bvw: "In the particular circumstances of the case I do agree with the Judge." ???
forced abortions on Catholics?
murder a fetus to prevent it from being harmed?
what law gave this judge the right to order an abortion?
judicial evaluation survey
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She also stated that Boston University’s law school rescinded a job offer shortly after her decision came to light, an abrupt move she said could discourage judges from making unpopular decisions.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....
so....a judge determined that this woman would have gotten an abortion if she were thinking clearly? The same clairvoyance that allows them to determine “voter intent” from a hanging chad I suppose?
Imho, it is almost beyond belief that anyone on this site would agree with allowing the state the power to force abortions. It’s stunning.
An elegant and concise summation on the progress of evil.
But the real shock to me has been how many pro-aborts have been lurking here. This site has never been ambivalent about abortion. Pro-choice noobs get the zot instantly. That should be a clue.
why wasn’t she put on implant birth control after the first child? Her parents can order that. Implanon is very foolproof. implant birth control has lower failure rates than all other methods. Since she is extremely mentally ill, who keeps impregnating her? Why don’t the parents put her in a better facility or in their home?
In all 50 states, there are laws providing for judicial supervision of people who are not legally competent (e.g., severely retarded, mentally ill, in a coma, etc.). The court can either appoint a guardian for the person, or the court itself can make major decisions for the person (authorizing surgery, authorizing the filing or settlement of a lawsuit, making investments, etc.)
The concept itself is neither new (it goes back to English law) nor controversial in theory. It becomes controversial in a few cases (this one and Terry Schiavo come to mind), but judges in every state every day are making medical and other decisions for incompetent people.
I thought this kind of forced sterilization was illegal after WWII.
Was Mental Incompetence determined on her being a Catholic?
“She would want to be healthy.” There you have it. Pregnancy is a disease. So says this Judge.
“She would want to be healthy.” There you have it. Pregnancy is a disease. So says this Judge.
Uggghhh. You had to come out of lurk mode to join the cult of death? I can understand why you normally prefer to keep your yap shut, as your homepage suggests.
As one who has stood before the former Judge Harms (let me tell you that her name is appropriate), I can assure you your fears are not invalid. There is a common theme among Massachusetts Probate Court judges....they are anti-male, anti-family and anti-child.
A irresponsible post does not make for a responsible discussion.
This one of yours has been the best response, why did you trouble a good post with a second one to call a bully’s posse?
My two brothers, my sister and myself would not be alive if babies were killed because their mother was mentally ill. We are all in our sixties and seventies and yet we have had good lives, nice kids, and no sign of schizophrenia. Our mother lived with my sister and later myself and died at the age of 76. Sometimes things were strange but she wasn’t a bad mother in many ways. We were the people she trusted and no one else.
The judge has rendered a decision that is cruel and ignorant. We have become a society that calls right wrong and wrong right. God help us.
A irresponsible post does not make for a responsible discussion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WHAT does that mean? An “irresponsible post”? I assume you mean your post #14.
Come on and play. We want to have a “responsible discussion”. Yes we do. Please elaborate on your post 14.
kaythankxbye
And THAT is your only reply? Just like Judge Harms of you to duck responsibility for endorsing the murder of the innocent and to whine about being bullied.
A bully's posse?!
Who is the bully here?
Those who defend innocent life, or those who defend a totalitarian judge who decrees that an innocent woman must put to death her innocent unborn child?
So who is the real bully, bvw?
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.