Judge Orders Addict to Stop Having Kids

[seriousstan]

ROCHESTER, N.Y. (AP) - A Family Court judge who last year stirred debate about parental responsibilities ordered a second drug-addicted woman to have no more children until she proves she can look after the seven she already has.

The 31-year-old mother, identified in court papers only as Judgette W., lost custody of her children, ranging in age from eight months to 12 years, in child-neglect hearings dating back to 2000. Six are in foster care at state expense and one lives with an aunt.

The youngest child and two others tested positive for cocaine at birth and all seven "were removed from her care and custody because she could not and did not take care of them," Judge Marilyn O'Connor said in a Dec. 22 decision made public Tuesday.

"Because every child born deserves a mother and a father, or at the very least a mother or a father, this court is once again taking this unusual step of ordering this biological mother to conceive no more children until she reclaims her children from foster care or other caretakers," O'Connor wrote.


http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050105/D87DMCL80.html

[lib_1138]

1. Facists!!!! n/t

[seriousstan]

2. How do you feel about this?

Wisconsin and Ohio have upheld similar rulings involving "deadbeat dads" who failed to pay child support.

[American Renaissance]

4. why is it facist?

What nobel purpose is served by bringing children into the world only to be neglected and live in poverty?

[seriousstan]

5. The question is ...what is facist?

[AP]

22. The state shouldn't tell people when they can or can't have children....

...and society should give every child a chance at a decent life no matter how poor their parents are.

If this woman doesn't want to have children, then the state's cost-benefit analysis here might lead taxpayers to the conclusion that maybe they should pay for her to sterilize herself. But if she wants to have kids, who is the state to tell her that she can't?

I mean, isn't this why liberals are for abortion rights? Don't we believe that it's the woman's choice about when to have kids?

[AliciaKeyedUp]

29. Then arrest for child abuse

You might not be able to stop her getting pregnant, but what she is doing is child abuse.

[AP]

30. What is child abuse? Having the child?

The crime is that a single women can't afford to have a child if she wants to have one.

Government should make sure that life isn't so crappy that people who want to have children can't afford to keep them and raise them (and that life isn't so miserable that they have to resort to drug use to deal with life).

Our society creates a ton of wealth. There's enough to ensure that a single women could raise seven kids without haveing to resort to foster homes if she really wanted too. Of course, if she had career opportunities, perhaps she wouldn't want seven kids. But if a working woman wanted to spend her entire life raising kids, it would probably be good for society if she could afford to do that.

[NorthernSpy]

34. you're coming very close to slandering poor women

Most mothers and fathers who are poor love their children as much as any parent does and they try to protect and support them as well as they can -- which is why smug middle-class assumptions about what constitutes "neglect" are so infuriating to me.

Having seven kids and simply abandoning them, one after the other, to whoever will take 'em isn't acceptable behavior anywhere. This isn't about being poor.

[tx_dem41]

36. Since the original post was about a drug-addicted woman...

aren't you coming close to saying the poor women are more likely to be drug-addicted?

I guess what I am trying to say is that the issue is NOT with poor women...its with drug-addicted women (and parents really).

[Ms_Mary]

44. Exactly.

[NorthernSpy]

53. and given the arguments made in the specific post I was replying to...

...well, no, I'm not "coming close to saying the poor women are more likely to be drug-addicted".

Since you mention it, I have no idea whether poor women are more likely to be drug-addicted than women of other classes.

I guess what I am trying to say is that the issue is NOT with poor women...its with drug-addicted women (and parents really).

Well, I'd agree with you to a point. The parental neglect that I'm concerned with has little to do with poverty, and everything to do with abandonment and refusal of rights. It isn't a question of whether people can "afford" children.

Where I have to take issue (a bit) is with the tendency to consider drug addiction the basic problem in a case such as this. I suspect that drug addiction is a socially-expected excuse for terrible behavior more often than it is the actual "root cause" of said terrible behavior.

[mamalone]

106. I don't think the woman's economic status was referred to,

Was it? Do we know for a fact that she is poor? Or are we making that inference based on the fact that she has 7 children? or that she is a drug addict? or maybe that her name is "Judgette"? The woman lost her kids because they were being born with a positive toxicology for drugs and because she was was neglecting them. I don't know how I feel about the judge ordering her not to have children..I'll have to think that through some more... But turning this into some kind of a class thing is a bit disingenuous.

[NorthernSpy]

123. um...

But turning this into some kind of a class thing is a bit disingenuous.

Unless I'm misinterpreting your remarks, I assuming that you meant to say this to one of the other posters. I've consistently said that the real neglect issue in this case doesn't follow from the woman's (presumed) poverty.

:shrug:

[SuperDem1776]

107. and given the arguments made in the specific post I was replying to...

...well, no, I'm not "coming close to saying the poor women are more likely to be drug-addicted".

Since you mention it, I have no idea whether poor women are more likely to be drug-addicted than women of other classes.

I guess what I am trying to say is that the issue is NOT with poor women...its with drug-addicted women (and parents really).

Well, I'd agree with you to a point. The parental neglect that I'm concerned with has little to do with poverty, and everything to do with abandonment and refusal of rights. It isn't a question of whether people can "afford" children.

Where I have to take issue (a bit) is with the tendency to consider drug addiction the basic problem in a case such as this. I suspect that drug addiction is a socially-expected excuse for terrible behavior more often than it is the actual "root cause" of said terrible behavior.

[AP]

51. The condition for having more children is that she gets her kids back

from foster care.

If she were rich, she could have her substance abuse problems, not have to put her babies in foster care, and have more babies, and the state wouldn't care.

[NorthernSpy]

59. I think the judge's order is likely unConstitutional

The condition for having more children is that she gets her kids back from foster care.

If she were rich, she could have her substance abuse problems, not have to put her babies in foster care, and have more babies, and the state wouldn't care.

I haven't defended the judge's order, and won't.

My point is that this woman evidently has violated her children's rights in ways that have nothing to do with poverty, and that an ordinary sanction such as imprisonment would not be an inappropriate response to that.

If this woman were rich, she might well be able to get away with behavior even more atrocious than what's reported in the article. That sucks, to be sure, but it's really no reason not to impose a legitimate penalty on her for what she's doing to her kids.

[AP]

60. The whole issue here is, What is a "legitimate" penalty?

Criminalizing reproduction is not a legitimate penalty.

I think a legitimate "penalty" would be drug treatment and job training and help for the kids she has.

[NorthernSpy]

65. again, I'm not talking about "criminalizing reproduction"

Criminalizing reproduction is not a legitimate penalty.

We agree that criminalizing reproduction is not legitimate, and the Constitution agrees with us.

But punishing a person for violating his/her child's right to upbringing and nurturing isn't "criminalizing reproduction". We can't directly stop a person from exercising the right to reproduce (although some sanctions, such as imprisonment, will have the effect of temporarily denying a person the opportunity to reproduce), but we can hold people to the responsibilities they create for themselves when they exercise their right to have a child.

I think a legitimate "penalty" would be drug treatment and job training and help for the kids she has.

For willfully depriving her own children of their mother, again and again and again?

Look -- it really has to be up to a court of law to review all of the particulars of the case and make a judgement based on what they find. But I would caution against assuming that this kind of behavior is merely the result of ineptitude and a drug habit. Some people honestly don't give a shit about other people's rights -- even the rights of their own kids -- and all the life-skills training in the world won't change that.

[AP]

80. The right to control your own reproduction will always trump...

...the child's right to any kind of upbringing, I believe.

Why? I'm not sure. Maybe one good reason is because if you tell a person they can't have a kid when they want to have a kid, you might be preventing them from doing something that they might never be able to undo -- you can't make the kid you denied a person ten years down the road. Whereas, it's a democratic principle that people once they're alive and a citizen of America can undo any damage done by not having good parents. You can emancipate yourself. You can go to a good public school. Society is supposed to give the level playing field which erases all disadvantages and which looks after you so that all your talents and genius and capacity to work and contribute to society can be realized.

I think that without a doubt Government should be in the business of making life good for people who are here, rather than be in the business of telling people who can and cannot reproduce because of the bad society we have.

[NorthernSpy]

90. wha...?

The right to control your own reproduction will always trump the child's right to any kind of upbringing, I believe.

