Judge Orders Couple not to reproduce.

[ScottVib]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/08/conception.ban

ROCHESTER, New York (AP) -- A couple has been ordered not to conceive any more children until the ones they already have are no longer in foster care.

A civil liberties advocate said the court ruling unsealed Friday was "blatantly unconstitutional."

Monroe County Family Court Judge Marilyn O'Connor ruled March 31 that both parents "should not have yet another child which must be cared for at public expense."

"The facts of this case and the reality of parenthood cry out for family planning education," she ruled. "This court believes the constitutional right to have children is overcome when society must bear the financial and everyday burden of care."

The judge is not forcing contraception on the couple nor is she requiring the mother to get an abortion should she become pregnant. The couple may choose to be sterilized at no cost to them, O'Connor ruled.

If the couple violates O'Connor's ruling, they could be jailed for contempt of court.

"I don't know of any precedent that would permit a judge to do this," Anna Schissel, staff attorney for the Reproductive Rights Project of the New York Civil Liberties Union, told the Democrat and Chronicle of Rochester. "And even if there were a precedent, it would be blatantly unconstitutional because it violates the United States Constitution and the New York Constitution."

Neither parent attended the proceeding or secured legal representation. The mother waived her right to a lawyer, and the father never showed up in court.

The mother was found to have neglected her four children, ages 1, 2, 4 and 5. All three children who were tested for cocaine tested positive, according to court papers. Both parents had a history of drug abuse. It was not immediately clear if the father had other children.

A case worker testified that the parents ignored an order to get mental health treatment and attend parenting classes after the 1-year-old was born.

The mother was still in the hospital after giving birth to her fourth child in March 2003 when authorities took the infant, according to court papers. Investigators said the mother was unprepared to care for the infant.

Attempts to reach the youngest child's guardian were unsuccessful. Information on the other children's guardians was not immediately available.

Attorney Chris Affronti, who chairs the family law section of the Monroe County Bar Association, said he's not sure how the ruling could be enforced.

"I think what the judge is trying to do is kind of have a wake-up call for society," he said.



I can't imagine this ruling standing...

[nfg22]

I understand it, but it isnt right. People are irrespnsible and we should start taking action because it drains society, these people have babies then leave it for the state to take care of them.

[sabotai]

If these kids had cocaine in their system, shouldn't the two parents be thrown in jail?

[JonInMiddleGA]

I can't imagine this ruling standing...
I can't either ... but it's a damned shame that it won't.

[Crapshoot]

Its an interesting premise- Im not sure where I stand on this- the rights of the couple scare the libertarian in me, but their abject lack of responsibility is worrysome as well.

[Fritz]

If these kids had cocaine in their system, shouldn't the two parents be thrown in jail?


just the momma I would reckon.

[Ragone]

Well, and to be honest.. Why wouldn't this ruling stand.. its obvious the parents either don't know.. or don't care.. and in 8 months or so when they pop up at a hospital with another pregnancy.. bam.. they go to jail..

I'd like to see this ruling stand, too much money goes to people who become baby factories, hell there was a story here about a lady who was drawing in something like 1100 a week from welfare because of her 8 kids.. seriously.. tons of people don't even make that much and bust their asses..

[MrBug708]

*sigh*

The ACLU just doesn't get it.

[sabotai]

*sigh*

The ACLU just doesn't get it.

What don't they get?

[SunDancer]

Well, and to be honest.. Why wouldn't this ruling stand.. its obvious the parents either don't know.. or don't care.. and in 8 months or so when they pop up at a hospital with another pregnancy.. bam.. they go to jail..

I'd like to see this ruling stand, too much money goes to people who become baby factories, hell there was a story here about a lady who was drawing in something like 1100 a week from welfare because of her 8 kids.. seriously.. tons of people don't even make that much and bust their asses..

Which is why I think welfare needs to be either dropped, or its need to be reformed.

