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She also stated that Boston University’s law school rescinded a job offer shortly after her decision came to light, an abrupt move she said could discourage judges from making unpopular decisions.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....
I have not the slightest idea of what you are talking about.
“yes... God forbid we should have any actual discussion around here.”
This is a private website and the owner can ban anyone he wants for any reason or no reason. That said, I’ve become opposed to the idea of the zot of late. In this case, I was fine with it. But in the case of the run of the mill rudybot or romneybot...so what’s the harm? Even a blind squirrel can find a nut every now and then. And in any case it just forces those who really want to post to do so under the radar.
A witchhunt isn’t any fun without witches.
I leave it up to you to puzzle it out. I said I’m finished.
“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?”
Because they like the idea of liberty?
“I don’t see how someone who follows the Bible could ever support the LP.”
Last I checked, God hadn’t registered a party preference. I imagine for those Christians who are also in the LP, they either tolerate the aspects of the LP they don’t like, or they don’t see it in the same way that you do. It’s not like there is any one-size-fits-all interpretation of the Bible out there.
While I’m not a member of the LP nor do I consider myself a libertarian, I think it presumptuous to call one or the other of our political parties the party of God or the party *not* of God.
Oh, I quite agree. I don’t see in the facts of the case anything that warrants a death sentence for the child. But there was an intriguing challenge there for a bit, and we never got a chance to see what it was. I think the discussion would have been more interesting if they’d been allowed to stay.
“Let it be remembered that civil liberty consists, not in a right to every man to do just what he pleases, but it consists in an equal right to all citizens to have, enjoy, and do, in peace, security and without molestation, whatever the equal and constitutional laws of the country admit to be consistent with the public good.”
John Jay
Oh yes, absolutely. It’s JimRob’s site and he can run it as he chooses. I’m just observing that it was a lot more fun and interesting back before the “purges” started. There were some really smart and interesting members... hundreds of them... that have been purged. I think we’re poorer without them.
I’m simply not afraid of ideas. If I stake out a position I’m fully ready and willing to defend it as best I can. Sometimes... I find I can’t defend something I’ve said and that an even more enlightening experience.
FR has always been a site for conservative discussion. I get that. It’s nice to have a place to discuss -among- conservatives without having to always waste time with the petty and worn out arguments of liberals. Yes, yes.
But I really miss the quality of discussion that used to be here. Now there can’t be any disagreement. Well, what fun is that? That’s not discussion.
Ah, well... it’s pointless to pursue it any further.
“I realize that you and HiTechRedNeck are the smartest people in the room...”
And I realize that you’re being snarky.
If you wish to make extreme comments, then please feel free. But you shouldn’t be surprised or offended when someone who doesn’t agree responds.
The quote by John Jay isn’t too bad. You will note, however, that he did not define what he considered to be “constitutional” or “consistent with the public good.” There is a lot of room for debate on those two subjects. Roe v Wade being an excellent example. In some deluded minds, a woman has a “constitutional” right to exterminate the child she is carrying within her body. I, and I hope you, would argue that without life, there is no liberty or pursuit of happiness. Not to mention that infanticide also violates the 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments. I believe my interpretation is correct both morally and constitutionally. But I don’t ignore the reality of there being another point of view out there. Even if I find it repugnant.
“I’m just observing that it was a lot more fun and interesting back before the “purges” started. There were some really smart and interesting members... hundreds of them... that have been purged. I think we’re poorer without them.”
Agreed. It has also driven off a lot of folks who didn’t like the purges, or saw folks that they enjoyed or befriended ride the lightning.
I’d like to have much more information before I pass judgement. Are there no meds that she can safely take to preserve her sanity while pregnant? Is she a danger to herself or others while off her meds? Well, really, what the hell really happens when she’s off those meds? Did a report from an actual physician conclude that she was in no state to participate in her own hearing?
I think you misunderstood my answer. Read the post I was responding to. I was asked what law was involved in this case. The law is that a person who is mentally incompetent cannot consent to any medical procedure; the consent of a judge or a legally-appointed guardian is always necessary.
If you are asking if that is true of abortion, it is, in the sense that a doctor who performs an abortion on a mentally-incompetent woman without the consent of a court or the woman's guardian is acting illegally.
If you're asking if the judge should have authorized this abortion, the answer is no, as the appellate court ruled. Had the abortion been necessary to save her life, the appellate court's answer would no doubt have been different.
Have been travelling on business. Just got back. Answered above.
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?
As far a porn goes. For myself, if it was promised that the written word would remain untouched, personally, I wouldn't mind. However, I've seen the AFA (for example) define Victoria's Secret as porn, so it all comes down to who you trust to define it. I'd trust just about anyone over a bureaucrat, or worse: Congress.
Legal prostitution. While I'm inclined to rhetoric about it being illegal to sell something that can be legally and freely given, I'm forced to admit I wouldn't want it in my neighborhood, so we agree on its present legality or illegality as the case may be.
Legal drugs. All drugs are different so a conversation about "drugs" en toto can only be held between true believers on both sides, and I'm not a true believer. Taken one at a time, I'd probably legalize marijuana and increase the penalties for the rest.
Gay rights. I bear gays no ill will, nor do I hold any pie in the sky beliefs that gays can be done away with. I just want it moved back into people's private lives again. Go be as gay as you wanna be in your own bedroom, but don't forever seer my retinas with things that I really don't want to see. Don't discuss it with children, don't put it on TV, etc.
Now being pro-life just makes sense. You can't pursue happiness if your life is ended en utero. However, I do realize there are morally tricky situations. To give you a real world scenario, my wife had a patient over a decade ago now who against medical advice opted out of a hysterectomy and chemo therapy to continue her new found pregnancy against astronomical odds. The pregnancy miscarried at 28 weeks, and she was dead less than a year later. Her chances of surviving had treatment begun were over 90%.
Thank you, both for your civility and expressing your viewpoint clearly. I am in very little if any disagreement with you. Mabye tomorrow I’ll answer in detail. It’s been a long day and it’s still not over.
Thanks for your reply.
Being Bipolar, it’s not a good idea for me to have children. I would have to stop taking my meds and that isn’t happening. If she’s having delusions she shouldn’t have had a child in the first place.
G-d bless you. I,too,am Bipolar so I know what it’s like.
I don’t have kids and I am not going to for this very reason.
I can’t quit taking my meds.
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.