The couple may choose to be sterilized at no cost to them, O'Connor ruled.

If the couple violates O'Connor's ruling, they could be jailed for contempt of court.

``I don't know of any precedent that would permit a judge to do this,'' Anna Schissel, staff attorney for the Reproductive Rights Project of the New York Civil Liberties Union, told the Democrat and Chronicle of Rochester. ``And even if there were a precedent, it would be blatantly unconstitutional because it violates the United States Constitution and the New York Constitution.''

Neither parent attended the proceeding or secured legal representation. The mother waived her right to a lawyer, and the father never showed up in court.

The mother was found to have neglected her four children, ages 1, 2, 4 and 5. All three children who were tested for cocaine tested positive, according to court papers. Both parents had a history of drug abuse. It was not immediately clear if the father had other children.

A case worker testified that the parents ignored an order to get mental health treatment and attend parenting classes after the 1-year-old was born.

The mother was still in the hospital after giving birth to her fourth child in March 2003 when authorities took the infant, according to court papers. Investigators said the mother was unprepared to care for the infant.

Attempts to reach the youngest child's guardian were unsuccessful. Information on the other children's guardians was not immediately available.

Attorney Chris Affronti, who chairs the family law section of the Monroe County Bar Association, said he's not sure how the ruling could be enforced.

``I think what the judge is trying to do is kind of have a wake-up call for society,'' he said


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: New York
KEYWORDS: aclu; adoption; afdc; birthcontrol; childabuse; childneglect; foodstams; fostercare; fosterchildren; judge; marilynoconnor; ny; publicdole; rochester; ruling; section8; slut; trash; welfare; welfaremom; whitetrash; whore

1 posted on 05/08/2004 7:19:53 PM PDT by GODFEARINGWOMAN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GODFEARINGWOMAN
Norplant..
2 posted on 05/08/2004 7:23:40 PM PDT by Drammach (The Wolves are at the Door... Hey, Kids! Your lunch is here!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GODFEARINGWOMAN
Bump.
3 posted on 05/08/2004 7:24:19 PM PDT by TheSpottedOwl (Torrance Ca....land of the flying monkeys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GODFEARINGWOMAN
``I don't know of any precedent that would permit a judge to do this,'' Anna Schissel, staff attorney for the Reproductive Rights Project of the New York Civil Liberties Union, told the Democrat and Chronicle of Rochester. ``And even if there were a precedent, it would be blatantly unconstitutional because it violates the United States Constitution and the New York Constitution.''

Perhaps Ms. Schissel can tell us just where in the U.S. Constitution and/or the New York Constitution it says that people are entitled to reproduce beyond their means and expect the rest of us to pay for them shooting out kids like a defective salad shooter?

4 posted on 05/08/2004 7:28:19 PM PDT by NYC GOP Chick ("If I could shoot like that, I would still be in the NBA" -- Bill Clinton, circa 1995)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheSpottedOwl
I am new to this so I have a question, "Bump", what is that???

I apologize for my ignorance.
5 posted on 05/08/2004 7:30:17 PM PDT by GODFEARINGWOMAN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYC GOP Chick
On one hand I agree with what you are saying, however, in some ways the precedent this sets reminds me of the ChiComs to force couples to limit their offspring to one child. I know this is a case of the couple being irresponsible, but it is unsettling anyways.
6 posted on 05/08/2004 7:30:39 PM PDT by ItisaReligionofPeace (I'm from the government and I'm here to help.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Drammach
Or ("revolving door") foster care. I guess they've already gone that route. Still, can one couple overwhelm the system? Hope not.
7 posted on 05/08/2004 7:35:37 PM PDT by dr_who_2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GODFEARINGWOMAN
When you don't really have a comment,but you think the thread is worth others reading, you "bump" it. It kicks the post up to the top of the "Latest Posts" page --- kinda like keeping the thread in circulation.
8 posted on 05/08/2004 7:42:16 PM PDT by stands2reason ( During the cola wars, France was occupied by Pepsi for six months.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GODFEARINGWOMAN
Neither parent attended the proceeding or secured legal representation. The mother waived her right to a lawyer, and the father never showed up in court.

