Earlier this month, a Norfolk probate judge declared a pregnant woman with schizophrenia incompetent and ordered her to undergo an abortion, stating she could be “coaxed, bribed, or even enticed’’ into the hospital for the procedure.The woman has a long mental illness history, and I confess, there is reason to be concerned about whether she is going to be a fit mother. Borepatch points out that the same article quotes a professor at Yeshiva University that this sort of compulsory abortion and sterilization goes on "a lot more than we know." Borepatch sees this as an expression of the progressive point of view, and it certainly seems like it. As I dug around looking for more evidence of Judge Harms history, I found some interesting items here and there, such as this:
Unbidden, the judge further directed that the 32-year-old woman be sterilized “to avoid this painful situation from recurring in the future.’’
Yesterday, the state’s appeals court struck down the decision in unusually harsh terms, saying the woman had clearly expressed her opposition to abortion as a Catholic.
A summary of the individual injustices in the lawsuit claimed: ...
• In the case of Hunter vs. Hunter, Judge Christina Harms imprisoned a husband for his refusal to commit a fraud at her direction: She wanted him to pay child support from proceeds of a student loan, which would have been a fraudulent misapplication of this loan.
Here's the suit filed by the Coalition for Fatherhood against Massachusetts, giving more detail on this.
• In The case of Donald Roines, Hull, where the parties reached a mutually satisfactory separation agreement, Judge Christina Harms on her own advised the wife that she could obtain a better result and need not accept the agreement.
Compulsory abortion: sure. Compulsory mental health treatment? That would be violating this woman's rights. What is fascinating is that the judge's justification for the abortion is that the mother could not take anti-psychotic medications because of the risk to the child--and so:
The judge reasoned that if Moe were competent, she would opt for an abortion to benefit from medication that otherwise could not be given to her because of its effects on the fetus.The mother, however, was Catholic, and did not want to abort the child. Pregnancy is short-term; the judge could have directed the mother to start taking anti-psychotics after the birth of the child. But there are a lot of progressives out there who worship abortion, and simply can't understand any other reasoning.
There's a very poignant comment over at the ABC News coverage:
My mother has Bipolar I (Mania) and Schizophrenia. She gets auditory and visual hallucinations. She talks in different languages and accents. She gets very ill without her medication. HOWEVER my mom was stable enough to raise me despite going to a mental hospital for a several week evaluation. She was there when my biological Dad was not. Sure, it was not an ideal upbringing with glamor and flowers but it still got me to where I needed to be. She never hung me, she never tried to kill me. Now she is in her 60's and I am in my 20's. I have two kids and I trust her being around them fully. Despite what prejudices people have against mental illness not everyone with these disorders hurts other people. My mom even babysits for us. She is good with kids and she teaches my son to read, write, and plays games with him if I am sick or needing a break from it all. She is a good lady.Judge Harms could not delay treatment of this pregnant woman four months to avoid compulsion and conflict with the woman's religious beliefs?