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She also stated that Boston University’s law school rescinded a job offer shortly after her decision came to light, an abrupt move she said could discourage judges from making unpopular decisions.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....
bvw actually does not seem to represent libertarianism itself well. Libertarianism has become infamous in many quarters for its seeming obsession with marijuana and the like, but it means far, far more. The woman is not even being alleged to be asking for an abortion, even if incompetent now. Surely what Her Dishonor called for would be the picture of doing something the insane woman did not wish.
Libertarianism has many internal contradictions plus it has nothing to do with Constitutional principles. It is the ultra kook anarchy fringe of the left.
One cannot treat the entire area with a broad brush, or of course you are not going to see unity in the details. Individual libertarians have staked out quite self-consistent positions.
So you believe that this particular child doesn’t deserve equal protection under the law because the mom is sick?
Not a very pro-life position.
Hi, big guy! I’ve been missing you. You’re looking just great, and it’s nice to see you.
Lotz of work and little freeptime.
In the particular circumstances of the case I do agree with the ZOT.
I’m merely going on the official LP platform as described on their website. And of course the ravings of individual libertarians merely supports this.
And somehow that is supposed to define small-l libertarians. Gotcha, Mr. Truth.
The circle is complete.
and who protects the public from the judges.
She seems like her 23 years on the bench were a complete failure and nobody respected her.
If this was a lawyer have the hissy fit, the judges would have called him or her before them for a rule to show cause why they should not be held in contempt.
Any law school that hires her should have their license pulled and the school shut down.
and who protects the public from the judges.
She seems like her 23 years on the bench were a complete failure and nobody respected her.
If this was a lawyer have the hissy fit, the judges would have called him or her before them for a rule to show cause why they should not be held in contempt.
Any law school that hires her should have their license pulled and the school shut down.
No, he posted that for the benefit of his Anti-Freeper friends at the clown posse clone site(s).
“A family court judge who ruled that a pregnant woman with schizophrenia should undergo an abortion ...”
Remember when you called me Mr.Slippery slope?
Are you serious?
Afraid so.
There’s this new meme among the anti-Freeper sites that those of us who catch their agents provocateurs are somehow ‘bullies’.
Or tattle tales etc.
He’s gone, but your point is good.
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.