Forced Abortion for Mentally Ill

[sadie1263]

Forced abortion for a mentally ill woman? No way, says Mass. appeals court

By James Eng, msnbc.com

A Massachusetts appeals court has verbally skewered a judge who ordered that a mentally ill woman have an abortion against her will even if it meant she had to be “coaxed, bribed, or even enticed” into a hospital.

The Massachusetts Appeals Court this week overturned the ruling by Norfolk Probate Judge Christina L. Harms, who had also ordered that the 32-year-old woman, known as “Mary Moe,” be sterilized.
The appellate decision noted that Moe “has consistently expressed her opposition to abortion” and likely would “continue to do so if she were competent.”

As for the sterilization order, state Appellate Court Associate Justice Andrew R. Grainger wrote: “No party requested this measure, none of the attendant procedural requirements has been met, and the judge appears to have simply produced the requirement out of thin air.”

Records in probate and family court cases are usually kept private, but this case was unsealed because it was appealed. The revelation of Harms’ order and the language behind it sparked outrage from a variety of interest groups and politicians.

“It bothers me as a woman, that a woman can’t make a decision about her body,” state Sen. Susan Fargo, D-Lincoln, who chairs the Joint Committee on Public Health, told the Boston Herald.

Harms, a 20-year veteran probate and family court judge, retired from the court on Jan. 11. She could not be reached by msnbc.com for comment. She did not respond Thursday to a message forwarded to her by Massachusetts court officials.

The facts in the case are not in dispute, according to court documents. Moe, who suffers from schizophrenia and bipolar mood disorder, is a few months pregnant. She has been pregnant twice before: The first time she had an abortion; the second time she gave birth to a boy who is now in the custody of her parents. Between her abortion and the birth of her son, she suffered a “psychotic break,” and has been hospitalized numerous times for mental illness.

At a December hearing, the state Department of Mental Health asked a court to grant temporary guardianship of Moe to her parents. That would allow the parents, who were already caring for one child, to give consent to an abortion for their daughter.

According to court records:
Moe also states that she is "very Catholic," does not believe in abortion, and would never have an abortion. Her parents, however, have stated that she is not an "active" Catholic. Moe's parents believe that it is in the best interests of their daughter to terminate her pregnancy.
Harms approved the guardianship, finding that Moe was incompetent to decide on an abortion based on “several and substantial delusional beliefs” -– including that Moe mistakenly believed she had a daughter and that she had previously met the judge.

....................

The appeals court reversed the sterilization order and set aside the abortion order, saying a determination on that matter should go before a different judge “with all possible speed.”

Despite scathing comments from women's rights groups, Boston Herald columnist Peter Gelzinis said the case is not so clear-cut.

In a column Wednesday titled "Logic found on both sides of this issue," he characterized the dilemma as “an awful Hobson’s choice, one that requires the wisdom of Solomon.”

He noted that doctors had suggested that stopping Moe’s psychiatric medications would place her in serious risk and plunge her "deeper into madness." But the same drugs also threatened the health of her baby.
“What yesterday’s decision seems to imply between the lines is that Judge Harms may have been trying to follow the wishes of Mary Moe’s parents. They are now caring for Mary’s son and, as co-guardians for their daughter, urged the court to rule in favor of an abortion,” Gelzinis wrote.

“There are so many variables here that making 'the right choice' is damned if you do, damned if you don't,” one reader commented in response to the column.




usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/19/10192109-forced-abortion-for-a-mentally-ill-woman-no-way-says-mass-appeals-court

[sadie1263]

This seems to be a tragic case....when I first read the headline I was horrified....that when you go on to read that her medications will harm the baby....but if she doesn't take them she could be plunged further into her psychosis.......what is the answer?

[Big Lin]

Whatever way I look at it this is very sad.

As the mother of a son with various genetic defects who WAS advised by my doctor to have an abortion but refused I truly do try and see both sides of the argument here.

I'm glad I gave birth to my son even though I nearly died and even though he is a challenge at times.

He's going to be 11 years old this year and I love him just as much as I do his younger sister who's got nothing wrong with her.

[Deleted]

So sad and immoral. When I was pregnant I decided that if there was something wrong with any of my kids, I would still have them regardless.

[Deleted]

If it had been the other way round - ie the woman wanting the abortion and her mother saying "no", what a different story that would be.

[sadie1263]

Just such a tragic story. If they stop medication to the mother....she will slip further into madness.....if she continues to take the meds....that can irreparably harm/kill the child. Her parents are already raising a little boy of hers.......They could have limited resources.....and I'm sure taking care of her, plus the child.....well the thought of another one might just be too much for them.

I do think whether she has the baby or not they do need to do something about keeping her from having more babies.

