Gunco Forums banner
1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Mystic Knight of the Sea
Joined
·
13,384 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,143366,00.html

Wednesday, January 05, 2005

ROCHESTER, N.Y. ? A family court judge in Rochester, New York, has ordered a drug-addicted woman to have no more children until she proves she can look after the seven she already has.

It's the second time Judge Marilyn O'Connor has made such a ruling.

The 31-year-old mother had already lost custody of her children, ranging in age from eight months to 12 years. Three of them tested positive for cocaine at birth.

In a similar ruling last March, Judge O'Connor ordered a drug-addicted, homeless mother of four to refrain from bearing children until she won back care of her children. The decision, the first of its kind in New York, is being appealed.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Anyone want to bet on how the ACLU will react to this? I'm guessing they will maintain it's the right of homeless mothers to have as many children as they want and the taxpayers should have to pick up the tab for her medical treatment and caring for the children. :rolleyes:

Sterilize the loser! :rant:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
The ACLU may intervene, don't know. Giving a court the power to order a citizen to not have children establishes what could be a very scary legal precedent that could be extended to folks other than druggies. Folks forget the power of precendents in our judician system, and forget that if they can do it to the other guy eventually they can do it to you.

I can certainly relate to the judge's frustrated rage.

One of the problems with this is that the most toxic drug for a fetus is alcohol. Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is the leading known cause of mental retardation in the US. The effects of cocaine and other illicit drugs on a fetus are far more subtle (the crack baby scare of the 80's turned out to be nonsense, but fetal exposure to cocaine can produce some rather subtle neurological problems later seen as learning disabilities) - but cocaine and other illicit drugs stay in your system for a while and are amenable to toxicology tests - neither of which is especially true of alcohol.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
329 Posts
Pogo said:
ROCHESTER, N.Y. ? A family court judge in Rochester, New York, has ordered a drug-addicted woman to have no more children until she proves she can look after the seven she already has.
My neighbor and his wife HAVE (adopted) two of her kids!

Roger
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
329 Posts
Dzerzhinsky said:
fetal exposure to cocaine can produce some rather subtle neurological problems later seen as learning disabilities
Very true... one of the kids my neighbor adopted (the boy) has a moderate learning disability (can't think of it's name though... it's a "rare" syndrome).

Roger
 

·
Friend of MCMXI
Joined
·
8,717 Posts
Dzerzhinsky said:
The ACLU may intervene, don't know. Giving a court the power to order a citizen to not have children establishes what could be a very scary legal precedent that could be extended to folks other than druggies. Folks forget the power of precendents in our judician system, and forget that if they can do it to the other guy eventually they can do it to you.

I can certainly relate to the judge's frustrated rage.
I actually agree with you on this one. Although instead of the judge prohibiting her from having kids, why not lock her up in a jail cell for the next 10 years for abuse and neglect of her kids. The results would be the same and we wouldn't have a set precedent.

I've always jokingly said that one day you would need a permit for sex and a permit to go to the bathroom. I guess I can't joke about it any more. Sounds like those days are right around the corner.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
Preacher said:
...why not lock her up in a jail cell for the next 10 years for abuse and neglect of her kids. The results would be the same and we wouldn't have a set precedent....
Prenatal substance abuse is not, in itself, child abuse in any state. Couple of reasons why: First, there's problems with any law that is inherently applicable to only one segment of the population, so such a law will be problematic until men start getting pregnant, too (which may not be too far off!). Second, the Pro-Choice folks adamantly oppose any such law because it establishes fetal rights that could be used as a lever to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Although one state, I think it's Minnesota, has a law that provides for civil committment of pregnant substance-abusing women to treatment, sorta like the laws that provide for civil committment of the mentally ill who are a danger to self, danger to others, or gravely disabled.

The main problem with establishing prenatal substance abuse as child abuse, though, is the flip side of what you propose: If it's criminal child abuse, then it must be reported to the authorities when it comes to the attention of a healthcare worker. Which means that only exceptionally stupid substance-abusing pregnant women then would seek treatment or prenatal care.
 

·
Gunco Samurai
Joined
·
3,340 Posts
I hate to be the bad guy but I think some people should be sterilized.
 

·
Friend of MCMXI
Joined
·
8,717 Posts
Dzerzhinsky said:
The main problem with establishing prenatal substance abuse as child abuse, though, is the flip side of what you propose: If it's criminal child abuse, then it must be reported to the authorities when it comes to the attention of a healthcare worker. Which means that only exceptionally stupid substance-abusing pregnant women then would seek treatment or prenatal care.
You make a good point and I'm sure you're right on the nose when it comes to legal definition, but when it boils down to common sense it's a bunch of garbage. Any mother that doesn't care enough to take care of herself or her child is abuse in my book.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
Yeah, it's a mess. But every way of imposing control over a pregnant woman creates an even bigger mess: "Freedom isn't free." isn't just a swell-sounding motto. This mess is part of the cost of freedom. In Cuba they'd just summarily send her to a camp and there'd be no problem.
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
After 1 child, I believe China forces an abortion. I am surprised the enlightened left does not implement this birth control program.

I think if the Chinese do not catch the excess child until after birth, they have a nice export business of selling them to US adoptive parents.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
Custer said:
After 1 child, I believe China forces an abortion. I am surprised the enlightened left does not implement this birth control program...
We have legislation pending. Applies only to Republicans.
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Dzerzhinsky said:
We have legislation pending. Applies only to Republicans.
Not likely since your party has been aborting its voting block since 1973.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
Custer said:
Not likely since your party has been aborting its voting block since 1973.
Quite true, but doesn't affect us as much as it would affect Republicans: Republicans can't breed, they can only recruit.
 

·
Friend of MCMXI
Joined
·
8,717 Posts
Dzerzhinsky said:
Quite true, but doesn't affect us as much as it would affect Republicans: Republicans can't breed, they can only recruit.
:bangin: :bangin: :bangin: :bangin: :bangin: :bangin: :bangin:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,341 Posts
If the woman can't stop doing drugs, who thinks she can either abstain from sex, or make her boyfriends use protection.

Not sure what king of "order" it's suposed to be. If it is a term of a suspended sentence, I believe it will stand.
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Dzerzhinsky said:
Quite true, but doesn't affect us as much as it would affect Republicans: Republicans can't breed, they can only recruit.
Well, I have bred a couple Republicans.

How about you?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
Custer said:
Well, I have bred a couple Republicans.

How about you?
Nope. I made my contribution to the gene pool by getting a vasectomy.

FYI, heard on the radio this morning that the New York ACLU indeed is going to pursue this case.

Again, while I think this woman is scum, I also think that it would be a very very scary precedent to give the government the power to decide who is allowed to have children and who is not. Dealing with the consequences of her sleaziness is part of the price we pay for liberty.
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
China to Outlaw Gender Selective Abortions
Friday, January 07, 2005

STORIES BACKGROUND
?Newborn Is China's 1.3 Billionth Citizen
BEIJING ? China (search) is planning to make selective abortions of female fetuses illegal as a way to close the widening gap between the number of boys and girls in the country, the official Xinhua News Agency said.

"The government takes it as an urgent task to correct the gender imbalance of newborns," Zhang Weiqing, minister of National Population and Family Planning Commission, was quoted as saying Thursday by Xinhua.

Traditionally, sons have been more valued as a way for the family name to continue and as a means for parents to be cared for as they get older.

Government figures show 119 boys are born in China for every 100 girls ? a gap blamed largely on parents aborting baby girls to try again for a boy under the country's one-child policy.

Zhang said the commission would begin drafting revisions to the criminal law "to effectively ban fetus gender detection and selective abortion other than for legitimate medical purposes."

The central government hopes to even out the imbalance by 2010, Xinhua said.

Currently, there are family planning laws that ban selective abortion, but Xinhua said criminalizing the act would make it more of a deterrent. The report did not specify how offenders would be punished.
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top