posted
The right to choose to rear children is considered a fundamental right. A forced, permanant deprivation (sterilization) is definitely unconstitutional now, although this wasn't always so.
A temporary stay such as this hasn't been definitively ruled on, but I seriously doubt it would pass constitutional muster.
posted
I think the judge is going to get a LOT of fallout over this -- no matter how many people agree that this particular couple really shouldn't have more kids at this time.
Granted, the judge didn't say they HAVE to be sterilized or anything -- just that they will be arrested for contempt of court if they get pregnant again...
posted
I agree with the judge, but what he's doing is clearly illegal. I don't want the consequences of the judge's decision, this one couple and their children aren't worth giving up any more of our rights,
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because a large part of me is sick and tired of all this talk of people's rights. If people act irresponsible, bring children into the world they won't take care of or if they won't quit drugs and get their lives together then they should lose their rights to have kids. Simple as that. It's cruel, it's harsh, but I don't care. They won't go out and get the help that's offered to them, but they'll have sex and bring another poor kid in the world who will suffer because of their irresponsibility. It is unfair. I think the judge under the circumstances was being reasonable. She did not say they had to get sterolized or anything. What really should be done is FORCING the parents to get some sort of treatment and get their lives together so they can have a chance of getting back the other kids scattered in foster homes. They should be given some sort of reasonable job that still allows them to spend time with the kids. That is impossible. The children's rights should also be taken into consideration, such as a right to be in a good home with parents that can provide for them.. Of course, this sounds bitter as hell, but this is the mood I am in..
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Really, if they are producing kids for society to take care of, shouldn't society have the right to tell them that they can't have anymore?
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do not think that the judge should have prohibited the couple from having children. Instead, the parents should be forced to pay for the support of any more children they create. If they can't afford that, they should be offered the option of free sterilization/contraception. That way, society does not have to bear the burden of their stupid choices and the parents still have their rights intact.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Syesthesia that this is justified. I want to quote what I consider the key element in the decision.
quote: 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.
The judge is NOT forcing them to not have kids, but rather, given the fact that all her kids tested positive for cocaine and are in societies care, she will penalize the parents if they bring into this world any more children. I think it is just and fair. The court won't stop them from having kids or force contraception or abortion, but the court will hold them liable for contempt of court.
I actually consider this a light punishment. Considering,
quote: 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
I think the parents should already be in jail for child abuse, neglect, and endangerment.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
They ought to have a special jail for parents that neglect their kids that teaches them how to take care of children, how to use contraceptives and job skills. They'd spend about six months in there, get cleaned up of drugs and get back into the work force. Then they'd get visitations with their kids had have to save up their money to be able to take care of them. After 3-6 months they'd get weekend visits. and after a few more months the kids would go back with them. They'd be fostered near by so non-abusive parents can still visit pretty much any time they wanted to and the children would not have to be uprooted from their schools and friends and familiar environments. And even afterwards the parents would still get help, anger management, child care from maybe local trustworthy elderly people when the parents have to work or want a night out. Something like that. It would never happen though.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This just shows that the penalties for drug use during pregnancy and child neglect are not strong enough. Incarceration would prevent them from conceiving any more children.
Posts: 1379 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with the judge completely. I know it's completely against our rights, but it just makes sense to me. It just boggles my mind that, in our society, you need to get a licence to have a pet but not to bring a human being into the world.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Calling this issue a "touchy" subject is like calling an elephant "kinda heavy"....
Farmgirl... you are right, imo, to have concerns about this. Talk about the lesser of two evils. The Judge was probably right...but the implications are troubling. Just think of irresponsible people with the power to tell you how to breed...
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
I'm going to visit on Saturday and will be staying for a few days. I'll have to see what my parents have to say about this (they're both retired and follow the news closely).
BTW, my parents, both about 70, worry that I am a little too conservative.
Aside to Dag,
are you sure that that forced sterilization is definitely unconstitutional now? Last I heard, Buck v. Bell (1927) has never been overturned.
