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She also stated that Boston University’s law school rescinded a job offer shortly after her decision came to light, an abrupt move she said could discourage judges from making unpopular decisions.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....
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?
Was your post intended to be only for my eyes?
Atheistic socialism is the norm there and I am fully and wholly surprised her decision wasn't upheld.
I'm sure she was as surprised as I am that the upper court didn't go along with her humanist act of human sacrifice to Satan.
We have a freeper who is so conservative...he supports government forced sterilization
I suppose you are right. But if I weren’t a social conservative I wouldn’t post here. It’s just odd, especially because so many of them voluntarily opus out and draw the lightning without any provocation from anyone. It’s like they want the zot. Do they give out zottee compensation over at DU or something?
Wal Mart sells bc pills for $4/month, $10 for three months, but apparently we need to get the government involved in our bedrooms.
Don't think China can happen here? How about if the same government decided who could AND COULD NOT have access to birth control. I suppose that would scare you.
Thanx for the pingie. I find this hard to believe, but then again....I have an hour long commute from Cambridge MA to my home in NH. I will see how the local talk show hosts handle this one....
Wal Mart sells bc pills for $4/month, $10 for three months, but apparently we need to get the government involved in our bedrooms.
Don't think China can happen here? How about if the same government decided who could AND COULD NOT have access to birth control. I suppose that would scare you.
The appellate court was scathing in it’s reversal. I wish I didn’t close the tab and could’ve posted the link. Unbelievable what these people think.
The appellate court was scathing in it’s reversal. I wish I didn’t close the tab and could’ve posted the link. Unbelievable what these people think.
Trisham, could you add me to the “Bully Posse” ping list? I rarely have time to participate these days, but I do hate to miss a good zot.
Catholic and schizophrenic.
Just like Joan of Arc...
“Bully Posse” ping.
IBTZ
JUST WOW! Now we are to accept the forcible murder of our offspring. We are now officially a banana republic.
Do you know whether or not the child was actually aborted? The story at the top does not directly treat the case in question.
I don’t believe the child was killed. The article I read didn’t say so explicitly (Boston Herald), but I’m sick as a dog today so I may have missed it.
Let me see if I've got this straight:
1. A judge forcing a woman to have an abortion against her will is okay with you.
2. A judge ordering the sterilization of a woman against her will is okay with you.
3. People on the internet that you perceive as "bullies" (I assume this group includes those who vocally oppose things like forced abortion and sterilization) are a problem.
Did I make any mistakes?
I was once a libertarian, a long time ago. I was pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-porn and pro-drug. Then I grew up, got a job, got married and moved out of mom’s basement. For me, at least, that changed everything.
Whatever it takes to see you more often. :)
I’m bipolar. I raised 2 wonderful sons. One is a great father of 2 children & the other is a US Marine. I’m guessing according to you they should have been murdered in my womb.
cindie
LOL
Thanks!
IBTZ and IATZ...I rule today!!
IATZ!
Oh darn! I missed this one.
My job interferes with my fun! LOL!
——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.’’-——
Reminds me of old Soviet Union, where “religious” and “psychotic” were synonymous.
Any doctor who performs abortions already has shown they don’t take the Hippocratic oath seriously, so why would this be surprising?
BTW, I don’t think the procedure was actually performed in this case, since the daughter won her appeal.
The United States of China
He may have been a class of ‘98. But zot don’t care.
Oooops....
IATZ.....
Just for the record that position surprised me. It was not one I expected from that FReeper.
Me too. Me too.
Well, that’s three of us now! :)
If he’s the one I’m thinking of, he was a stalwart in the crevo debates. But I don’t recall any particular libertarian leanings out of that.
The banned played on.
I am not opposed to libertarianism in principle, in the abstract. (The devil is in the details.) What I am opposed to is, that if someone has gone nuts, presuming to stick Caesar jackboots-and-all into that someone’s mind. That is a very anti-libertarian move if anything. Maybe they had to lighten her beneficial medication a bit for the sake of the unborn baby, but it didn’t sound like she was in danger of a suicide, and when the pregnancy is complete they can put her back on her medications and hopefully she will regain some sanity. I could see maybe also putting her on a birth control pill, but a permanent sterilization? No way.
Surprised that bvw holds (held?) such a incredibly Nazi-like view.
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.
Do you consider that forcing a mentally ill person to abort her child falls under such laws that provide for "juditical supervision"?
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.