I'm sure public floggings or beatings cannot cost as much as court hearings not attended by the principals - even without charging admission to help recoup the costs.

9 posted on 05/08/2004 7:43:14 PM PDT by solitas (sometimes I lay awake at night looking up at the stars wondering where the heck did the ceiling go?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stands2reason
thanks
10 posted on 05/08/2004 7:46:40 PM PDT by GODFEARINGWOMAN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: dr_who_2
Ah, Rochester, NY...the city I was born in.

Of course it's not enforeable but if this cokehead doesn't get her tubes tied or he doesn't get a vasectomy, she'll probably wind up dead. This mother is putting those kids through something terrible.

11 posted on 05/08/2004 7:47:21 PM PDT by Sacajaweau (God Bless Our Troops!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GODFEARINGWOMAN
Appoint Judge Marilyn O'Conner to the US Supreme Court, at the next opportunity. She's probably too rational to be confirmed though.
12 posted on 05/08/2004 7:48:18 PM PDT by F.J. Mitchell (Republicans who die between now and 2 Nov. will be voting for Kerry. Stay healthy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GODFEARINGWOMAN
What is Bump?

Here is a list of FR words so you can figure out what them people are saying. LOL...

http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a3a1fed9e6421.htm

13 posted on 05/08/2004 7:59:18 PM PDT by LowOiL (Christian and proud of it !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GODFEARINGWOMAN
There are lots of loving couples that do not have children. Why did the judge not put the kids up for adoption?
14 posted on 05/08/2004 8:14:10 PM PDT by ikka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GODFEARINGWOMAN
I'm torn between two opinions here. While I agree this couple has no right to place the burden for raising their children on responsible taxpayers, I'm also disturbed by thought of a judge being able dictate birth control from the bench.

To put a little feminist spin on it, "What about this woman's right to privacy? It's her body!!" </feminist rant>

Of course the death-loving abortionists probably don't give a #%& about a woman's right to privacy when she exercises her right(?) to deliver her children instead of aborting them.

Like I said, I'm just not sure what I think of this ruling.
15 posted on 05/08/2004 8:17:19 PM PDT by grassroot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GODFEARINGWOMAN
Don't apologize hon, it means that someone wants to bump the post. You'll also see bttt(bump to the top), and ping, which is where someone will include screen names of people that one thinks would be interested in the topic posted. When you "bump it", it stays up longer.
16 posted on 05/08/2004 8:42:27 PM PDT by TheSpottedOwl (Torrance Ca....land of the flying monkeys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: grassroot
I'm torn between two opinions here. While I agree this couple has no right to place the burden for raising their children on responsible taxpayers, I'm also disturbed by thought of a judge being able dictate birth control from the bench.

By the sound of it, the woman belongs in prison. I would think there should be nothing improper about a judge forbidding "conjugal visits".

17 posted on 05/08/2004 9:45:57 PM PDT by supercat (Why is it that the more "gun safety" laws are passed, the less safe my guns seem?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: NYC GOP Chick
"tell us just where in the U.S. Constitution and/or the New York Constitution it says that people are entitled to reproduce beyond their means and expect the rest of us to pay for them shooting out kids like a defective salad shooter?"

I'll be happy to answer your question; just as soon as you tell me where it is written in the Constitution that government is supposed to take care of the children of poor parents in the first place. When the Constitution was written just about every American was poor, and most American married couples had several (or more) children. Would you have us be like Communist China, who regulate the size of families?

