Court Strikes Judge’s Ruling That Schizophrenic Woman Must Have an Abortion & Be Sterilized
- Posted on January 18, 2012 at 10:11am by
Billy Hallowell
- Print »
- Email »
BOSTON (The Blaze/AP) — A Massachusetts court on Tuesday overturned a ruling by a judge who ordered a mentally ill woman to undergo an abortion against her wishes and be sterilized.
The Massachusetts Appeals Court said the woman, who has schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, had described herself as “very Catholic” and made it clear she did not want an abortion.
According to the opinion, “The personal decision whether to bear or beget a child is a right so fundamental that it must be extended to all persons, including those who are incompetent.”
The ruling reverses a decision by Family and Probate Court Judge Christina Harms, who found that the 32-year-old woman was not competent to decide whether to get an abortion.
Harms found the woman would choose to end her pregnancy if she were competent and agreed to appoint her parents as guardians “for the purpose of consenting to the extraordinary procedures of abortion and sterilization,” the Appeals Court said.
The Appeals Court ruling does not identify the woman, who is believed to be about five months pregnant.
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 Appeals Court said the judge also directed the clinic to sterilize the woman at the same time “to avoid this painful situation from recurring in the future.”
The Appeals Court reversed the order, saying no one had requested it and the judge “appears to have simply produced the requirement out of thin air.” The judges sent the case back to the lower court.
The Boston Globe summarizes the importance of the case:
The case provides a rare window into the wrenching ethical issues involved in treating pregnant women with chronic mental illness and the delicate balance between respecting their autonomy and protecting their best interests and those of an unborn child.
“Simply having a diagnosis of schizophrenia or any other mental illness is not a basis for sterilization in and of itself. It’s just sheer prejudice,” said Elyn Saks, who is a University of Southern California law professor. Saks, who has also been diagnosed with schizophrenia, is also an advocate for the mentally ill, according to the Boston Herald.
Harms, who recently retired, could not be reached for comment Tuesday.
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 678 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 529 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 418 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 373 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 329 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 271 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 280 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 158 Comments- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 147 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 300 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 271 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (103)
Harvey
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 11:43amNo Judge has the Authority to make the decision to abort someones child.This Judge should be impeached and never allowed to pratice law again.Judges and Politicans in our Nation are geting out of line and are makeing decisions they have no authority to make.These people must be stoped.
Report Post »Rowgue
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 12:05pmThe judge didn’t technically decide anything. What she did was appoint the woman’s parents as guardians, because she knew they would.
Report Post »pamela kay
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 12:45pmAmen.
Report Post »andync77
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 12:52pmI’m pretty sure it says the judge ordered her to have an abortion and instructed a clinic to sterilize her.
Report Post »bkline
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 3:43pmThis is not really that surprising. Remember Terry Schivo? When I learned she finally died, I wept not only for her but for our society. I told my friends to continue to watch-this will be a slow but progressive movement in our society. Most of it will not be so public.
Report Post »scarebear83
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 3:44pmUm, the very first sentence of this article states, “A Massachusetts court on Tuesday overturned a ruling by a judge who ordered a mentally ill woman to undergo an abortion against her wishes and be sterilized.” So the judge did in fact order this be done.
Report Post »2theADDLED
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 3:52pmSpay or neuter the judge so ignorance doesn’t reproduce.
Report Post »The Gooch
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 8:34pmThis is “treatment” that was supposed to have been extinguished with the move towards deinstitutionalization. This approach towards the mentally ill and developmentally disabled began in the mid to late 20th Century. It ain’t perfect and is certainly open to debate, but it’s a step forward from places like Willowbrook, forced sterilization and shucking away people because they make the beautiful people uncomfortable. This judge is a throwback, an ignorant dinosaur. I cannot believe such rulings are still allowed to even laughably be considered.
Report Post »Review of Massachusetts law gives a general list of “Dos and Don’ts” with regard to treatment, placement and care of protected persons. It appears from what I could find that abortion is not covered under the legal code. I can gurantee you one thing: Guardianship does not equate to ownership of a human being. This isn’t like having a dog or cat over which you have domain. Regardless of any court order, protected folks still have rights and limits to where the court and guardian can make decisions. I can guaran-damn-tee you, advocates for the mentally ill will jump on this and make damn sure courts and applicants know they cannot legally treat protected persons like chattel.
Hell, before the U.N. completely lost its way and devolved into the joke it is today, it recognized the rights of the mentally ill. Shameful how so many posters readily accept this judge’s actions as both legal and beyond reproach.
COFemale
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 11:31amJust like any Liberal judge – I am God, I make the decisions.
Report Post »beckwasfox
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 2:11pmSo much for a womans right to choose! This just proves that the left is death cult which views human beings as raw material for their warped agenda.