Excerpt:
quote:We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.
posted
Many years ago, I knew a woman in New Mexico who had 4 children by 3 different men who was receiving all manner of welfare assistance. After the fourth child was born, she was given the option of tubal ligation or loss of all state assistance. She complained loudly and bitterly, but consented to the surgery.
I know that's not mandatory sterilization, but it's pretty compelling. And I think the state was absolutely correct. If you expect other people (or the government) to provide for you, it is not unreasonable that they should be allowed to call some of the shots.
Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even me... a libertarian at heart and a gay boy to boot finds that excerpt appealing. Why does it seem that more often than not the people who should not be breeding are having 15 kids and the good smart people are only having 1 or 2 or none at all?
But my secret desire to see the improvement of the species probably should not really be the law of the land. Who is anybody to say you can breed or you can't? Are they really breeding monsters?
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Breeding licenses are one of those modest proposals that are great in theory but won't work in practice until I'm King.
Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, Telperion, funny thing is that the eugenics movement was a "progressive" movement at the time. Basically, rich educated white people believed their status was due to their superior genes and as for the poor... well, that was in their genes.
The eugenics movement had managed to get sterilization laws passed in about 30 states, but institutions weren't doing much sterilization, due to worries about the constitutionality of the law.
So the superintendent of the Lynchburg Colony in Virginia picked Carrie Buck as a test case. Her mother had been in Lynchburg. Carrie herself had been raped by someone genetically superior (sarcasm alert). They got a nurse to testify there was something "peculiar" about Carrie's daughter.
Carrie's lawyer was an advocate of sterilization - it's doubtful he represented her with any intention other than losing the case. This way, with a Supreme Court sanction, the sterilization program could gear up.
It worked. At least 60,000 Americans were sterilized as a result of those laws.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Although not explicitly overruled, the court turned away from forced sterilization in Skinner v. Oklahoma. This was decided on equal protection grounds mainly because the Court had become leery of substantive due process as a foundation for new rights.
Buck included Holmes famous statement that equal protection is "the usual last resort of constitutional arguments." Since that time, equal protection has become the source of most 14th amendment claims.
So while it probably was a stretch to say it's "definitely unconstitutional now," reproductive capacity has defintely been recognized as a fundamental right, and Buck would likely be overruled if a case were brought under it today.
posted
Hmmm... from what you all have said... couldn't the judge have made it a choice? I mean like "2 years in jail OR sterilization"? That way, the couple could have chosen state-paid-for sterilization, and it would be THEIR choice. If they felt really strongly about remaining fertile, they could choose jail....
There's got to be a way to make this work (keep them from having kids) but maintaining the rights of individuals at the same time to not set a precedent. They probably would personally CHOOSE sterilization if they could get it -- obviously they don't care much about kids...
posted
"2 years in jail OR" anything isn't a choice. It's coercion. It's the same reason we generally don't allow the government to require citizens to refrain from the exercise of a right in order to receive a benefit.
posted
Reminds me of these polygamists that have all their kids on welfare :shudders: Because the mothers are unwed, you know. :really shudders: But to say that having children is a "constitutional right" is highly presumptuous. I agree that we all wish there were something we could do. But I don't think this is it. Why don't they have DEA agents tail the couple and just bust them for drugs?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Why does it seem that more often than not the people who should not be breeding are having 15 kids and the good smart people are only having 1 or 2 or none at all?
Cuz smart people are ugly, Telperion. I know. Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm going to go with the judge was wrong crowd. While I agree with the sentiment, the right to have children is so personal and fundamental that any government regulation of it is an unbelievable encroachment of rights.
I think that the judge's actions show a need for a change in legislation. Instead of encouraging people to have kids they can't afford (through welfare). The government needs to start discouraging it. Does anybody disagree that having and keeping kids you can't afford is a severe form of child abuse? If not, why isn't it treated like it? It should be punishable by losing all rights to your children, that way a great deal of the young children could be more easily adopted. It should also be punishable with jail time. Clearly there are many cases where this would be inappropriate, but that's why CPS has caseworkers, so that they can find the cases where action is appropriate.
Instead of the government rewarding drains on society, why don't we start punishing them?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