[Desnudo]

Its an interesting premise- Im not sure where I stand on this- the rights of the couple scare the libertarian in me, but their abject lack of responsibility is worrysome as well.

The libertarian in me says ban them from having kids. I don't want to pay higher income taxes because some damn fool can't put his rubber on right and then puts his little bundles of joy into the system. Make war not love.

[sabotai]

The libertarian in me says the state should tell them they have to pay for their housing and care. It also says they should be thrown in jail (Hello!! Kids with cocaine in their system!)

[mckerney]

The librarian in me says they should be banned from checking out anymore books until they pay their late fees.

[Desnudo]

The libertarian in me says the state should tell them they have to pay for their housing and care. It also says they should be thrown in jail (Hello!! Kids with cocaine in their system!)

Unless making license plates for $.20 an hour will pay for the raising of four kids, how do you propose to handle both? And telling two broke and unemployable people to pay for care is great, but you're not squeezing water from a rock, or something like that.

[sabotai]

Unless making license plates for $.20 an hour will pay for the raising of four kids, how do you propose to handle both? And telling two broke and unemployable people to pay for care is great, but you're not squeezing water from a rock, or something like that.

They have to have some possesions. A house, car, furniture...take it all to pay for their kids care. And then send them to jail.

[Greyroofoo]

I have to agree with the judge. The parents obvioulsy have no intention of being good parents and it shouldn't be up to the state to take care of the children

[JonInMiddleGA]

They have to have some possesions. A house, car, furniture...
Wanna lay any odds on how much of their stuff is actually paid for?
And on how far that money would go even if it sold for mkt value?

Sorry to say it Sab, but we're stuck with raising this particular brood just about any way we slice it. Which is why I'd dearly love to see mandatory sterilization as an option in cases like these; it's the only way to keep them out of our wallets in the long run.

[ScottVib]

One of the interesting things in the article is that the couple was offered free sterilization per the court ruling.

[Sharpieman]

I thought this thread somehow had to do with Micheal Jackson, then I remembered that he doesn't date women.

[sabotai]

Wanna lay any odds on how much of their stuff is actually paid for?
And on how far that money would go even if it sold for mkt value?

Sorry to say it Sab, but we're stuck with raising this particular brood just about any way we slice it. Which is why I'd dearly love to see mandatory sterilization as an option in cases like these; it's the only way to keep them out of our wallets in the long run.

The problem with mandatory sterilization is that we can't say for certain that one of them won't straighten up and become good citizens...and then they can't have kids. Which is fine by me, they've got 4 already. But it's doesn't exactly sound constitutional either.

Of course, a good way to keep them from having anymore kids would be to PUT THEM IN JAIL!! FOR CHRIST'S SAKE THEIR KIDS HAD COCAINE IN THEIR SYSTEM!!!

:D

[Leonidas]

I downright outraged that my tax dollars contribute to this cycle of poverty. And what I find truly ironic is the ACLU cares more about this than the people themselves. The mother waived a right to an attorney (basically abstaining from so much as having a say in the decision) and the father never even showed up.

I agree that sterilization is chilling and overly drastic. So my thought is these people should simply be cut off from all entitlements. No welfare, no food stamps, no unemployment checks. Continue to take the kids away as well as eliminating any governmemt provided incentive to have more. Throw in some free drug and sex education counseling along the way.

[Anthony]

I'd rather the judge propose to cut off government subsidy (thus any incentive to continue doing this) than order them to stop having children.

government is just here to uphold laws - not tell people what to do with their lives.

[Abe Sargent]

What don't they get?

Well, offhands, I'd say the ACLU doesn't get enough sex.

-Anxiety

[stevew]

The problem with mandatory sterilization is that we can't say for certain that one of them won't straighten up and become good citizens...and then they can't have kids. Which is fine by me, they've got 4 already. But it's doesn't exactly sound constitutional either.

:D

I think Civil Liberties should diminish when someone lives off the state. If you get a job and pay for your bills, you can do whatever the hell you want within reason. But when you are living off the gov't and have COCAINE IN YOUR KIDS, sterilization shouldnt be an option, but rather the only course of action.