[Hunny]

I know a couple people with schizophrenia. They're quite normal when they take the medication, and because I know them as just people, it seems quite horribly obnoxious to me that they even use the word "madness". What terrible ignorance, and what awful promotion of ill conceptions of what amounts to a percentage of all people (those with mental disorders). They're just people! And they have their own will, and a perfect right to it.

I don't see enough facts here to know exactly how she got declared "incompetent", but if her family did that to her, well frankly damn them for taking her rights from her and making her a "thing" to be ordered around by the state. I mean look how that's going, geez. Can';t they look after her? Or are they too lazy and irresponsible of their own kin?

And this is not to mention the concept of a government forcing an abortion on someone. Wow. Just wow. Here is yet another judge who just needs to be disbarred; I don't care how tough his decision was, that's not the state's decision to make.

[Deleted]

So far as I can see, the court decided that she was incompetent on the basis of evidence it had. That shouldn't normally over-ride someone's beliefs of course, but what are her options here?

To continue with the pregnancy without medication will make her very ill. To continue with medication will harm the foetus. Is she capable of making that choice? If not, who can?

To put it another way, a foetus should never be put before a woman's health, unless she is adament that this is heer choice. If her mind is so confused that she can't make that choice, what then?

[Ben Gay]

Jan 20, 2012 18:37:54 GMT deyana said:

So sad and immoral. When I was pregnant I decided that if there was something wrong with any of my kids, I would still have them regardless.

Even if they had no arms or legs?

[lonewolf]

Jan 20, 2012 18:37:54 GMT deyana said:

So sad and immoral. When I was pregnant I decided that if there was something wrong with any of my kids, I would still have them regardless.

That seems rather selfish to me. After all, once you're deceased, or too old to care for your children, who can’t care for themselves, then others will be compelled to do so for you.

[Ben Gay]

Mar 23, 2012 22:40:02 GMT @lonewolf said:

That seems rather selfish to me. After all, once you're deceased, or too old to care for your children, who can’t care for themselves, then others will be compelled to do so for you.

THANK GOD for OBAMACARE!!!

[Deleted]

Although I'm pro-choice over abortion, I dislike the idea of terminating a pregnancy on the grounds that the foetus is imperfect in some way. In extreme cases it is the kindest thing to do, but abortion because a child has Downs Syndrome or whatever seems to sending out a message that disabled children are inferior. If you can't handle a handicapped child, don't get pregnant!

In this sad case the mother will presumably be kept off her meds for the sake of the baby's health, and anything could happen. I know of schizophrenic people who are violent and self-harming but I do hope she isn't one of them.

[lonewolf]

Mar 24, 2012 9:30:15 GMT @skylark said:

abortion because a child has Downs Syndrome or whatever seems to sending out a message that disabled children are inferior.

Those with Down's Syndrome have Significantly lower intelligence than normal individuals.

[Ben Gay]

Mar 24, 2012 9:30:15 GMT @skylark said:

abortion because a child has Downs Syndrome or whatever seems to sending out a message that disabled children are inferior. If you can't handle a handicapped child, don't get pregnant!

Disabled children are superior and everyone should strive to have many.

[Hunny]

Mar 23, 2012 20:59:11 GMT @skylark said:

So far as I can see, the court decided that she was incompetent on the basis of evidence it had. That shouldn't normally over-ride someone's beliefs of course, but what are her options here?

To continue with the pregnancy without medication will make her very ill. To continue with medication will harm the foetus. Is she capable of making that choice? If not, who can?

To put it another way, a foetus should never be put before a woman's health, unless she is adamant that this is her choice. If her mind is so confused that she can't make that choice, what then?

Well that all sounds reasonable. But the problem I have is that doctors CAN and do treat schizophrenia during pregnancy.

www.epigee.org/mental_health/meds_pregnancy.html

www.everydayhealth.com/schizophrenia/schizophrenia-and-pregnancy.aspx

Me thinks the court or somebody is just making excuses for ordering someone around. I also think the court is making such decisions in a state of ignorance of medical fact (the judge isn't a doctor; and if a DA chose an "expert" to question, his intent in it would of course be highly subjective).

And I still find it dreadful that a family would disown their responsibility for taking care of their own kin, letting an "authority" (ie, people who get a kick out of ordering other people around, by force) have control of her instead. Awful.

[Deleted]

Thanks for that interesting information hunny.

I'm not sure why you are blaming the family. They are already looking after her other child : according to the court report she doesn't even know its sex. Far from "disowning their responsibility" they sought and obtained a guardianship order for Mary Moe. They may be misguided, but the story states that the abortion was sought by both them and their daughter's independent medical adviser.

We don't know what the medical issues are here; I'd be shocked and surprised if the doctors had not already tried or considered a safe alternative drug.