Report Post »boundforglory
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 6:36pmI knew that this was coming and its gonna get worse. Look at it this way, when you have outlived your usefulness, we dont want you to live any longer, or, if you have mental problems, we wont let you pro-create! It is coming, just wait and see, this is just the beginning! There is a 3 year old girl that has downs syndrome I think it is, she needs a kidney and the hospital in Philly I believe wont let her have one since she has downs.
Report Post »Technojunkie
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 11:21amWhat’s sad is that this woman is almost certainly mercury toxic and could be helped by chelation, after her child is born. The child will probably need chelation too. Google Andrew Cutler mercury for how to diagnose heavy metal poisoning and how to chelate correctly. Incorrect chelation can make you very sick. It’s not expensive, which is the problem. No money for big pharma.
Mercury poisoning has a wide range of effects, largely dependent on individual genetics. Everything from autism to schizophrenia. It’s criminal that mercury dental fillings are legal while the feds pretend to protect us from mercury from coal fired power plants.
Report Post »jaylew
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 4:06pmPlease….if you think schizophrenia is strictly a result of mercury poisoning then you are trying to inject your environmentalist agenda into this thread…a thread i might add that has roots and tentacles that go far deeper than coal fired power plants. But since you brought it up….how are the wind mills in your town doing? Keeping that electric bill down for ya? You know there really is something Quixotic about modern environmentalism…I mean with the windmills and all…..you guys and gals actually think something as horrifically awful and real as genuine schizophrenia can be cured by simple chelation therapy? Seriously? If only life on earth was that simple.
Report Post »Brooke Lorren
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 4:56pmMercury poisoning is often more of an anti-vaccine belief than an environmental one. I am not an environmentalist, but I am concerned about mercury poisoning from vaccines. The flu shot still has mercury. Even though they’ve gotten rid of mercury in most of the major vaccines (or they say) there is still aluminum in the new vaccines, and that’s probably just about as bad.
Report Post »crystalinwi
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 11:20ammy mother had bi-polar, and at the time, they also thought schizophrenia, but later were unsure, thought it might just be bi-polar. She had four children. Each time, she could not have her medication, and decided to still have children. After my oldest brother was born, she had a “break-down”. I know after I was born, 13 years later, she was in a mental hospital for 3 months following my birth. Thank you mom for giving us the gift of life (none of us have the disease, thankfully) and thank you dad, for supporting her, and helping her, and providing a home, comfort, and love to her. God rest their souls, they are in heaven now (mom passed at age 59 from heart failure, and dad at 79 in 2010). They have 5 beautiful grandchildren. God bless this woman, because any woman in her RIGHT mind would chose to keep the child, and would forego any meds to ensure her child was healthy – I did have a disabled sister (heart condition) who passed at age 34, but she was mentally stable and as sharp as a tack. This judge who ruled against this woman and her child must not be a mother, because she is acting like a MONSTER!!!! Hope this lady gets to keep her baby, because it will give her something to keep taking her meds and living for.
Report Post »jaylew
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 4:07pmNice uplifting story to the value of life…and the decisions made as we go through life. Thanks.
Report Post »Freedomtomakeupmyownmind
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 11:08amNOONE has the right to choose for another person wheather to have an abortion or not. It should always be left to the woman in question regaurdless of mental/physical condition to choose what is the best for her. The judge was wrong in every action she took.
Report Post »With that being said, the posts I’m reading are obsurd. It is not because the judge was liberal, COME ON be serious for a moument. The judge IMO was going off personal beiefs. Not because she is a Democrat. That mindset is just insanity. I don’t think the majority of this country really care what your political affiation is. Most of the people I work with, family, and freinds don’t even vote. Quit the division of the country. There is so much HATE. It’s not purple or blue, you don’t have to pick sides. All that will do is lead our country down a path I don’t think anyone wants to go.
COFemale
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 11:24amYeah, it has no bearing that the majority of those who approve of abortion just happen to be Liberal Progressives and vote Democrat. Lets call a spade a spade here. Here political affiliation absolutely 100% has bearing on her decision. You see if you are less than perfect in Liberal eyes, you are inferior and need to be eliminated. Why do you think Plan Parenthood love to give teens, blacks, white women abortions? Now they won’t admit this, they will claim in helping these women come to a hard decision, but it is their plan along. It is called planned eugenics; eliminate those who do not fit in their own world.
Report Post »seldomscene
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 11:25amWhen did we stop judging judges. Are we doomed.