[corbes]

*Disclaimer: I realize the draconian/invasive implications of my following joke*

Isn't it time we instituted a parenting license as a prerequisite to having kids?

[Raven Hawk]

Isn't there some sort of law for chlid neglect that can put these people in jail? Cocaine in the childrens' system seems like it would be breaking some sort of law. It's not like it was one kid and that kid 'accidentally' used some. Three of the kids had it in their system. What are they doing? Do they put it on their Frosted Flakes? Somebody throw these idiots into jail.

[revrew]

I am way, way too emotional about this subject to get too involved. If I chose to get involved in a debate, I would certainly say something regrettable. But so that my opinion gets stated for the record...

Mandatory sterilization is a totalitarian abuse of power in any and all cases. Not only would the very thought of it be deplorable to every one of the founding fathers, but it is exactly the abhorrent logical end that pro-choice advocates fear the most--to those that see a right to reproductive "choice" in the Constitution, this is the logically worst possible case-scenario. Worse than a government telling a pregnant woman she must bear a child is the government telling a woman she can have no (more) children.

As a citizen of Germany and a student of Nazi history, I am outraged that a legal authority in the United States would even consider this. Could we forget so quickly? Frankly, I think the judge should be disbarred until she has had undergone a "History of the Nazi State" course. After that, let her practice law, but never again as a judge.

As for what to do about the cost of this (and why so quick to throw away basic human and constitutional rights just because it costs money? Are we that much a slave to the dollar? Hell, Medicare costs a lot, too. Why not just kill all the old people? It would be cheaper!), there are two simple answers, both of which have already been suggested. #1, it is hard to reproduce when you're serving jail time. And, #2, the welfare system could be reformed to include a black list for those that abuse the system. If given the choice between the government paying for everything and fixing my messed up life....is it no wonder people choose the former? But if government assistance is used a free pass instead of a help in time of need, then let them choose between fixing a messed up life or death. Maybe a church or charity could help them, but until the government stops paying for their cocaine, why would they quit using?

But back to mandatory sterilization. At least the judge had the sensibility not to order a medical procedure. Contempt of court is the crime? I'd gladly serve it in a heartbeat. Through me in jail. I'll start my own Confederacy before I EVER support a government that demands compulsory sterilization.

I may not agree with the ACLU (or sabotai :) ) on much, but on this one, there's no doubt.

[Drake]

The librarian in me says they should be banned from checking out anymore books until they pay their late fees.

Brilliant!

[Franklinnoble]

I am way, way too emotional about this subject to get too involved. If I chose to get involved in a debate, I would certainly say something regrettable. But so that my opinion gets stated for the record...

Mandatory sterilization is a totalitarian abuse of power in any and all cases. Not only would the very thought of it be deplorable to every one of the founding fathers, but it is exactly the abhorrent logical end that pro-choice advocates fear the most--to those that see a right to reproductive "choice" in the Constitution, this is the logically worst possible case-scenario. Worse than a government telling a pregnant woman she must bear a child is the government telling a woman she can have no (more) children.

As a citizen of Germany and a student of Nazi history, I am outraged that a legal authority in the United States would even consider this. Could we forget so quickly? Frankly, I think the judge should be disbarred until she has had undergone a "History of the Nazi State" course. After that, let her practice law, but never again as a judge.

As for what to do about the cost of this (and why so quick to throw away basic human and constitutional rights just because it costs money? Are we that much a slave to the dollar? Hell, Medicare costs a lot, too. Why not just kill all the old people? It would be cheaper!), there are two simple answers, both of which have already been suggested. #1, it is hard to reproduce when you're serving jail time. And, #2, the welfare system could be reformed to include a black list for those that abuse the system. If given the choice between the government paying for everything and fixing my messed up life....is it no wonder people choose the former? But if government assistance is used a free pass instead of a help in time of need, then let them choose between fixing a messed up life or death. Maybe a church or charity could help them, but until the government stops paying for their cocaine, why would they quit using?