But these two things aren't mutually exclusive. A person's right to control his or her reproduction is one thing. Whether s/he also has a right to duck the consequent responsibilities is another matter.

Maybe one good reason is because if you tell a person they can't have a kid when they want to have a kid, you might be preventing them from doing something that they might never be able to undo -- you can't make the kid you denied a person ten years down the road. Whereas, it's a democratic principle that people once they're alive and a citizen of America can undo any damage done by not having good parents. You can emancipate yourself. You can go to a good public school. Society is supposed to give the level playing field which erases all disadvantages and which looks after you so that all your talents and genius and capacity to work and contribute to society can be realized.

But is that realistic? We're a social species, and a complexly social one at that. Our parents are our first socializers, and no society has ever really come up with any institution or program or anything else that comes close to taking their place. When kids are abandoned by their parents, the reality -- I think -- is more likely that they pay for that neglect for the rest of their lives.

I also think that we fail children when we refuse to recognize their rightful claim upon the support and protection of their parents. As it is now, parents get to exercise a kind of private tyranny -- bringing dependent, defenseless human beings into the world as they see fit, and then accepting them or turning their backs on them as they prefer. Why does the parent's right to abandon his kid necessarily outweigh the kid's right not to be abandoned?

It's true that in a state of nature, the parent could simply walk away without a backward glance, and leave the unwanted kid to the night and the wolves. But in a state of nature, the parent's right to control her reproduction wouldn't actually exist, either: any stronger person could treat her as he pleased with impunity. Why are we so much closer to being in a state of nature as far as the child's claims upon the parent are concerned, but in a state of laws and inalienable rights when it comes to the parent's reproductive freedom?

[AP]

92. The constitutions establishes a hierarchy of rights

and the right to reproduce ranks pretty high. A child's rigth to a certain kind of parent ranks much lower, and parents have to be pretty bad before the state steps in and limits the rights of a bad parrent.

I'm surprised that the knee-jerk respons among self-identifying liberals on this board is to say that this woman doesn't have the same right to reproduce based on the slightest evidence. People are so willing to presume the absolute worst and want to limit a very important right before they want to think about what society could do to help this woman be a better parent to the children she wants to have and before they want to talk about helping this woman make good choices.

[Tansy_Gold]

102. I agree with you, AP

Point #1: No child has a constitutional right to a certain kind of upbringing. I know children who grew up emotionally abused and neglected in very wealthy families, and children who grew up loved and happy in poor families.

There are even cases where children are left and/or put into abusive situations and have no "constitutional" right to get out of them.

Point #2: getting pregnant and bearing a child should NEVER be a crime; neither should not getting pregnant.

What happens if this woman does in fact get pregnant again? What will be her punishment? Will she be held "in contempt of court" and sent to jail? What about her child? Will it be automatically taken away from her? Or will she be forced to abort? Will she then be forcibly sterilized so she can't ever breed again? Hmmmmm, sounds like eugenics to me. Sounds like fascism to me.

Point #3: I don't consider it "bigoted" to speculate that this woman is poor. If she were not poor, she would have sufficient support systems to enable her to get drug treatment and take care of her kids. The wealthy who have drug problems do not lose their kids, and they often have lots of them. (I recall seeing ex-NFLer Ricky Williams on 60 Minutes a few weeks ago: he has 3 children by 3 different women and he has a "problem" with marijuana.) The wealthy also are less likely to even run afoul of the law for drug use.

Failure to recognize and understand the reality of the difference in socio-economic status is, IMHO, far worse than recognizing that the poor get treated differently when it comes to drugs -- legal ones and illegal.

Point #4: Where is the religious rightwing on this case? Are they out there demonstrating for the rights of the unconceived? What if this woman actually tries not to get pregnant and is raped? Will she be given EC? Oh, I forgot. The religious right only demands protection for middle-class white fetuses, not the spawn of heathen drug users. (And if Judgette turns out to be a woman of color. . . . . the anti-abortion crew will be nowhere around.)

Point #5: This is all about economics first, and controlling women's sexuality second. It's not about the kind of upbringing the children have; heaven knows there are enough kids living in abject poverty in this country and the courts aren't up in arms about it. If Judgette's kids weren't in the foster care system and being raised on the public's dime, this would never have come into the courts. She's poor, and therefore she has to be controlled. But will she be given the means to control her fertility? Birth control pills? Free sterilization? Or will she simply be told "You can't have sexual intercourse any more."


There were many feminists who struggled with the no-breeding court orders to deadbeat dads. Yes, fathers should bear responsibility for contributing to the raising of their offspring. But the father has no income, does that mean he shouldn't be allowed to procreate? If he's married and breeds 20 kids on his wife and they can't afford it, who's going to stop him? And if we put limits on poor men, when will we start putting limits on poor women?

Most women -- not all, but most -- will gladly limit the size of their families. They know it is healthier for them and for their children and for their society. But few women want anyone else to do the limiting for them.

Tansy Gold

[AP]

109. That is a helluva post.

Excellent.

[Tansy_Gold]

112. Thank you, AP

A few weeks ago, there was a brief editorial in my local paper on a similar subject. One of the paper's staffers wrote a little "2 cents" brief on some parents who did a dumb thing, and then she asked when was 'civilization' going to demand that potential parents be tested for stupidity.

My reply was to ask some of the same questions I posed in my post above. Who devises such a test? Who administers it? What happens if you fail the test but get pregnant anyway? Do you get to retake it if you fail? What happens if the mother passes and the father doesn't? Or vice versa?

I guess it's really easy to see situations like this and think there must be a quick and reasonable solution -- don't let the slackers breed -- but that's the reason why we have a complex legal system: to keep knee-jerk responses from becoming the only response.

We've seen it in the three-strikes rules: You steal a pack of cigarettes or a CD, and you're in jail for the rest of your life, and the public has to pay for it! Well, sure, the whole thing was intended to get career criminals off the street, but instead it's overloaded the jails and overburdened the taxpayers.

We've seen it with the property tax "relief" bills: California used to have the best public school system in the country, and now it's got one of the worst, because some old fart (Howard Jarvis, may he rot in hell) didn't want to keep paying property taxes to put kids in good schools. So he got the property taxes frozen, but no one came up with a new way to fund education. Bingo! simple solution becomes major fuck up.

Whether you call it unexpected consequences or blowback, if you don't look at the situation with all its possible ramifications, you're just asking for trouble, IMHO.

Again, thanks, AP.


Tansy Gold, just mouthin' off again

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

139. Your argument sounds like academia/legal pontification.......

.....and it isn't addressing the reality of these kids lives and the fact that their mother has no responsibility for herself or those of the seven she's brought into the world.

I'm shocked that people are essentially willing to let social Darwinism play out with the lives of these abused children and those yet to be abused by being born to this woman for the sake of letter of the law idealism.

[Hillaryin08]

142. Depending on your point of view

from the side of a child raised in abject poverty and drug addicted and neglectful parents...I am grateful for the ability to have a life of my own choosing, yet I have siblings who wished they were never born. So preventing pregnancy is IMO a mute point to a child in this situation. The judge should of put this woman into a forced rehab and work training program or if she refuses- permanently remove her custody. and place the kids up for adoption.

From a mother's point of view. Well, screw her unless she's truly trying to better herself and get sober. If she is then as a taxpayer I would prefer to pay for her rehab and training if it keeps her seven kids from being dumped into an overstretched foster system. A mother is only a mother when she does everything constantly to protect and provide for her family.

[AP]

144. "legal pontificating"? I could understand criticizing the government...

...for "religious pontification" or "moralistic pontification" when the situation should limits the government to merely dealing with the law.

However, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE ROLE THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD HAVE IN TELLING PEOPLE WHEN THEY CAN AND CANNOT REPRODUCE. Therefore, the answer to this question should sound like "legal pontification" -- or the very least, it should sound "legal."

If you want to moralize about this woman, go right ahead. However, this judge should not be moralizing about this woman's right to reproduce. That's not the proper function of the law.

[NorthernSpy]

120. please, tell me more about this hierarchy of rights!

The constitutions establishes a hierarchy of rights and the right to reproduce ranks pretty high. A child's rigth to a certain kind of parent ranks much lower, and parents have to be pretty bad before the state steps in and limits the rights of a bad parrent.