Report Post »kansas hawks 3
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 11:29amTo Freedom I agreed with you up to the point that you think that judges don’t care about being liberal, I think your off your nut. and as far as people that you know don‘t vote it is better that you don’t vote with an attitude like that. Do you think we are all going to join hands and sing kumbaya??? Get a life lady
Report Post »trink509
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 12:53pmRuth Bader Ginsburg was up front about it in this 2009 interview: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html?pagewanted=4
“Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. “
Report Post »SgtB
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 1:17pmActually, it is perfectly alright for someone to tell a woman she cannot murder her child. She got to make her choice and take her risk on the future of her life and her relationships when she and a man decided to have sex. Are men aforded the opportunity to kill a child in utero so they won’t have to deal with supporting their family? Heck, are they even allowed to just skip out on paying child support? The answer is no and for good reason. Women should be held to the same standards as men.
That said, there are specific and justifiable medical conditions that require a termination of the pregnancy to save the life of the mother. These ALL take place before the 6 month mark (or whatever age they are able to save the life of the infant based upon an ever increasing medical and scientific ability). After that point, there is NO reason to commit murder of a child that you can save. It is that simple.
Report Post »boundforglory
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 11:13pmAbortion is murder, period!!
Report Post »jakartaman
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 11:06amSomeone should strike the judge
Report Post »SgtB
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 1:18pmI think someone should abort the “judge”.
Report Post »burnett2011
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 10:57amWhoa, I do think that while these with this severe disorder should be on birth control like an IUD because whether we like it or not genetics plays a big part. I have niece that I care for whose mother was schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, and DID (multiple personality disorder), For 4 generations this mothers’ mothers family has been fighting this mental illness and Emma, my 9 yr old niece suffers from this as well. Over the last 11 years I have seen her mother healthy for maybe a year during that entire time scattered with psychotic breaks with reality, dangerous thinking, physical fights and threats… There are times when temporary measures must be taken, is this sorta like when someone is raped?
Report Post »The Gooch
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 10:54amWow. There is no death penalty in Massachusetts. Go figure. And yet this pig reverts to tactics that were discarded decades ago in the U.S. First sign of an ailing country: Observe how the status quo (especially the authoritarians) regard and lord over the elderly and disabled. These folks (a.k.a., the undesirables) are the first to be “humanely” culled from the herd. For the good of us all, of course. Next….
Report Post »Too many courtrooms are deemed little fiefdoms from which thugs in robes can lord over whoever has the misfortune to be dragged before them. This goon should NOT survive this professionallly. We shall see.
Do yourself a favor today. If you can, thank a lawyer for generally fouling up your world and the lives of others. These are the people who believe you only work, play, build and breed by their leave.
I’ll be writing this witch. Her cavalier attemtp at child sacrifice should not pass unchallenged. Won’t you join me? If I find how to contact her, I’ll post it. If someone else gets the info., please post it for us. I’m sending copies to Massachusetts reps also. Don’t let this fiend slink quietly back into her briary domain.
Locked
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 10:58am“This goon should NOT survive this professionallly. We shall see.”
According to the article she is recently retired.
Report Post »Vickie Dhaene
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 11:11amI am right behind you. This cannot be “Tolerated” WE THE PEOPLE MUST STOP THIS FROM EVER COMING TO THIS AGAIN..!!!
Report Post »The Gooch
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 11:18amRetired or not, this troll should not be given a pass. I admit to not catching that detail… cooler heads are not prevailing. Thanks for reigning me in and forcing me to collect myself.
Report Post »DD313
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 10:47amThis unborn child was definitely placed in {Judge} Harm’s way. Thank goodness that sanity prevailed at the appellate level, in Massachusetts, yet!
Report Post »Locked
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 10:43amWow. That judge made a very bad call there. Glad the higher court overturned it so quickly, and also that the judge is now retired and cannot harm someone again.
The kid will likely have a tough time in life with a mother with such issues, but that doesn’t give a judge the right to decide on an abortion and (even worse) sterilization.
Report Post »SpankDaMonkey
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 10:43am.
Report Post »It would probably be OK if the woman was a Republican. But an Obama supporter with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder of child bearing age is a Gold Mine and off limits……..
SREGN
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 10:42amProgressives would rather kill babies than ride in a speedboat.
Report Post »beckwasfox
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 2:42pmFunny, sad and true!
Report Post »sWampy
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 10:41amIt‘s amazing how the liberals have managed through name calling and hate gotten such a simple concept as mentally ill people shouldn’t be having babies all screwed up. Sure you shouldn’t abort a baby of a woman diagnosed with an illness that will prevent her from raising a kid, but once diagnosed, there should be no doubt that the person should be kept on birth control until a time they are capable of raising a child.
Report Post »2theADDLED
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 10:01pmThey even encourage welfare deadbeats to have children who will put more strain on the system.
Report Post »USACommoner
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 10:40amEugenics, plain and simple. For shame…
Report Post »Anonymous T. Irrelevant
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 10:40amJudge Christina (Margaret Sanger) Harms
Report Post »Locked
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 10:45amI did find her last name rather ironic while reading the article.
