John C. A. Bambenek (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} bambenek) wrote,@ 2005-01-06 13:23:00 |
|
I thought this kind of jurisprudence was long gone...
http://www.lifenews.com/state825.ht
Rochester, NY (LifeNews.com) -- A family court judge who gained national attention last year in a similar case has told a drug-addicted mother of seven not to have any more children until she can prove she is able to care for the kids the has. However, the judge ruled out using abortion as method of birth control.
While I like the fact the judge ruled out abortion, a court order regulating when someone can or cannot get pregnant is a road that should not be traveled in this country. We were there during the eugenics days in the 30s or so. We should not go back, even in this case where the woman shouldn't be having kids, it isn't up to the government to decide that.
http://www.lifenews.com/state825.ht
Rochester, NY (LifeNews.com) -- A family court judge who gained national attention last year in a similar case has told a drug-addicted mother of seven not to have any more children until she can prove she is able to care for the kids the has. However, the judge ruled out using abortion as method of birth control.
While I like the fact the judge ruled out abortion, a court order regulating when someone can or cannot get pregnant is a road that should not be traveled in this country. We were there during the eugenics days in the 30s or so. We should not go back, even in this case where the woman shouldn't be having kids, it isn't up to the government to decide that.
