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She also stated that Boston University’s law school rescinded a job offer shortly after her decision came to light, an abrupt move she said could discourage judges from making unpopular decisions.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....
“There are quite a few libertarians on here who think they belong because they agree with conservatives on fiscal matters. The reality is that they are very liberal on everything else.”
That’s painting with a very broad brush. There are plenty of people who identify themselves as “libertarians” who are just as against infanticide as you are. To lump them together with the libs on social issues is disingenuous.
“I don’t believe the child was killed.”
The appeals court reversed the decision. Scathingly.
Yes, had someone call the Viking Kitties “Vile Kitties” because he was butthurt that a troll got the zot instead of being ‘debated’.
Then the Undead Threaders get called all kinds of horrible because we mock trolls for an entire month post-zot.
“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 was thinking more along the lines of commitment until the baby is born, then put her back on her meds. Interestingly, something that hasn’t been discussed on this thread is the romneycare angle. How much did economics come into play in the initial decision? After all, it would be cheaper to abort and sterilize than to provide 24/7 care throughout the pregnancy.
“You knew darn well that Free Republic is pro-life.”
I’m not a fan of the zot these days. But zotting a stealth pro-abort? Wellllll, under those circumstances I guess I could put aside my anti-zot views *every now and then.* ;-)
Buh-bye.
“If I had said ALL of the libertarians on here were liberals who happen to be fiscal conservatives it would be different.”
You’re right. I re-read your post and you did draw the distinction. My apologies.
“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.”
The official LP platform no more represents the views of libertarians as a whole than the official GOP platform represents the views of conservatives as a whole. The pro-abort plank of the LP is one of the reasons that self- described libertarians are frequently not members of the LP.
“made the requirement up out of thin air” was a quote I remember.
bump
Cognitive dissonance. It allows them to be both pro and con regarding almost any subject. They are strictly pro or con regarding certain subjects, but to justify the irrational ones (i.e. most of them) they must utilize cognitive dissonance in everything else.
For example: they are pro-abortion. That never changes. In order to justify that position in their own minds, they must be pro-autonomy and individual rights when that would result in abortion, and con when necessary to achieve the same result. They can never address the rights of the baby, because that would never result in an abortion.
At some point they will probably want to discuss euthanizing Mary Moe (the court assigned pseudonym of the woman at the center of this forced abortion case). If Mary Moe expresses a desire to be euthanized they’ll tout her right to make that decision. If Mary Moe expresses a desire to live they’ll oppose her right to make that decision. They will see no conflict between these two opposing views, because both views coincide with the only genuinely held belief they have on the subject.
Oh! Be still my beating heart! You read my parting shots. Thank you so much.
How about you look up a category of folk you apparently have been shying away from: BIBLICAL libertarians.
If someone doesn’t support no holds barred porn, legal prostitution, legal drugs, the entire “gay” rights agenda and abortion, why would they self-identify as libertarians? I don’t see how someone who follows the Bible could ever support the LP. And if they cannot support the LP, why call themselves “libertarian” whether it’s a large L or small l?
Oh, I just remembered another official LP position - open borders!
And the GOP platform (in a quick search) is at this link (too complex to copy/paste) and it’s clear conservatives would indeed support most of it. They certainly would not disavow 3/4 of it and still call themselves Republicans.
http://www.issues2000.org/Republican_Party.htm
Here’s one more:
http://whitehouse12.com/republican-party-platform/
Maybe because they do not wish a perfectly good term to be stolen by libertines?
The point is, they exist and you aren’t interested at all in them because they represent Jesus Christ for the most part. A “karma universe” can’t stand up to Jesus Christ.
If someone believes in God whether a Christian, Jew or Hindu, and wants the government run according to the Constitution, they will not call themselves a libertarian. Why? Because the LP has no congruence with religion based morality or the Constitution.
They’d think up another word. The LP has been insane for decades btw.
I refuse to give up donning my gay apparel for Christmas — and that’s all I have to say about it.
yes... God forbid we should have any actual discussion around here. We have to make sure we have nothing but an echo chamber. No sense actually staking out a position and defending it with persuasive argument.
I didn’t agree with bvw’s comment, but i was intrigued enough to want to challenge it and find out what he (?) meant by it. I don’t think it’s fair to claim that bvw was pro-abort. I would’ve liked to find out a little more and it would’ve been interesting to see him defend that statement.
oh, well.
The woman’s lapse into insanity may be temporary, but killing the child would put an end to it forever. And as it apparently has come out, Ms. Moe had actually expressed the wish after her first abortion that she wouldn’t repeat it. That ought to close the case if nothing else does. This judge ought to be recalled, barfed out, impeached, and anything more along those lines. While I do not see any biblically based call for banning marijuana any more than banning wine, it is certainly possible to indulge to the point of silliness. I wonder if that’s what happened (only half kidding).
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.