18 posted on 05/08/2004 10:06:01 PM PDT by TheCrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ItisaReligionofPeace
I don't want to force people to limit their offspring, as long as they're willing to accept and deal with all the responsibilities, instead of just mindlessly pumping out more kids, secure in the knowledge that the rest of us will just have to dig deeper into our pockets to take care of them.
19 posted on 05/09/2004 3:32:15 AM PDT by NYC GOP Chick ("If I could shoot like that, I would still be in the NBA" -- Bill Clinton, circa 1995)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TheCrusader
Why does my not wanting to pay for people's lack of responsibility make me a commie?!
20 posted on 05/09/2004 3:33:42 AM PDT by NYC GOP Chick ("If I could shoot like that, I would still be in the NBA" -- Bill Clinton, circa 1995)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: NYC GOP Chick
The taking care of them part isn't good, I admit. We shouldn't be taking care of the parents at the very least.
21 posted on 05/09/2004 5:37:01 AM PDT by ItisaReligionofPeace (I'm from the government and I'm here to help.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: grassroot
The mother's a cokehead. Three of those little kids tested positive for cocaine. We have them because they need medical care. We gave her lotsa chances.

We rarely put the cokehead Mom's in jail here but put them on probation and they might spend weekends in jail SO THEY HAVE EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO NUTURE THEIR CHILDREN. It's called RESPONSIBILITY. This dame is totally irresponsible.

Chris Affronti made a good point at the end of this article.

By the way, neither the mother or father showed up in court for this.

22 posted on 05/09/2004 5:51:33 AM PDT by Sacajaweau (God Bless Our Troops!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: NYC GOP Chick
"Why does my not wanting to pay for people's lack of responsibility make me a commie?!"

Your desire is legitimate, it's your solution to the problem which is Communist in nature. Our three branches of government have no business whatsoever in ordering, or even requesting, that a man or woman stop giving birth because of their social or financial status. This is an abuse which expands government powers to an unconscionable level of excess.

Part of the answer to this problem lies in restricting the powers of government, (which is the principle that our Constitution embodies). It is the overreaching hand of government that has established the welfare state and the so-called "family services" agencies that defraud the taxpayers to finance their intrusive operations. Government has also been instrumental in limiting the power and expression of religion, and religion needs to be strong because it has traditionally been the faith based organizations that help the needy, the poor, the downtrodden. This way you help the drug addicted woman's child only on a voluntary basis, (and there is a far better chance she will get the proper spiritual guidance and help to kick her babit from the priest/minister and Church community than from some government hack). I think President Bush is right on the mark with the promotion of his faith-based programs.

23 posted on 05/09/2004 11:56:20 AM PDT by TheCrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: TheCrusader
As long as the government (read: taxpayers) wind up supporting these offspring, the government (read: taxpayers) have every right to say this couple should not have any more.

Get the government (read: taxpayers) out of the equation of taking care of the offspring and then I will totally agree with you.

I really have no problem with welfare/foodstamps/ subsidized housing or health care as temporary assistance..............I am against it being a lifestyle.
24 posted on 05/09/2004 12:08:29 PM PDT by Gabz (Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my cigarettes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Gabz
Sorry to "jump" on you here, but

I really have no problem with welfare/foodstamps/ subsidized housing or health care as temporary assistance..............I am against it being a lifestyle.

There is a MAJOR problem with it - namely - it is not allowed under the constitution.

25 posted on 05/09/2004 12:33:18 PM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (A vote for JF'nK is a vote for Peace in our Time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate
You didn't jump on me, so no apology needed.

I'm not saying you are wrong, but I have never heard of it being not allowed under the constitution. I am always open for education and enlightment.

I remember back in the early 70s a friend of my parents' being highly embarrassed because she was using food stamps to feed her 5 kids because her husband had been laid of from his local job and went to Canada to find work. The pay was good, but he was only going to be paid quarterly......she still had to feed those 5 kids before that first check came in.
26 posted on 05/09/2004 12:50:32 PM PDT by Gabz (Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my cigarettes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Gabz
Under the Constitution, the Congress was given explicit powers. Any power not given was reserved to the people / the states.