Alrighty, then...

By all means, please reproduce for me this Constitutional "hierarchy of rights" that you allude to. I need to know exactly what you mean by this.

I'm surprised that the knee-jerk respons among self-identifying liberals on this board is to say that this woman doesn't have the same right to reproduce based on the slightest evidence. People are so willing to presume the absolute worst and want to limit a very important right before they want to think about what society could do to help this woman be a better parent to the children she wants to have and before they want to talk about helping this woman make good choices.

There are people here who do seem inclined to argue in favor of limiting the right to reproduce. But you must have noticed by now that that's not the angle I'm coming from. I haven't been advocating the abrogation of a right; I've been advocating holding parents to the responsibility that comes with the right to procreate: that is, the duty to take care of ones children as well as ones material circumstances allow.

I advocate the right of the child to the parent's support and protection. This right is the reason why a woman cannot make a legal contract that excuses her child's father from the duty to help support his offspring: the right to parental support belongs to the child, and cannot simply be disposed of as one parent sees fit.

[AP]

132. Levels of Scrutiny Under the Equal Protection Clause

Levels of Scrutiny Under the Three-Tiered Approach to Equal Protection Analysis
1. STRICT SCRUTINY (The government must show that the challenged classification serves a compelling state interest and that the classification is necessary to serve that interest.):
A. Suspect Classifications:
1. Race
2. National Origin
3. Religion (either under EP or Establishment Clause analysis)
4. Alienage (unless the classification falls within a recognized "political community" exception, in which case only rational basis scrutiny will be applied).
B. Classifications Burdening Fundamental Rights
1. Denial or Dilution of the Vote
2. Interstate Migration
3. Access to the Courts
4. Other Rights Recognized as Fundamental
2.  MIDDLE-TIER SCRUTINY (The government must show that the challenged classification serves an important state interest and that the classification is at least substantially related to serving that interest.):
Quasi-Suspect Classifications:
1. Gender
2. Illegitimacy
3.  MINIMUM (OR RATIONAL BASIS) SCRUTINY (The govenment need only show that the challenged classification is rationally related to serving a legitimate state interest.)
Minimum scrutiny applies to all classifications other than those listed above, although some Supreme Court cases suggest a slightly closer scrutiny ("a second-order rational basis test") involving some weighing of the state's interest may be applied in cases, for example, involving classifications that disadvantage mentally retarded people, homosexuals, or innocent children of illegal aliens.  (See "Should the Rational Basis Test Have Bite?")

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/epcscrutiny.htm

[Tacos al Carbon]

126. "the right to reproduce ranks pretty high"

I'm sorry, but I've looked through it and I'm lost. Could you please tell me where in the Constitution the right to reproduce is referenced or discussed?

[AP]

133. Here you go:

The Court also applies strict scrutiny to classifications burdening certain fundamental rights. Skinner v Oklahoma considers an Oklahoma law requiring the sterilization of persons convicted of three or more felonies involving moral turpitude ("three strikes and your snipped"). In Justice Douglas's opinion invalidating the law we see the origins of the higher-tier analysis that the Court applies to rights of a "fundamental nature" such as marriage and procreation. Skinner thus casts doubt on the continuing validity of the oft-quoted dictum of Justice Holmes in a 1927 case (Buck v Bell) considering the forced sterilization of certain mental incompetents: "Three generations of imbeciles is enough."

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/epcscrutiny.htm

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

140. Ah, but that is not a rock solid lock against sterilization

It dismisses the idea of simply sterilizing criminals to prevent future generations, but leaves open room for scrutiny in certain situations. Some judge saying a guy who likes to rob stores or steal cars should be sterilized is out of left field. A judge advocating that a woman who cannot care for her already seven children to not have anymore is another ball of wax.

[AP]

145. Yeah, let's see if this judgment is not going to satisfy strict scrutiny.

I doubt it will be.

Look, we're talking about some of the most important rights people have as citizens. I certainly hope that the Supreme Court doesn't let the government criminalize reproduction.

And although this isn't a steralization case, I highly doubt there's any situation involving steralization that would satisfy strict scrutiny.

[barb162]

37. I think it might be. If I know I can't afford a child and I have one

anyway, I think I am abusing the child by giving birth to the child. What else is striking about the story is the number seven. If a person can't afford one, why have four, five or seven. SEVEN? Why expect society to support irresponsible choices by individuals?

[AP]

52. Society is ALWAYS expected to give every child an equal opportunity...

...regardless of whether their parents are rich or poor and regardless of whether they're only children or one of eight. So rid yourself of the "why should society pay" argument.

The other side of this is whether the government should interfere with the essential right of an individual to have children, and I say no.

[barb162]

61. Your first paragraph is incorrect. If it were, we would be spending

the same amount across the country per child for education. It is a fantasy to write every child has = opportunity. If you want a good education for a child you have to move into a so-called good school district. Realistically, society should not pay for this irresponsibility. What if she decides to have 7 more? And what if everyone decided to be equally irresponsible.

[AP]

64. This judge's opinion is an excuse not to provide a social safety net...

...public education, etc. It's saying that the gov't can tell people likely to produce people who would rely on the government not to have children. I'm not down with that.

I believe it is society's obligation to provide every child with an equal opportunity because that creates the greatest social wealth. It untaps the genious and the capacity to work and contribute to society that's in everyone, including the children of crack addicts. And by untapping that capacity, society will have the wealth to provide those services to other people.

The thing that you assume is my false premise is the thing to which I think society should committ itself and I feel this judge's opinion is cop-out so that society doesn't have to provide these things not only to this woman but to all poor children.

[barb162]

69. I agree with your second

paragraph although it is just not the way things work in the real world. I think also that when you talk about obligation of society that is made up of individual obligation. This mother and the fathers seems not to have any sense at all of individual obligation.
I think the judge's opinion is realistic (not a cop out) in light of the circumstances that our society now doesn't want to be supporting this kind of behavior. I would like to see what a therapist says about this person and the fathers. She needs treatment and other kinds of help certainly. But depending on her and the fathers' underlying mental condition(s)....

[Ms_Mary]

43. Having cocaine addicted babies is abusive

The government needs to stay out of my uterus, BUT, that said we need better support. Family and reproductive counseling, maybe? Isn't there a program to provide free birth control to willing participants? She's popping out babies, doing drugs, and losing custody REPEATEDLY. The cycle needs to be broken.

[AP]

54. I agree with what you say: drug treatment and VOLUNTARY free birth control

Yes.

Eugenics: no.

Criminalizing reproduction is something Monsanto does.

[420inTN]

105. The question isn't whether she can have one, but eight. n/t

[msgadget]

143. She's responsible for her addiction!

This isn't about a poor, struggling, working woman but an addict who doesn't bother with birth control.

[Ed C. Finley]

108. Well the state tells you lots of things

Who to rent/sell to , minimum wage, drug laws, environmental laws. Try to avoid/break any of millions of laws or regs and see what "rights" the govt has.

If this "lady" wants to pump out kids let her do it on her own dime.

[Wilms]

99. I hope the order applies to "Christian Cult" addicts.

And consumption addicts, as well.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[arissa]

3. Sorry, but I think it's reasonable

I don't know if it's legal, but I can understand why the judge did this.

[WildClarySage]

6. The part that bothers me is:

"Because every child born deserves a mother and a father, or at the very least a mother or a father, this court is once again taking this unusual step of ordering this biological mother to conceive no more children until she reclaims her children from foster care or other caretakers," O'Connor wrote.

The implication being that the needs of the potentially born have precidence over the rights of women.

[seriousstan]

9. She has the right to go to jail for child abuse.

This is simply a condition of her probation. Commit the crime again, giving birth to cracked out babies and neglecting them, and the full original sentence is applied.

[PurityOfEssence]

13. The needs of the children take precedence

We are fragile and unable to survive on our own for years after birth. To spew out children with no responsibility to them is a moral crime.

Sending children out into the world with no means of support--especially if born with the affliction of prenatal drug exposure--is beyond mere recklessness, it's a form of assault. At what point do we stop demanding personal freedom to be an unassailable barrier to responsibility? One answer to that would be when it imperils the truly weak and defenseless.

