[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.

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.

[supercat]

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".

[Sacajaweau]

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.