But back to mandatory sterilization. At least the judge had the sensibility not to order a medical procedure. Contempt of court is the crime? I'd gladly serve it in a heartbeat. Through me in jail. I'll start my own Confederacy before I EVER support a government that demands compulsory sterilization.

I may not agree with the ACLU (or sabotai :) ) on much, but on this one, there's no doubt.
Well said. While I find the actions of these parents wholly irresponsible, issuing a ruling that prevents them from having children sets a very scary precedent.

[CamEdwards]

I'm still laughing at the "the libertarian in me says ban them from having kids." That's too rich.

Should these people be having more kids? I dunno. Should we be paying for them to have more kids? Hell no. I agree with Sabotai. An easy solution to this problem would be to lock mommy and daddy away for child neglect. Instead we continue to coddle criminals and fund their continued child abuse.

[Drake]

I am way, way too emotional about this subject to get too involved. If I chose to get involved in a debate, I would certainly say something regrettable. But so that my opinion gets stated for the record...

Mandatory sterilization is a totalitarian abuse of power in any and all cases. Not only would the very thought of it be deplorable to every one of the founding fathers, but it is exactly the abhorrent logical end that pro-choice advocates fear the most--to those that see a right to reproductive "choice" in the Constitution, this is the logically worst possible case-scenario. Worse than a government telling a pregnant woman she must bear a child is the government telling a woman she can have no (more) children.

As a citizen of Germany and a student of Nazi history, I am outraged that a legal authority in the United States would even consider this. Could we forget so quickly? Frankly, I think the judge should be disbarred until she has had undergone a "History of the Nazi State" course. After that, let her practice law, but never again as a judge.

As for what to do about the cost of this (and why so quick to throw away basic human and constitutional rights just because it costs money? Are we that much a slave to the dollar? Hell, Medicare costs a lot, too. Why not just kill all the old people? It would be cheaper!), there are two simple answers, both of which have already been suggested. #1, it is hard to reproduce when you're serving jail time. And, #2, the welfare system could be reformed to include a black list for those that abuse the system. If given the choice between the government paying for everything and fixing my messed up life....is it no wonder people choose the former? But if government assistance is used a free pass instead of a help in time of need, then let them choose between fixing a messed up life or death. Maybe a church or charity could help them, but until the government stops paying for their cocaine, why would they quit using?

But back to mandatory sterilization. At least the judge had the sensibility not to order a medical procedure. Contempt of court is the crime? I'd gladly serve it in a heartbeat. Through me in jail. I'll start my own Confederacy before I EVER support a government that demands compulsory sterilization.

I may not agree with the ACLU (or sabotai :) ) on much, but on this one, there's no doubt.


I see what you're saying, rev, but I'm not sure that socially subsidized childbearing should be considered a "right". It certainly isn't a Natural "right". In a natural state, an animal can get pregnant and spit out offspring, but if it doesn't have the skills to tend to the offspring, the offspring dies. Society falsely violates the natural code of survival by subsidizing inherently unfit genetic product at social expense (which is, I believe, how we ended up with Kentucky, but I digress). This is not a bad thing - it's one of the things that makes us human - but I don't know that this equates into a "right".

I understand your concerns vis-a-vis Nazism, but disqualifying two unfit individuals from reproduction because of their specific past actions seems wildly different than disqualifying entire groups of people because of their religious/ethnic background.

The big question, I suppose, is whether or not this is the state's business. If having some control of extreme cases of reproductive irresponsibility is not, it's just as reasonable to argue argue that the state similarly has no business protecting the product of that reproduction - i.e. if the parents are unfit/unwilling the care for the offspring, the state should not be required to step in. If the parents choose to leave the offspring to die, the state should have no *right* to prevent them.

[Drake]

dola...