This Judge did precisely the right thing, and if it wasn't done with the proper wording, it was pretty close: "...at the very least a mother or a father" is a fair way of putting it.

Got kids? I'll bet if you do you'll side with me on this. They're sweet darling little things, but utterly helpless. Fuck. I've lived in Rochester; it's a mighty unforgiving climate.

[WildClarySage]

17. I'm not saying I disagree with you-

I do have a wonderful child, the best kiddo in the world really, and yeah, he's still a handful and a responsibility and a darling rolled into one. But egislating reproduction is a slippery slope thing and I'm not sure I can endorse it for any reason. Yes, my heart aches for the children who are abandoned/abused (it's why I went into social services in the first place). Yes, I realize it's a tragic situation for those children and for any future children she might conceive. But with all the assaults of late on women's rights to choose, I'm concerned about anything that intervenes with that right. And I really don't know how I feel about this. These decrees, laws, etc. build complacency that translates into the erosion of rights to determine one's reproductive choices. That's what I object to, not, necessarily, to the judge's decision in this case.

I'm curious, what happens to her if she is able to kick the drug habit, but not to regain custody of the children already born? Regaining custody can be a bitch in some communities, easy as pie in others. Does her right to bear drug- and abuse- free children remain restricted if she is able to clean and sober up but is not able to regain custody of the others?

[PurityOfEssence]

19. It's a slippery slope either way, isn't it?

If action isn't taken in incredibly extreme situations like this, it opens the door for even more intrusion. I'd agree with you that the issue should be her cleaning up and attempting to take care of her children, rather than her successfully regaining custody. The issue is her ability and willingness to be a parent and her chemical ability to bear children.

To slam the door on any intrusion by the government into this issue may have its merits, but it neither seems fair nor sustainable.

[theHandpuppet]

20. I don't have kids and I still agree with you

One of my neighbor's sisters had seven or eight before the ravages of crack took their final toll on her young body. Not that the kids were living with her -- as she abandoned each of them, sometimes soon after birth and others at the hospital, relatives took in as many as they could (all except one, which she abandoned and was never found). The lifelong emotional, mental and physical damage she inflicted on these crack-born babies -- which I have seen firsthand -- SHOULD have been a crime because it was child abuse in every sense of the word.

I would not expect a person who exhibited habitually abusive behavior towards an animal to be allowed to adopt or keep pets "just because" it is their right to do so. Why anyone would think it's okay for an abusive, drug-addicted parent to keep popping out kids is something I truly don't understand.

Yes, I understand that this woman needed treatment, but she rebuffed every effort made on her behalf. At some point enough is enough.

[AP]

25. If this is a moral crime...

...it's one that I think this woman has settle up on her own books.

The government telling poor people they can't have babies gets a little too close to eugenics for me, and it also encourages governments to shirk their responsibilities to provide social safety nets, drug treatment programs, public schools and an economy that creates jobs and opportunity.

[LosinIt]

27. It's not that she's poor, she's a CRACK addict

which is a great legacy to pass on to your children. She is giving these children a horrible start on life and then dumping them. No doubt she is also cross-addicted to alcohol, which is also devastating to the baby. Don't get me wrong, I am entirely pro-choice, but I am also pro-use your brain. This woman is nuts.

[AP]

28. Alcoholism is a crappy legacy, as is marijuana addiction. But I don't...

...think Americans should be making reproductive decisions for women on a government level based on those things.

If she wants to sterilize herself, I have no problem with that (and I don't have a problem paying for it with taxpayer money, due to the cost-benefit factor). But if she wants to have babies, I'm not comfortable telling her that she can't.

It should be every American's right to reproduce (or not to) as they chose. And we have a social obligation to make sure that when people exercise their essential rights that society is ready to go to work to help them make the most of their lives, whether it's with a good social safety net (including drug rehab programs), good jobs, or good public schools.

[KittyWampus]

45. If An Alcholic Woman Gives Birth To 7 Children & Abandons Them

and also subjects them to alchohol in the womb... thereby causing birth defects etc... she is obviously both a threat to herself, her children and society.

[AP]

55. None of those things happened here. And criminalizing reproduction

doesn't solve those problems, and eugenics is incredibly immoral.

So come up with better solutions.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

141. "None of those things happened here"?

She didn't use a substance that was in the child's system at birth? She didn't essentially abandon them to be taken care of by the state? Do you know somthing about this case that the rest of us don't?

And yes, Eugenics is immoral. But having children without regard and not taking care of them is even more so.

[Redstone]

82. Cryingshame, I agree

Not only is she a threat to the kids' health, there's also the fact that the State (in my opinion) should indeed get to tell her what to do because it's the State who is paying to support these kids.

If she doesn't like it, she can support her damn kids herself. Or clean up. And get a job. But I do not believe she has any kind of "right" to impose a financial burden on the rest of the state's taxpayers by her irresponsiblilty.

I am all for helping those less fortunate than I am (and I put my money and time where my mouth is), but this woman does not deserve any help from anyone because she refuses to even TRY to help herself.

Sorry about that.

Redstone

[AP]

94. The state SHOULD pay WITHOUT QUESTION to give

all children a level playing field regardless of what put that child into a bad situation -- regardless of whether the mother was crack ho or whether the parents committed suicide after having their jobs outsourced to India.

The government shouldn't ask where these kids came from, and they shouldn't try to eliminate the children of crack whores to reduce the ranks of the poor.

People make their choice to have kids and society shouldn't interfere with that choice. And once the kids here, each one has a potential for genius and to work hard and to contribute to society and it's in society's best interest to find those diamonds in the rough and help them shine because that creates more wealth and happiness for everyone.

[Redstone]

96. AP, you misinterpreted me

I didn't say the state should not continue to support the kids.

Whatever the mother's sins are, the kids' circumstances are not their fault. And the state should, absolutely provide them with the same benefits as it would, say kids who were orphaned because their parents died in a car wreck.

What I said was that the state should be able to force the mother to not add more kids to the state's burden.

She's being unutterably selfish. What does she think gives her the right to add to the state's burden, thereby perhaps using money that someone else's kids need?

I believe in the concept of community, and I have no problem seeing my tax money used to help people who need help (even if my taxes had to be raised for that purpose). But it's just as wrong for a worthless junkie to work the system for her own personal convenience as it is for the corporate greedpigs and crooked politicians to work the system for their own personal gain.

Redstone

[AP]

97. Couldn't disagree more:

"What I said was that the state should be able to force the mother to not add more kids to the state's burden."

The state should not be able to control who gets born and who doesn't. Parents should make those decisions and the state should deal with the consequences.

Just like the state has no business executing people, it has not business telling people they can't give life.

It is totally the domain of parents to make these choices. It's the same reason I believe in abortion rights.

[tx_dem41]

98. Well, the statement that you quote could mean the following...

the mother could have additional kids, but they aren't going to add to the state's burden. In other words, benefits (on a per/child basis) do not increase after a certain number.

Sorry for butting in.

[AP]

100. Rather than tell a parent to stop having children, wouldn't it be much

less intrusive to just tell her the gov't will stop supporting her children? That would still give her the option of exercising her fundamental rights.

But why punish the child at all?

Why don't people here want to help people rather than tell people what they can't do?

[tx_dem41]

101. As I said....

I was just butting in trying to help out (and not be annoying). I was providing one other way to interpret the statement. You two continue to discuss though. :-)

[tblue37]

128. Am I the only one troubled by this sentence?

AP wrote: "Parents should make those decisions and the state should deal with the consequences."

[AP]

131. You want the state to make reproductive choices?

Doesn't anyone find THAT troubling?

[Redstone]

135. You're not the only one troubled

by that statement. But I'm not responding to it. Not to sound insulting, but I think it's fruitless to argue with anyone who believes that parents should take NO responsibility for their actions, and the rest of their community (the state) should take ALL responsibility.

I'm a very community-minded and charitable guy (I work four days a week for myself, and one day a week for various nonprofits (pro bono)), but the "parents can do anything they want and it's the state's duty to clean up after them" idea is stretching the concept of community way too far.

Just in my opinion, though. Others may think otherwise.

Redstone

[AP]

136. Why don't you try to argue with things I've actually said rather than...

...things you're pretending I've said.