Report Post »JP4JOY
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 10:36amWarning…Warning…. Warning, Will Robinson
This is the same stuff that the NAZI regime was involved in toward the last years of their reign. (post 1940 or so)
Report Post »Countrygirl1362
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 10:42amYep, history is repeating. This time it will be here in the USA not Germany.
Report Post »Dismayed Veteran
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 11:45amJP
The Nazis started forced sterilization and abortion of the mentally, emotionally and physically handicapped in the mid-1930′s. They then went on to killing these folks instead. Socialists are a peaceful cult just like the muslims.
Report Post »barber2
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 11:51amCOUNTRY: I do see similarities in the propaganda, scapegoating, union bullying, and federal control of the Obama administration and that other jack-booted bunch of thugs.
Report Post »fande3rls
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 7:06pmIT also happened her , Virginia had to pay and give an apology for sterilizing people years ago cost us Millions. This judge should be Impeached for her acts against humanity.
Report Post »momrules
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 10:36amNo one and I mean no one, judge or not, has the right to force a woman to murder her child.
When the truth of Obamacare is finally revealed this type of thing will probably be enforced by federal law.
Report Post »singleparent
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 11:02amAgree 100%.
Report Post »ThePostman
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 10:27amAt some point, being a judge cannot exempt one from the abhorrent abuse of rights that this judge has embarked on. He is worse than Al Queada, worse than a terrorist, worse than any other threat to us, including democrats and congress. This judge has attempted to violate human rights and he or she has used his authority and power to attain this abuse.
This judge must receive the death penalty. The baliff should have unholstered his revolver the moment this judge read the verdict, and ended this judge’s tyranny over mankind.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 10:47am“Family and Probate Court Judge CHRISTINA Harms.”
As you apparently didn’t even realize the judge in question was a woman, not a man, I don’t think the rest of your rant is very valid. That said, she should be investigated to see if she made similar rulings that went unreported in the past.
Report Post »Smittyflakes
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 10:26amI guess the good judge thinks she is God. Then again she could just be a Theodore Roosevelt Republican like Newt.
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 10:33amWhat kind of Republican is Romney?
Report Post »SquidVetOhio
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 12:47pmYea, because Newt who wants to impeach these idiot judges, is pro-choice. Idiot Beck kool-aid drinker.
Report Post »Smittyflakes
Posted on January 19, 2012 at 9:43amWow! I know someone who is going to cry when Big Government Newt drops out of the race. Squid is busy trolling for Newt and gets butt hurt when his candidate is challenged. Really cood reply, idiot Newt kool aid drinker.
Report Post »Master_and_Commander
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 10:25amwow, so much for all the liberal talk of a ”Woman’s right to choose”. I guess the left only applies that rule when someone wants to get an abortion willingly…. sick hypocrites.
Report Post »thekuligs
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 10:23amThis can not be my country! This is a clear case of a judge legislating from the bench! Someone throw this this idiot to the curb!
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 10:23amYou know, women‘s rights groups are all about a woman’s right to control her body. They should be all over this. I bet we won’t hear a peep from them.
Report Post »commie_LOVER
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 10:22amGoogle “Genetic Health Courts”. Thank you Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood), National Socialists and other eugenicists!
Report Post »I.Gaspar
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 10:22amSoon, the progressive judges may well order all Conservatives to abort their children…who could grow up under conservative parents and constitute a threat to the welfare of “the people”…
Report Post »It could happen, given the rapid descent into government control we are now receiving under our marxist leader.
Gotta vote them ALL out of office.
Gonzo
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 10:16amWhy does Judge Christina Harms think she has the authority to condemn an innocent child to death? Give Obamacare ten years and this will be common medical practice, there won’t even be a judge.
Report Post »Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 10:23amGonzo we are seeing here the true evil of progressive justices; they think they have the moral authority to decide what is right in regard to human life. We are again seeing the evils of the past become more and more in the open. Soon enough under Obama the control of the population will not just be by the courts, it will be by the end of a gun.
Report Post »BIGJAYINPA
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 10:26amThis “person” is the Poster Girl for “Out of Control Judges” weekly. Who does she think she is? On what basis has seh annoited herself the “Supreme Authority” on this or any issue. This goes way beyond ANY sort of rational thinking. This “Judge” has a meglomaniacal view of her authority. She needs to be removed from the bench on the basis of mental illness and hospitalized in an appropriate institution……..Just sayin’
Report Post »The Gooch
Posted on January 18, 2012 at 8:44pmAn arrogant bully in a robe and holding a gavel is, in the end, still just a bully. The legal profession believes it owns you. Funny how law can be codified… and then ignored and manipulated as these wizards please.
Report Post »