I don't want you to think that I'm disagreeing with you, rev. The difference is that you're arguing that the state shouldn't intervene in reproductive rights because it's wrong, whereas I'd argue that the state shouldn't because implementation would be burdensomely complicated.

[sabotai]

Cam and revrew agreeing with me in the same thread. Someone hold me, I'm scared. :)

[Franklinnoble]

Cam and revrew agreeing with me in the same thread. Someone hold me, I'm scared. :)
I'll be right over.

Don't mind the vaseline...

[sabotai]

Damn it Franklin....you know I like you better in baby oil and wrestling tights!

[Franklinnoble]

Damn it Franklin....you know I like you better in baby oil and wrestling tights!
It's not always about you. Don't make me remove the beads and gag you with them again...

[KevinNU7]

So why aren't the parents going to jail?

[stevew]

My opinion that I have developed is that when people are on public assistance, they should not be able to breed. When your rent is paid for and your food as well, making the small sacrifice to have a norplant installed is not too much to ask. This country needs to better police its social programs(i.e. child support, people living under someone elses publicly funded roof for free).

[Telle]

I see what you're saying, rev, but I'm not sure that socially subsidized childbearing should be considered a "right". It certainly isn't a Natural "right". In a natural state, an animal can get pregnant and spit out offspring, but if it doesn't have the skills to tend to the offspring, the offspring dies. Society falsely violates the natural code of survival by subsidizing inherently unfit genetic product at social expense (which is, I believe, how we ended up with Kentucky, but I digress). This is not a bad thing - it's one of the things that makes us human - but I don't know that this equates into a "right".

I understand your concerns vis-a-vis Nazism, but disqualifying two unfit individuals from reproduction because of their specific past actions seems wildly different than disqualifying entire groups of people because of their religious/ethnic background.

The big question, I suppose, is whether or not this is the state's business. If having some control of extreme cases of reproductive irresponsibility is not, it's just as reasonable to argue argue that the state similarly has no business protecting the product of that reproduction - i.e. if the parents are unfit/unwilling the care for the offspring, the state should not be required to step in. If the parents choose to leave the offspring to die, the state should have no *right* to prevent them.

Are you actually arguing that we should let children die if their parents can't/won't provide for them??

[druez]

I'm still laughing at the "the libertarian in me says ban them from having kids." That's too rich.

Should these people be having more kids? I dunno. Should we be paying for them to have more kids? Hell no. I agree with Sabotai. An easy solution to this problem would be to lock mommy and daddy away for child neglect. Instead we continue to coddle criminals and fund their continued child abuse.


So instead we have to pay for the parents to be locked up...

[druez]

Ok, if you want ot have kids you should be able to provide for them. If you can not or will not, you should be sterlized PERIOD.

Its not my job to take care of someone else's kid.

Its not the governments job to take care of someone's kid.

Its not the kids job to take care of himself.

I'll tell you what Revrew and the rest of you liberals out there. All these kids will be shipped over to your neighborhood where you can take care of them yourself with your money.

[Franklinnoble]

Ok, if you want ot have kids you should be able to provide for them. If you can not or will not, you should be sterlized PERIOD.

Its not my job to take care of someone else's kid.

Its not the governments job to take care of someone's kid.

Its not the kids job to take care of himself.

I'll tell you what Revrew and the rest of you liberals out there. All these kids will be shipped over to your neighborhood where you can take care of them yourself with your money.
Very charitable of you. I hope you never have a chronic illness or debilitating injury that exceeds the limits of your medical insurance liability. I'd hate for my taxpayer dollars to have to help you out. Oh, and make sure you don't take any more money out of social security than you've paid in. While we're at it, let's get rid of public schooling altogether, since those without kids shouldn't be forced to pay for it.

[druez]

What kind of illness is it where you can't use a condom? Or you have kids with cocainne in their bodies. An illness where us as society helps people is totally different then irresponsible parenting.

Not sure what public school has to do with people having children who are not responsible...

[Franklinnoble]

What kind of illness is it where you can't use a condom? Or you have kids with cocainne in their bodies. An illness where us as society helps people is totally different then irresponsible parenting.

Not sure what public school has to do with people having children who are not responsible...
I was referring to your general distaste for having to shoulder the burden of someone else's responsibility.

[judicial clerk]

Taking care of kids who are not taken care of by their parents is one of the things that I am happy to pay taxes for. These kids are innocent victims and I think we as a society should step in to provide, not only a minimum level of existence, but I high level of nuturing care. Now, I think that parental neglect or abuse should be considered a very serious crime and should be punished accordingly. I hate to pay for these parents to live in jail, but I would definitely want to send them to jail for a long time. Who knows, maybe after twenty years they will turn themselves around and even be able to have a relationship with their kid.

[Easy Mac]

Ok, if you want ot have kids you should be able to provide for them. If you can not or will not, you should be sterlized PERIOD.

Its not my job to take care of someone else's kid.

Its not the governments job to take care of someone's kid.

Its not the kids job to take care of himself.

I'll tell you what Revrew and the rest of you liberals out there. All these kids will be shipped over to your neighborhood where you can take care of them yourself with your money.
I think we should just do what the supreme court decided in Buck v. Bell and sterilize all the imbeciles. Lets start with druez.

[Mac Howard]

Reminds me of a joke I saw last night on tv from a stand up comedienne (am I allowed to use the feminine form of the word? :rolleyes: )

"My husband and I have 5 kids. But that won't stop us having more. We're determined to try until we get one we like."

[druez]

I think we should just do what the supreme court decided in Buck v. Bell and sterilize all the imbeciles. Lets start with druez.

thanks :)

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Actually, it sets no precedent. Clearly a case where a single judge has had enough and does it for the heck of it, as a way to send a message of how ridiculous he thinks it is.

Don't blame it on the ACLU. Just about every attorney and legal scholar will tell you that this is as clear a violation of the constitutional right to privacy as there is.

[Young Drachma]

Well, and to be honest.. Why wouldn't this ruling stand.. its obvious the parents either don't know.. or don't care.. and in 8 months or so when they pop up at a hospital with another pregnancy.. bam.. they go to jail..

I'd like to see this ruling stand, too much money goes to people who become baby factories, hell there was a story here about a lady who was drawing in something like 1100 a week from welfare because of her 8 kids.. seriously.. tons of people don't even make that much and bust their asses..

It's not even the welfare. It's the cash cow that is state enforcement of child support. Not to say children shouldn't be supported, but its such a cottage industry for states now to devote more money to stuff like this, rather than trying to make sure that the money they do spend goes to things so these kids actually get out of their situation, rather than continue the knack that some in low-income families have for social reproduction. (that is, ending up in the same class as their parents were)

[Drake]

Are you actually arguing that we should let children die if their parents can't/won't provide for them??

Not saying that at all. Read the post again.

To clarify (so I don't sound snippy) : What I'm asking is whether or not the state is *obligated* as a function of the state apparatus to care for children in cases like this if the parents are unfit. Morally, the state should care for them. I'm happy the state cares for them, in fact, but it is still a moral choice. How comfortable should we be with the state making moral choices for us? I suppose that as long as the state generally mirrors the morality of the population, this sort of thing is okay. But what happens when the apparatus of the state diverges from popular morality? How can we say, for example, that the state shouldn't be allowed to make moral choices about the reproductive rights of women (i.e. abortion), but should make moral choices in other arenas?

Once again, my point is, and has always been, that this issue is complicated and any time you hand the state a complicated issue, it's going to botch things on the fringe cases - and it's inevitably the fringe cases like this that people freak out over. Perhaps the solution is that the state shouldn't be involved at all and that all care for children in situations like this should fall to private, non-profit or community based service organizations (including churches). That way, if communities decide they want to leave infants on the sides of mountains to die, at least it's individuals and communities making those moral decisions for us rather than the apparatus of the state.

I hope that clarifies my position, but I fear it's just muddied the waters more.