I never said parents shouldn't have responsiblity for their children.

I've said that parents and not the state should have control over the decision to reproduce...and liberal justices of the Supreme Court agree with me.

[barb162]

70. when these kids get into school they are basically uneducable

according to some teachers I know who have a lot of direct experience with them. They tend to have an attention span of about 2 seconds per these teachers. It is a real tragedy

[phylny]

129. I went to a seminar on babies born to alcohol and drug addicted

mothers. Being born after exposure to crack in the womb was about as bad as it gets for babies. Interestingly, being born to an alcoholic who was drinking during pregnancy was also devastating to the developing fetus/resulting baby - and being born addicted to heroin did damage, but less than you'd think.

I worked with some of these kids in school (I'm a speech-language pathologist) and to say that they're affected is putting it quite mildly. The resulting mental retardation, ADHD and fetal alcohol syndrome is no picnic for these children, and they never have a chance to develop fully.

In my view, what should happen to parents who abuse their kids this way (and it is abuse, in my view) is jail and a rehab program. I don't know that I'm comfortable with telling someone that they can't have children...but I work with some families where I think it wouldn't be such a bad idea - NOT from a "society shouldn't have to pay for these children" but from the perspective of the kids born under these circumstances who have to suffer the consequences.

[KittyWampus]

42. This Isn't About Poor People. That You Keep Repeating This Shows A

flaw in your argument.

[AP]

56. That you don't see that poverty is the core element in this issue...

shows the flaw in yours.

You can be addicted to whatever drug you choose, but so long as you can keep your kids out of foster care, you can keep having more without being criminalized.

[KittyWampus]

72. Addiction & Irresponsible Sexual Behavior Do NOT= Poverty

and just because those with more money can 'get away' with reprehensible and destructive behavior doesn't mean it's right or should be sanctioned by society.

[AP]

79. Judge said getting her kids out of foster care determines

whether having more kids becomes a criminal act for her.

That's not something that people who aren't poor would have to worry about.

[barb162]

46. You said this well., I believe she obviously doesn't care about

the kids because if she did, she would not have kept having ones she couldn't support. I wonder about the dads in the picture too.

[AP]

23. I think the problem is that the state is backing off from it's obligation

to provide a decent safety net and good public schools by saying if kids have two parents, everything is cool.

[TheFarseer]

7. Does anyone really think that she should have more kids?

I wonder how the judge thinks a court order will be effective in this case.

Taking away people's reproductive rights is a slippery slope I'm afraid, but what can you do with people like this? That's not a rhetorical question. If anyone reads this, I'd really like to know what they think.

[arissa]

10. Agreed, slippery slope.

But what is he supposed to do? I can't say for sure, but from this article it sounds pretty clear the woman is not fit to be a mother. And her poor kids are going to have very difficult lives thanks to her drug addiction.

[theHandpuppet]

21. Or not so slippery a slope

Because there are laws against drunk driving does not take away either your right to drive OR your right to drink. But in order to keep your license you must also show some concern for the lives of others by not drinking to excess AND driving. If you do so repeatedly you forfeit your license -- as it should be, IMHO. Why should we expect more from folks when it comes to driving a car than having a child?

I'm also a supporter of reproductive RIGHTS, but at the same time I also believe in reproductive RESPONSIBILITY.

[Robb]

40. Well, laws do

The law can take away your "right" to drink as well...If you are arrested for say domestic violence while intoxicated, a judge can order a restraining order that includes orders not to drink alcohol.

If you do, and are discovered, you get a contempt charge and go to jail. :shrug:

Also, remember some states are sterilizing sex offenders.

Yeek.

[Tansy_Gold]

115. "Driving" is not a "right"; it is a privilege

If you are under the legal age to obtain a license and you drive, you are breaking the law. At the legal age, you do not automatically have a "right" to drive. You only have a "right" to take a driving test. If you do not pass a driving test, you do not get a license and you cannot legally drive.

If you repeatedly break the laws concerning driving, such as running through stop signs, exceeding the posted speed limit, parking in front of fire hydrants, you will lose your driving "privilege." You will have your license suspended or revoked, and you will not be able to drive legally.

What this judge's decision does is to make child-bearing a "privilege" that will only be granted to those who pass muster. Are you a drug addict? Sorry, you can't breed. Are you poor? Sorry, you can't breed beyond what we say. Unless, of course, you have some rich momma who wants to pay you to have children for her. Are you not particularly bright academically? Dropped out in the ninth grade? Well, you can't breed either (even though there has never been proof that intelligence is hereditary and many kids drop out for economic reasons, not just inability to maintain grades). Yeah, yeah, yeah, we know there are bright folks who have some really dumb kids, but we got rules, y'know.

If this case holds up in court, it will be used as precedent in other cases. And the burden will fall predominantly on women, who are economically disadvantaged to begin with.

I've worked with women who have been incarcerated on drug charges, and every one of them who has kids is just desperate to get back to them. She loves her kids as much as you or I, and she knows the crack is bad and she knows she needs to kick it, but it just ain't as easy out there on the street as we might think it is, we who are sitting here comfortably in front of our computers.

Once again, look at the logistics of enforcing this verdict. How does this woman keep from getting pregnant? Will she be sterilized? Will she be given contraceptives? How will the court make sure she takes them? What if it's against the law for her to be given contraceptives paid for by public funds? Could her case be used as a precedent to get public funding for contraceptives for any woman with children in foster care? How does one make her take contraceptives if she has a medical reason not to? What happens if the contraceptives don't work? What happens if she gets pregnant? Will the court force her to get an abortion? Will they take the child away from her? Will they then put her in jail? Putting her in jail for bearing a child makes bearing a child a criminal offense.

Would this case then become a precedent for jailing other women for having children? What if the woman is poor and her child is determined to be special needs? Is that child going to be any more of a financial burden on the tax payers than a "normal" child in foster care? Does the court have a right to tell a woman who is carrying a special needs fetus that she has to abort rather than burden the taxpayers with its lifelong care?

It seems to me that more of the argument here is about "I don't want to have to pay for this broad's kids" than it is about the rights of women in general and children in general. It's more about "my right as a taxpayer to not have to support X number of 'undeserving' people." IMHO, that's a rightwing "property rights vs. human rights" argument. I'll take human rights every time.

Tansy Gold

[NorthernSpy]

118. but walking IS a right, and yet we also have a concept of jaywalking...

... which is an offense. People have liberty of movement and freedom of speech under law. But they also have a responsibility under law not to do things that violate other people's rights while exercising their own.

I don't disagree with you that the criminalizing of reproduction is a violation of human rights. But I will point out again that expecting people to take responsibility for the lives they create is not the same thing as "criminalizing reproduction".

You have a right to have kids. But you have no right to abandon those kids once you've had them. If a parent cannot provide all the essential material conditions of a decent life, that's where the state can step in and make up the difference. But it's up to the parent to be the parent.

While a person like the woman in the story should not be put in jail for producing children, as far as I'm concerned she can be put in jail for refusing to do her duty as a parent.

Have all the children you want. But fulfill your responsibilities to those children as well as your financial situation will allow, or go to jail.

That's all I'm saying. And I fail to see why this idea is unreasonable.



(edit: fixed typo)

[Tansy_Gold]

121. I have no problem with sending her to jail for child abuse

or neglect. Those are crimes and she can be punished for them.

But what the judge has effectively done is punish her by ordering her not to do something over which she may in fact have no control -- and which would set a slippery slope precedent for using this punishment on many other women.

I'm not condoning this woman's behavior. And I'm not saying she shouldn't be punished (although I do think "punishment" is a totally insufficient response). What I'm saying is that the punishment the judge has chosen is a.) impossible to enforce; b.) sets a precedent that can easily be described as fascist; c.) doesn't solve the problem; and d.) could make matters even worse, not only for this woman and her children but for many others.

If the only real consideration is saving the taxpayers' money so they don't have to support these unwanted children -- which is usually a rightwing argument -- then I think we have to go back and re-examine our priorities. We could save a lot of taxpayer money by just euthanizing all these tested-positive-for-cocaine babies at birth. We could just sterilize every woman who isn't gainfully employed or supported by a husband. We could sterilize every woman who has more than X number of children if they have more than Y number of different fathers. We could euthanize all "defective" babies who aren't going to be taken care of by their wealthy parents.

What this decision says is that this judge -- and therefore any judge -- has the power to determine which women can and cannot reproduce. I'm not saying Judgette is right; but I am saying that the judge's determination of "punishment" is wrong.

It's very likely that, given Judgette's history of addiction, she isn't capable of using oral contraceptives or barriers effectively. She probably isn't capable of enforcing condom use by her sexual partners. She probably isn't capable of preventing herself from becoming pregnant again. Therefore, the judge has essentially put this woman in the position of being guaranteed an eventual jail sentence -- but only AFTER ANOTHER BABY HAS BEEN BORN!!!

Duh, am I the only one who thinks this is counterproductive?

Forcing her to be sterilized is really dangerous, because it would be too easy for her to come back later and claim she was sterilized against her will and/or under duress. That's not "voluntary," and I think the judge knows it.

But, as another poster wrote down thread, this is the messiness that comes with democracy. Not everyone is going to be a nice responsible middle-class mom, and as a society we have to be prepared to carry the burden for those who don't quite measure up. If Judgette had died of an overdose, would we shove her kids out on the street and say, "It's not my job to take care of them." If she contracted HIV and died, would we wash our hands of the children? If she develops cancer, totally unrelated to her "chosen" lifestyle, do we refuse to support her children?

It's all a moral judgment. She's not behaving according to our moral code, so we don't want to have to bear the burden that she's rejected. We only want to take care of the "deserving" ones.

The problem is, who gets to decide who's "deserving" and who isn't?

"The system" is supposed to take care of the kids. Sometimes there are more of them than we'd like. But I always thought the liberal/progressive philosophy was that it takes a village and we ALL have a responsibility to each other.

I have to say I'm a bit ashamed of some of the people posting on this thread. Not necessarily the one to whom I'm directly responding, but, well, I guess they'll know who they are.


Tansy Gold

[TheFarseer]

83. you've sold me

repeat child neglecters should be steralized.

[seriousstan]

12. Lock them up.

[NorthernSpy]

18. "...what can you do with people like this?"

We can treat refusal of ones parental duty as a crime, and punish it appropriately. We don't do that now -- not in any remotely consistent way. Oh, we have a few criminal statutes regarding parental treatment of children, but mostly we treat this sort of thing as a "social issue" and we hand it over to a social services bureaucracy whose meddling has made life worse for millions.

Please note: when I say "refusal of ones parental duty", I don't mean the kind of pseudo-neglect (eg, not being able to turn the thermostat past 50F) that poor people often have no real way of avoiding. Things like that can be fixed with a little direct material aid, and at a far lower cost than what it takes to keep the current system up and running, I should imagine.

As it is now, children really are taken from parents who love and want them only because the family can't find decent housing, for instance. That needs to change.

Also as it is now, some people really do keep bringing kids into the world without the slightest intent of giving them the support and protection that they're owed. We don't give such people a sufficient reason not to behave this way; rather, we just turn our backs while "social services" obligingly takes child after child off their hands. That too needs to change.

I think it's high time that we recognized the deliberate, intentional shirking of parental responsibilities as a violation of the child's rights and a prison-worthy offense.

If a parent's behavior constitutes a crime, prosecute and punish. If the behavior is not a crime, then either supply what's needed (food, kerosene, etc) or just butt out. The system we have now provides employment opportunities for social workers, but it doesn't provide justice, and it doesn't serve children or their families.

[KittyWampus]

48. It Sounds Like You've Been Involved In Social Welfare Programs.

even if you haven't, you've written a really smart post. Thanks.

[NorthernSpy]

68. I'm glad you liked it

I should probably point out, though, that my opinions are not all that popular, as a rule. People who like one thing I've said sometimes agree happily, only to regret it when they find they don't like any of my other opinions. ;)

/disclaimer

But seriously -- it really does make me happy that someone actually liked my post. Thank you, Cryingshame. :)

[KittyWampus]

73. This Is An Interesting Thread. I Personally Don't Have Any Answers

or even any suggestions.

[NashVegas]

78. Are the Right Questions Being Asked?

from the article:

O'Connor said she was not forcing contraception or sterilization on the mother, who had children with seven different men, nor requiring her to get an abortion should she become pregnant. But she warned that the woman could be jailed for contempt if she has another child.

The New York Civil Liberties Union maintained that the opinion cannot be enforced because it "tramples on a fundamental right - the right to procreate."

Because the judge wasn't forcing sterilization or contraception, at first I was like, "well that's not so bad."

Procreation isn't just a right: it's a basic drive of our nature as animals. Our bodies welcome procreation as much as they welcome a good meal. Procreation is a physical imperative that's wired into our brains, most of us. Any attempt to interfere with that goes against the laws of nature.

If someone wishes to interfere with their own drive, so be it, but to impose this unnatural order on another being is tantamount to slavery - you are in control of their being.

[KittyWampus]

111. Procreation? Sexual Drive Can Be Sublimated. That's The Essence Of

Humanity.

We are the only animal that can do that.

Further, we alone can use birth control while engaging in sex.

[AP]

24. I don't think that's my choice.

[barb162]

38. Have any more? Hell, I think she's had seven too many!

[NYC]

11. I think she should be helped out of addiction.

The basic problem is that she is an addict. That problem should be addressed.

[Pirate Smile]

16. If only that could be easily solved. It can't and she is completely

irresponsible and it doesn't just effect her.

I hate this sh#$! What a friggin mess.

I know I didn't offer a solution and I actually agree that she should get clean. But addiction, relapse, etc is a terrible fact of life. Sometimes it is overcome but more often it isn't.

What do you do if she can't or won't stay sober? I don't know but I know it is complicated and there are no easy solutions.

I don't blame the Judge for trying something.

[AP]

26. I don't think eugenics is the answer.

Why don't liberals think of "reproductive freedom" as including the right to decide when to have children rather than only the right to decide when not to have children?

It's not like we demand that only poor women have a right to an abortion.

Would liberals say that rich women with husbands can't have abortions and must have children? No? So why are we saying that poor women who can't afford to keep their children can't have children?

Why are we making rules about when women can and can't have children? It's not very liberal to think like that.

[NorthernSpy]

33. I'm not for making a rule about when women can have children

And sterilization would fit the description of "cruel and unusual punishment", I think.

Would liberals say that rich women with husbands can't have abortions and must have children? No? So why are we saying that poor women who can't afford to keep their children can't have children?

I can't speak for other people, but that's not what I'm saying. Being poor is not a crime, and the so-called "neglect" that is really a manifestation of poverty can be fixed with material aid.

All I expect is that people try to protect and nurture their children as well as their situation allows. Those who refuse to do that belong in jail for violating their child's rights.

[Pirate Smile]

41. This isn't about her being poor. Don't distort this into an issue about

poor women. What an insult to all the loving but poor parents.

You could be a billionaire and it would still be reprehensible and should be criminal to continue having babies which you poison, brain damage and permanently injure over and over again.

[AP]

50. Nothing in this article says these babies were born addicted to drugs

and one of my best friends was born to an alcoholic mother and I'm glad the state didn't forbid her or put her in jail for having him.

[Pirate Smile]

62. Well, what does testing positive for cocaine at birth mean. It

doesn't appear to be a one-time thing she does when she goes into labor.

"The youngest child and two others tested positive for cocaine at birth and all seven "were removed from her care and custody because she could not and did not take care of them," Judge Marilyn O'Connor said in a Dec. 22 decision made public Tuesday.

-snip-
O'Connor said she was not forcing contraception or sterilization on the mother, who had children with seven different men, nor requiring her to get an abortion should she become pregnant. But she warned that the woman could be jailed for contempt if she has another child."

The women should be tested for drugs at her weekly parole or probation meeting - this is nothing unusual. They should test her for pregnancy too and put her in rehab for the duration of her pregnancy if she does get pregnant and want to have the baby.
After the baby is born, she would need a lot of supervision to make sure there is no neglect or abuse or she loses that baby too but maybe the rehab would take.

[AP]

63. My friend's mother was an alcoholic when he was born.

He probably had alcohol in his blood.

Should he not have been born? Should his mother have been criminalized?

They were a very nice middle class white family. He's the oldest of five and says his mother drank through all her pregnancies.

The family had problems, but they loved their kids -- all of them, and the world's a better place because they're all in it.

Society doesn't guarantee you perfect parents, but it should try its hardest to make sure that imperfect families don't have a harder time raising their families, especially when they have other problems.

[Pirate Smile]

66. I'm sorry but I do think that a Mom who drank through five

pregnancies should get her ass kicked and be put in rehab. That is f@#ked up! I'm not saying your friend shouldn't have been born. I'm saying what his Mom did was WRONG and I don't care if she is a nice, white, middle class woman.

[AP]

81. All the kids are fine, and their lives would NOT have...

...been improved by putting the mom in jail at any point.

I point out the race because I presume that race and class is a component of people's perceptions of how this woman in Rochester should be treated. Although the story doesn't say her race, I'm guessing that many people have a picture of black woman in their head, and I just wanted to make sure people have a picturer of a white woman when they contemplate my friend's mom.

[Ms_Mary]

85. I didn't picture a black woman

Was she actually an alcoholic during her pregnancy or just had drinks during her pregnancy? There's a big difference and I wanted to ask. For an alcoholic to have 5 children and none have complications or have suffered Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is pretty remarkable. In the US, we have a very strong position against drinking while pregnant, warning that any alcohol at all can cause FAS. Other countries don't take it that far. In European countries, it's not uncommon for a woman to drink lightly to moderately during pregnancy without complications. But alcoholism is a different story entirely.

[AP]

87. Perhaps there's a genetic component to FAS too...

...because they're all fine.

She was an acoholic, however.

[Ms_Mary]

88. That could be possible too. Thanks for clarifying.

[Pirate Smile]

89. I didn't say put her jail but you should certainly put her in rehab for

the duration of her pregnancy IF she gets pregnant.

I actually visualized a white woman in both stories.

Addiction and alcoholism are so widespread that we all have connections to it in a variety of ways.

Actions have consequences. I've watched someone kill themselves with alcohol while everyone did all they could to stop and help her (nice, middle class white woman - my sister).

Meanwhile, her actions tortured not only herself but everyone else too. The idea of her doing it not only to herself but to her kids is unimaginable but happens frequently. Society doesn't have to approve and give a pass to habitual offenders.

I wish you could talk to some of the people that work with the babies with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. If that didn't happen to your friend, well, thank God.

[AP]

93. Eugenics is such a bad thing that it seems to me

the best thing to do is try to help people make the best choices and you help people make the best of a bad situation long before you start criminalizing reproductive choices.

I believe that for the same reason you don't criminalize women who chose to terminate pregancies you don't criminalize women who chose NOT to terminate pregnancies. Women should be in total control of when the chose to have babies and the best thing society can do is get out of their way and to make their lives as free from misery as is possible regardless of their choice.

[TheFarseer]

84. she doesn't want children

she proves that by not taking care of them. She only wants to have sex. If she's steralized, then she can screw all she wants and it won't hurt anything.

[AP]

86. "If she's steralized" -- your passive voice begs the question

"Who's choice is it to sterilize her? The government's, or her choice?"

If you think it's the government's place to make these decisions, you should google the term "eugenics."

[diamond14]

14. will anti-abortion people step in now, and care for these children??

crack-cocaine babies are badly messed up....but certainly, those opposing abortions will STAND UP and give ALL these children a nice caring, loving home with TWO parents and a stay-at-home mom....

[seriousstan]

15. Six are in foster care at state expense and one lives with an aunt.

I guess you will have to ask them what their positions on abortion are.

[Crowdance]

31. This edict can't possibly be enforced

So far anyway, this woman still owns her uterus and can act to use it whenever she wishes. She can't be arrested for failure to seek permission to reproduce. So, this is so much grand-standing on his honor's part.

I am the mother of three, and I do not agree that the state has any right to determine whether a woman does or does not reproduce. I agree that the truly liberal position is to keep our business out of her reproductive organs, and to get her into rehab so that she can mother those kids--and any others she might have. And I believe we have a vested interest in doing so.

[Montanan]

39. I understand the gravity

of the courts dictating a woman's reporoductive future, but the problem here is that the community is footing the bill for raising her kids, and also for the medical care of same when they are born addicted.

If your neighbor was an irresponsible drug addict, and you made the moral choice to take on the burden of supporting her children, would there ever be a point in her ongoing issue of same when you'd say "enough"? I think so.

As you say, this may not be enforceable, but I don't think the judge did wrong by telling the woman to cease producing offspring. Do we really need more crack babies?

[Tansy_Gold]

116. "But the problem here is that the community is footing the bill. . . ."

So can I take your message to mean that if she were wealthy and could put her cocaine-addicted babies into a nice daycare facility, you wouldn't have a problem with her having 8, 12, 25 babies?

When the question gets down to who's "footing the bill," we get into the even slipperier (is that a word????) slope of property rights vs human rights.

The unwanted, neglected, abandoned children of the wealthy do not end up in foster care. There is a nanny to take care of them, a grandma, an aunt. The only reason this woman's case is in the courts is because she's POOR. If she were wealthy, she'd be doin' her lines of cocaine in the "powder" room and payin' an au pair from Ecuador to take care of her kids.

My daughter worked for several social services agencies here in Arizona, including 18 months with CPS. When the custodial parent is doing drugs and the cops come in, they try to find relatives to take the kids. It's only when there are no relatives willing and able to take them that foster care comes into play.

This woman's crime is that she's poor. If she weren't, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[NorthernSpy]

119. no, her crime isn't that she's poor

This woman's crime is that she's poor. If she weren't, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

No, the woman's crime isn't that she's poor. It's that she's essentially abandoned her kids. The (presumed) fact that she's poor may account for this situation becoming known to the courts and to the public in the first place. But the possibility that a luckier person who enjoyed better material circumstances might be able to get away with similar neglect is not really not a legitimate reason for failing to sanction this particular woman's misconduct.

[NorthernSpy]

127. ...oops!

I said:

But the possibility that a luckier person who enjoyed better material circumstances might be able to get away with similar neglect is not really not a legitimate reason for failing to sanction this particular woman's misconduct.

I should have said:

But the possibility that a luckier person who enjoyed better material circumstances might be able to get away with similar neglect is not really not a legitimate reason for failing to sanction this particular woman's misconduct.

One too many nots. That changed the meaning of the sentence.

Sorry 'bout that.
:(

[rucky]

32. Or else what?

Are we going to build special prisons for our new breed of reproductive criminals?

[Mizmoon]

35. Where is the father or fathers

and will they also go to jail if they have more children? Are they crack heads too? Why aren't they being forced to pay child support?

[KittyWampus]

49. Very Good Questions.

[Ms_Mary]

58. I don't mean to generalize, but I'm going to base this on my observations

The fathers are often the drug dealers. I say this based on personal knowledge of specific local situations and from conversations with my cop husband. The druggie dads are in and out of jail and they don't have regular jobs. You can't force child support when there is no official income. Also, as the non-custodial parents who are probably not even listed on the birth certificate, it's harder to trace. It's pretty easy to figure out who the mother is.

The system is flawed.

[Igel]

76. It presupposes she even has a clue as to who the fathers are.

And, in fact, most of the posts I've read so far assume that she *chose* to get pregnant and *chose* to not terminate the pregnancy.

Neither can be assumed.

[Canuckistanian]

47. Dr. Laura would be proud

Probably the first item on her show today. But then again, maybe she'll avoid this like the plague...

[LynnTheDem]

57. Where is the line drawn? Who decides who is unfit to get pregnant?

She's a "drug addict". So that makes her "unfit" and if she gets PG she'll be arrested & locked in jail.

Ok.

How about people who smoke? Drink?

What about the very many rightwing "christians" running this country, who would call anyone a liberal "unfit"? Or an Athiest? Or a divorcee?

And where does the blurring into "too fat/too short/too ugly" come in?

What gives ANY judge or ANY ONE AT ALL the right to tell ANY WOMAN when she can or can't get pregnant???

So the Ccommunity has to foot the bill. GUESS WHAT; THAT is part of the PRICE for DEMOCRACY and a FREE SOCIETY.

