Posted on 02/21/2012 9:43:50 AM PST by Responsibility2nd
A family court judge who ruled that a pregnant woman with schizophrenia should undergo an abortion and be sterilized sharply defended her decision yesterday, while denouncing Boston University for withdrawing what she said was a job offer amid the controversy.
In a rare personal defense of the reasoning behind a court ruling, Christina Harms, who retired from the bench last month after 23 years, said she concluded that the woman, a 31-year-old who suffered from delusions, would choose to terminate her pregnancy if she were mentally competent, chiefly so that she could resume antipsychotic medication that would have harmed the fetus.
“I believed then, as I do now, that she would elect to abort the pregnancy to protect her own well-being,’’ she said. “She would want to be healthy.’’
Speaking in detail for the first time about the decision, which an appeals court reversed last month in unsparing terms, Harms described the case as “a tragic set of circumstances for which no outcome would have been easy or obviously correct.’’ The woman had described herself as “very Catholic’’ and expressed opposition to an abortion, while her parents were seeking consent for the procedure.
In a letter that she sent yesterday to other family court judges in Massachusetts, Harms outlined the reasons for her determination and criticized the appeals court ruling, which she called simplistic and unfair.
The appeals court ruled that the woman had clearly expressed her opposition to abortion as a Catholic, but Harms wrote that “the statements of a person suffering from schizophrenia surely cannot simply be taken at face value.’’
Harms said she has requested a meeting with the chief judge of the appeals court to register her objection to the “insulting tone’’ of the decision.
She also stated that Boston University’s law school rescinded a job offer shortly after her decision came to light, an abrupt move she said could discourage judges from making unpopular decisions.
“It strikes at the heart of what judicial independence is about,’’ she said. “We need to protect judges from the popularity of the moment.’’
A BU spokesman said yesterday that the university never officially offered the job but acknowledged that it eliminated her from consideration for the job - a new position that would guide students toward judicial clerkships - after her ruling came to light and stirred public outcry.
more....
Forced Abortion ping....
Ah, ‘tis always enlightening to watch liberals defend one of their many versions of the “luminiferous aether”.
“’the statements of a person suffering from schizophrenia surely cannot simply be taken at face value.’”
“I am the Law” comes to mind.
To me the even bigger question:
What “Doctor” performed such a procedure?
If the judge decided that the woman was also too good looking for her mental condition, would the “Doctor” also have agreed to ugly her up a bit?
Besides having judges that don’t deserve to judge anybody, we have doctors that don’t deserve to be doctoring anybody!
I believe this scenario is how things got started in nazi germany...first the mentally ill, then the physically deformed, then everyone that did not agree with them...then the camps...
“...would choose to terminate her pregnancy if she were mentally competent, chiefly so that she could resume antipsychotic medication that would have harmed the fetus....”
So...murdering the “fetus” to prevent it from being “harmed” is ok....
I get it...
Only in the warped, sick, delusional insanity of a liberal brain could this even remotely make sense.
That’s a good question. This is breaking news. Just a few sources are carrying this.
But I don’t see anywhere that an actual abortion has taken place - even in spite of this idiot judge’s decision.
Christina Harms, who retired from the bench last month after 23 years, said she concluded that the woman, a 31-year-old who suffered from delusions, would choose to terminate her pregnancy if she were mentally competent, chiefly so that she could resume antipsychotic medication that would have harmed the fetus.
So the mentally ill woman went off of her meds so as not to harm the baby and the judge gleens that she doesn’t want it? It seems to me that she REALLY wants it. If she can’t proprly take care of the baby (after resuming medication) they can put it up for adoption. It looks like the judge she is looking for reasons to abort.
One of our BIL has a schizophrenic sister who has had 3 kids that were all adopted and raised by one of the other sisters.I can’t imagine a judge ever saying that any of those 3 kids didn’t deserve to live.The youngest is serving in S.Korea as a US soldier......
““We need to protect judges from the popularity of the moment.’’ “
‘How about we need to protect unborn children from the popularity of the moment of murdering children? This “judge” meeds lessons in morality not whining about herself as a victim.
Simply Nazism
In the particular circumstances of the case I do agree with the Judge.
How many of us are familiar with schizophrenics and their behaviors and moods?
How many schizophrenics are there in the US?
Should schizophrenics vote?
What is the practical difference between schizophrenics and children?
So many questions, so little wisdom.
Per the article “which an appeals court reversed last month in unsparing terms,” I’d have to assume that since the decision was reversed that the woman is either still pregnant or has had the baby?
I love the way this pathetic judge wants to be free of the consequences of her actions.
>>>She also stated that Boston University’s law school rescinded a job offer shortly after her decision came to light, an abrupt move she said could discourage judges from making unpopular decisions. <<<
This was not an “unpopular” decision, it was an iilegal and immoral one that demonstrates that she has a severely warped understanding of individual rights, judicial powers, and the sanctity of life.
Of course “the statements of a judge suffering from the mental illness of Liberal Statism, surely cannot be simply taken at face value.”.
Darwinian Eugenics in action.
You agree with murder?
Forced sterilization?
FRiend, this (last time I looked) is America. Not Nazi Germany.
Look at some other replies on this thread and tell me why adoption is not the answer.
Or go ahead and defend abortion. You’ve been a FReeper a long time, but (last time I looked) pro-aborts get zotted.
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.