These powers are:
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

27 posted on 05/09/2004 1:00:04 PM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (A vote for JF'nK is a vote for Peace in our Time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: GODFEARINGWOMAN
Yes...right...might as well have the Pope tell Kerry he can't take Communion!
28 posted on 05/09/2004 1:01:55 PM PDT by Hotdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gabz
"As long as the government (read: taxpayers)"

As long as the government (read: taxpayers who elect official representatives who are bound by our Constitutional laws)....

Just a few questions to ponder for those who would support a law making it illegal to have children:

(1). What if the woman kicked her drug habbit, would she then need a special Court Release to have children or would the Order stand forever?

(2). What if the woman were found to be pregnant by the "pregnancy police" while under Court Order to not procreate; should they force her to abort, put her in jail, or just fine her heavily?

(3). What if the woman were a married Christian whose faith prohibited birth control?

(4). Would not such a 'procreation" Law eventually broaden, (as most laws tend to do), to include other forms of "misfit" mothers, such as poverty stricken mothers, sick mothers, divorced mothers, mothers with low IQ's, mothers with police records, mothers who already have four children, etc?

29 posted on 05/09/2004 1:12:44 PM PDT by TheCrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: TheCrusader
The morality police are already calling for my child to be removed from me because I choose to smoke tobacco. Those do-gooders consider me an unfit mother even though I am married to the father of the child and do not have her in daycare.

I'm sorry, but if people are going to claim I am an unfit mother who deserves to have her child removed from my custody I've got no problem with anyone who wants non-productive members of society from adding any more burdens to the tax payers of society.

I hate nannyist government regulations as much, propably more, than the next person. But when the same people fighting against this kind of crapola are among the ones seeking to snatch my child from me I seriously have to wonder just what the agenda is that they are actually promoting.
30 posted on 05/09/2004 4:20:08 PM PDT by Gabz (Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my cigarettes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate
Each state is permitted to create their own laws, rules and regulations.
31 posted on 05/09/2004 4:23:01 PM PDT by Gabz (Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my cigarettes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

Comment #32 Removed by Moderator

To: ItisaReligionofPeace
The taking care of them part isn't good, I admit. We shouldn't be taking care of the parents at the very least.

Right. But how do you suggest we not put ourselves in a position of taking care of every kid she carelessly whelps out?

I know that there are certain segments of society who can never take care of themselves and we do have an obligation to not leave them in the streets to die. However, there's a difference between humane compassion and being taken advantage of by lazy, thoughtless losers.

33 posted on 05/09/2004 5:18:46 PM PDT by NYC GOP Chick ("If I could shoot like that, I would still be in the NBA" -- Bill Clinton, circa 1995)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Gabz
As long as the government (read: taxpayers) wind up supporting these offspring, the government (read: taxpayers) have every right to say this couple should not have any more.

Exactly! Well said, my friend. :)

34 posted on 05/09/2004 5:20:04 PM PDT by NYC GOP Chick ("If I could shoot like that, I would still be in the NBA" -- Bill Clinton, circa 1995)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Gabz
"But when the same people fighting against this kind of crapola are among the ones seeking to snatch my child from me I seriously have to wonder just what the agenda is that they are actually promoting.."

In a word, their agenda is CONTROL.

35 posted on 05/09/2004 8:39:36 PM PDT by TheCrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Gabz
Each state is permitted to create their own laws, rules and regulations.

I have no problem wih that statement.

I see I should clarify my earlier statements by adding "Federal Government". So when I said "not allowed under the constitution" - that refers to the Federal Government only.

Sorry for the confusion.

36 posted on 05/09/2004 11:39:06 PM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (A vote for JF'nK is a vote for Peace in our Time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: GODFEARINGWOMAN
Bob Grant would say, "Sterilize Them!"

CNN.com - Judge orders couple not to have children - May 8, 2004

COURTTV.COM - TOP NEWS - Judge orders homeless woman not to have children

MSNBC - Judge orders NY couple not to have children

37 posted on 06/29/2004 7:27:10 PM PDT by Coleus (Roe v. Wade and Endangered Species Act both passed in 1973, Murder Babies/save trees, birds, algae)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson