Comment of the Day:The Abortion Threshold is Being Lowered on a Daily Basis

This is why Republicans lose (0.00 / 0)

This is a great example of the rhetorical immaturity that characterizes today's Republican Party in Massachusetts and nationwide. A District Court Judge made the wrong decision, and she was overturned by an Appeals Court citing precedent established by the SJC. Deval Patrick and Elizabeth Warren are on record agreeing with the Appeals Court. This very unusual case, which in the end was correctly decided through the appeals process, has nothing to do with President Obama, nothing to do with "the courts" as a collective group, nothing to do with Roe v. Wade, and nothing to do with some liberal-conservative debate.

Wild fantasies about fascism may excite people on the political fringe, but they are so divorced from reality that they will only serve to turn off independent voters.
 

---

by: brudolf @ Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 19:34:25 PM UTC

Sorry (5.00 / 2)

Sorry,

A spokesperson from the Department of Mental Health in today's paper reiterated support, and is appealing the appeals court decision.  The Boston Herald is reporting.

The decision on the abortion was handed to another judge. Hearings in that case are ongoing in Norfolk Probate and Family Court. Judge Gregory V. Roach sealed the case file and closed the hearings to the public at the request of the woman's lawyer.

The only thing that was struck down so far was the sterilization because it was not part of the original request.  Get your facts straight.

Full Disclosure


http://www.redmassgroup.com/pr...

---

by: Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno @ Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 19:49:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah! Get your facts straight! (0.00 / 0)

"Paula Jones was and is trailer-trash" -SomervilleTom

http://bluemassgroup.com/2012/...

---

by: Republican Ram Rod Radio @ Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 20:05:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The straight facts (0.00 / 0)

All I said was that Judge Harms' decision was overturned. That's true. But in your rush to correct something I didn't say, you went a little overboard. The appellate decision, which I suggest you read in addition to the Herald, also vacated the order requiring an abortion.

You're right that there will be a hearing to determine whether an abortion should be ordered. The effect of the Appeals Court's decision is to reiterate the requirement of an evidentiary hearing before an abortion could be ordered . I don't understand how that could be interpreted as lowering the bar for abortions.

 

---

by: brudolf @ Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 20:13:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

How is it pro-choice (5.00 / 1)

if the government forces you to have an abortion?  

Full Disclosure


http://www.redmassgroup.com/pr...

---

by: Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno @ Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 20:20:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's not (0.00 / 0)

I don't support forced abortions. Again, this is a rare instance where the woman in question has been deemed mentally incompetent. Whether that finding was right or wrong I can't know. But I know that extrapolating this case to some broader discussion about abortion rights generally makes no sense.

---

by: brudolf @ Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 20:34:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wow (0.00 / 0)

So if a judge says one black woman must have an abortion cause she's black that would be a rare instance?  Where does your slippery slope end?

Full Disclosure


http://www.redmassgroup.com/pr...

---

by: Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno @ Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 21:15:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Mentally incompetent = rape (4.50 / 2)

If the woman was deemed mentally incompetent to make a decision regarding abortion, she must therefore also be mentally incompetent to consent to have sex.  While I'm not an attorney, this would seem to be a clear cut case of rape or statutory rape.

Will the Department of Mental Health report the rape of the woman?


"Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty." - Ronald Reagan

---

by: kjkuros @ Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 18:17:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

So my observations are wild fantasies? (0.00 / 0)

There is no lowering of the abortion threshold?  

If you disagree with me you are a racist homophobe.

---

by: Vote3rdpartynow @ Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 19:57:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Seems quite on-point to me. (0.00 / 0)

Forcing an abortion on anyone (of course I'm not talking about
the baby here - they're always unwilling) is an atrocity.

Doing so under the cloak of concern for one's mental capacity is eugenics, pure and simple.

The fact that a court at any level would issue such a hideous order should be cause for enormous concern.

---

by: geo999 @ Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 21:10:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What we don't know about the case that we should know.... (0.00 / 0)

The agency has defended its efforts to arrange the court-ordered abortion for the schizophrenic woman, 32, saying the request was made in the patient's best interest and at the behest of her parents and doctors.

Here is a particularly unnerving part of this case - who is the woman?  I don't want to know her name or identity, but I would like to know how she came to be labeled 'schizophrenic' and by whom?  The woman is 32 years old, so clearly she is old enough to decide for herself.  What is at question is her ability to decide for herself.  Did the DMH label her schizophrenic?  Did her Doctor?  Had this woman been deemed unfit and therefore unsafe to society?  Do her parents have power of attorney?  

To me it sounds like a 'shrink' called her a schizophrenic and now the parents want the baby removed?  So an important question becomes - what are the 'mental' benchmarks for being competent to carry a child to full term? Schizophrenia, by virtue of this case, seems to fall below the benchmark.  What other mental disorders cause a woman to fall below the threshold?  Depression?  Mood swings?  Stress? Phobias? Anxiety? Anti-social? Paranoia?  

Here is something interesting about schizophrenia:

The majority of individuals with Schizophrenia are unaware that they have a psychotic illness. This poor insight is neurologically caused by illness, rather than simply being a coping behavior.

How convenient for the Doctor, the parents and the courts!

If you disagree with me you are a racist homophobe.

---

by: Vote3rdpartynow @ Sun Jan 29, 2012 at 12:53:41 PM UTC

I take a totally different view on this whole thing. (0.00 / 0)

As one who has been "judged" by Judge Harms, I take something different away from this whole mess. (FWIW, I agree with Ebo and V3PN)

I wonder how many other cases her "judgement" should be reviewed on.....

As anyone who has ever had to sit in a probate courtroom can attest to, things can easily get out of control.

My experience with the judge came in 2008 as part of post divorce issues (I was divorced in 1999).  Not only did she seriously screw up her math when figuring out my child support payments (necessitating a $1000 return to her court to have her fix), she added business expenses I claimed on my tax return (legitimate expenses....money I spent on business for which I was not reimbursed...and I have the receipts to prove it...) to my income for purposes of calculating my child support payments.  Yes, you read that right....she took money I spent and added it to my income.....thus calculating an income higher than what I made......

It doesn't end there.....

Because of this calculation, she determined that I was behind in my support, necessitating an arrears payment.  The wording in her ruling was so piss poor that the MADOR confiscated money from my bank account.  Another $1000 return to the judge got that money back.....

There's more (something far mor serious but much more complicated to explain) but I think I have made my point.

It was a happy day indeed when she retired.

---

by: V @ Mon Jan 30, 2012 at 13:47:04 PM UTC