SOME people take advantage of such things. In welfare and medicare and so on. THAT IS THE PRICE for a FREE SOCIETY.

She should get COUNSELING and whatever drug rehab help suitable; but to LEGALLY ORDER her to SHUT HER UTERUS???

NO NO NO NO AND HELL NO.

[LynnTheDem]

67. Something else to consider...

This woman will be arrested and jailed if she gets pregnant. That sends out a wide signal to other women. If you're on drugs and get pregnant, KILL THE FETUS...or risk going to jail.

You KNOW threat of jail isn't going to stop people from sex; you KNOW most drug addicts need help to recover from addiction; you KNOW many women addicts are routinely raped.

Crack down on pushers. Increase rehab and meth programs for users. EDUCATE in schools about drugs. Order users into rehab. If they miss appointments, order them confined into rehab.

And if all that can be done is done for a woman, and she STILL is a user and gets pregnant and can't or won't look after the child, then society takes in the child.

For whatever reasons, some people are going to be abusers of the system.

But you either have a free society...or you don't.

Forcing women through the fear of jail terms to abort pregnancies or kill born babies, or to legally order when women can and can't get pregnant, is not a free society.

Democracy sometimes sucks; sometimes it's a very difficult thing. But you have it or you don't.

imo.

[Tansy_Gold]

117. Thank you, Lynn. Excellent post.

You'll also have women who won't get prenatal care for fear they'll be turned in, women abandoning their newborns, etc.

Y'know, I can't think of one single good thing to come out of a decision like this? Not one.

[amazona]

71. I'm a liberal on many issues

...but I'm sorry to say I think any woman or man who has 7 children has had enough and should be sterilized. For that matter, I would support a law that made you quit at 3. In case anyone else hasn't noticed yet, it's getting crowded in here.

I don't believe it would be fair to pick and choose who is deserving and who is not deserving of spawning like rabbits. The law should be the same for all.



Er -- cautious footnote: Please don't aim the brickbats at the face when you hurl them in my direction. I know my opinion is unpopular, and it may be indefensible so I'm not going to defend it further, and I apologize if I have given offense.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[goforit]

91. Here, here!!!...I agree!!! I have a drunken relative that should not have

any more children.

She has no insurance, in and out of jobs(out due to drinking),
no husband, sleeps around with anything with two legs, has two children of her own and has temporarily lost those children to the state. Her children have a high probability of being diagnosed with
alcohol baby syndrome.
If she does not prove herself to the state by a certain amount of
time being alcohol free.......
We will adopt the children.

Should she be having children that have 99% chance of disabilities
due to her irresposible addiction?

I don't think so.

[Name removed]

130. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wovenpaint]

75. And what if she does?!

Will she have that child while she's serving time for contempt in jail...or will she be provided a state funded abortion?
Just wondering.

[Igel]

77. She's in poverty, but having kids makes it worse.

Without including any sort of government aid (state, federal, etc.), poverty level income for her is $9,310. For her and 7 kids: $31,570 (again, leaving out any aid).

Moreover, day care for 1 kid is ghastly; and when my wife and I both were running into our respective offices taking care of our one kid was nighmarish. I have the utmost respect for any single parent.

Daycare for 7? A single parent taking care of 7 kids, age 12 and younger? (Gee, that would nearly constitute an *excuse* for drugs.)

In this case, the "safety net" isn't for somebody who tripped: it's for somebody who not only threw herself off the high-wire, but decided to take other people with her, and did so repeatedly. That's not what the safety net is for. If she were wealthy, had seven kids, and *then* fell to the safety net and became an addict, I'd even feel differently about her.

When you have kids, you assume a responsibility for taking care of them. She's demonstrated a lack of responsibility, whether willful or through massive character weakness or bad genes (liability to addiction). Subsidizing irresponsibility isn't a good idea; if she can't keep from having more kids, put her where she can't have any more kids.

[Skware_Deal]

95. Do the math

I myself, am a single(male) parent, AND a recovered addict(Meth). I have been clean for 8 years.

NO amount of rehab will help her unless SHE wants to change. I went to rehab and I learned that 90% of adiction problems come from the company you keep.

I wanted to change.

I beleive in freedom of choice. Whether it be pro choice, or pro life, BUT I do not beleive in pro IGNORANCE. This lady is 31 years old with 7 children, the oldest child being 12 years old. That is a child every 1.7 years

31-12=19 ( probably pregnant at 18... whew)

12 years divided by 7 children = birth every 1.714 yrs

1.714 years divided by 9 month term = pregnant every 8 months after delivery. Hardly an amount of time to start or hold a job, let alone a career.

CONTRACEPTION is a responsibility if the needs of your present children can not be met. We as American should NOT have to "support" someone and their children because they can not keep their legs closed.

Chances are that there a multiple "unknown" fathers. The judge make the right decision even though it is utterly impossible to enforce.

[ekhunter]

103. i agree with the judge in this case.

the crackhead needs to get her life together before she has more children. if you can't be responsible during your pregnancy and get off the crack stop having children.

[MrSlayer]

104. Sounds quite reasonable to me.

Obviously this person is not responsible enough to take care of children therefore she shouldn't have any. The judge is quite right in this case.

[sunnybrook]

110. Damn right the judge is right!

I am a pro-choice feminist. However, that does not mean that what is best for a child is secondary. I don't think that people who are agreeing with the judge are necessarily going down the slippery slope, blah, blah, blah... It seems to me that as a country we talk the talk about children's rights but do not back it up. It is ridiculous to simply atrribute this to poverty or even addiction. If she has more children she has shown that they are not going to be protected in her care and I am of the opinion that the state has a MORAL responsibility to protect children from neglect and abuse. All of the things about her situation are not known, but it would be utter stupidity to continue with this pattern. I am not disputing that perhaps there are enormous burdens she is dealing with and I am not some nutjob Conservative. I am for children's rights first and foremost. The judge has left open the possibility for her to get her children back and continue procreating in the future. She is just saying she will not allow more lives to be destroyed in the meantime. Some issues are not so black and white and have gray areas. This is not anti-choice government control of women's bodies. The people who have said that children do not have guaranteed rights may be correct technically; but they SHOULD.

[SKKY]

113. I don't know if I like the idea of judicial activism, but I really have...

...a tough time not agreeing with this. Seems like something someone should have done a long time ago, if in fact she does have 7 kids.

[sistersofmercy]

114. Good! n/t

[jmowreader]

122. Well, let me see here...

Seven kids by seven different men.

Three kids with cocaine metabolites in their systems at birth.

She's lost custody of every one of the kids she's birthed so far--for Child Neglect.

This post will draw flames, but I gotta say what I gotta say: The woman's no mother. She's what we in the childfree community refer to as a breeder: spits 'em out then leaves 'em to fend for themselves.

The judge made the correct decision here. A child requires a mom. A mom is not necessarily the person who bore him/her; a mom takes care of the child. A mom loves the child. The only things this woman appears to love are Unprotected Sex and her Crack Pipe. And she sure as hell ain't takin' care of them because she wouldn't have lost seven kids in child-neglect hearings if she was.

I know a lot of poor people who don't lose their children in neglect hearings--BECAUSE THEY TAKE CARE OF THEIR CHILDREN!!!! It's not as hard as this woman makes it appear to be. Your money tends to go a lot farther when you don't spend so much of it on illegal drugs. Maybe if she'll get her ass into some sort of rehab, put down the pipe and learn to care for her kids, she'll get them back.

I don't see this as criminalizing reproduction as much as it is criminalizing spending more on crack than on your kids.

[Bono71]

137. Agree 100%. n/t

[AP]

138. If it's criminalizing spending more on crack than on kids, why is the...

...court order that she goes to jail if she gets pregnant again and not if she buys crack again?

The court should criminalize crack use (and it should criminalize crack use the same as it criminalizes cocaine use -- what do you want to bet that NY State doesn't -- alas, this is a different matter). But what the court is absolutely doing is criminalizing reproduction. And that's unconstitutional.

[two gun sid]

124. Judge Orders Addict Banned From Radio/TV

Now I could support that.

[Clarkie1]

125. Excellent; we need more judges like this n/t

[AP]

134. Judges like this one appeal to Strict Father right wingers

and create a mood in America which is conducive to electing RW'ers.