Judge Orders Couple not to Have Children

[Gawain 0]

This will be a good discussion I think. Personally, I'm all for it. It's a relatively short article. The question of enforcement is interesting...hmmm...*snip snip* here and a *tie a knot there*...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/08/conception.banned.ap/index.html

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[quade 4]

Both unconstitional, yet in some instances understandable.

This will be thrown out immediately.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

I actually don't know if it's unconstitutional. I don't know what the law is that the judged used, and "family relationships" typically are viewed under "intermediate scrutiny." There could be an argument that there is an important governmental purpose and this ruling is substantially related to those objectives. I dunno what NY law would say.

I also know that under the collateral bar rule, even blatantly unconstitutional court orders must be followed until they are appealed out.

INteresting story. I'd love to have a role in arguing either side of this.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 4]

Quote

1942: Supreme Court stops some sterilization, establishes reproductive right

In Skinner v. Oklahoma, the Supreme Court rules that a 1935 law allowing for the forced sterilization of certain kinds of criminals is unconstitutional. (However, Buck v. Bell (1927) remains in force so that the involuntary sterilization of the "feebleminded" is still allowed under the constitution.)

Source: http://www.pbs.org/bloodlines/timeline/text_timeline.html

Also see: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/skinner.html

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

1942: Supreme Court stops some sterilization, establishes reproductive right

In Skinner v. Oklahoma, the Supreme Court rules that a 1935 law allowing for the forced sterilization of certain kinds of criminals is unconstitutional. (However, Buck v. Bell (1927) remains in force so that the involuntary sterilization of the "feebleminded" is still allowed under the constitution.)

Source: http://www.pbs.org/bloodlines/timeline/text_timeline.html

Also see: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/skinner.html

Different situation. It's not forcing sterilization. A fine line, but I see some differences here. Sterilization was apparently offered here.

It's a judicial enforecement of the "If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em" doctrine.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 4]

I still think the basic concept applies that the government has NO business telling people how many or few children they can or can't have and I'm almost certain this will be the case that is cited.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

I still think the basic concept applies that the government has NO business telling people how many or few children they can or can't have and I'm almost certain this will be the case that is cited.

And I am almost certain that you are right. Sorry, I'm just looking at this academically.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Gravitymaster 0]

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, according to court papers. Both parents had a history of drug abuse. It was not immediately clear if the father had other children.

I think this could be used to threaten incarceration if they don't "voluntarily" agree. If not, I'd solve the problem by locking them up for child abuse and reckless endangerment.

[bch7773 0]

something tells me that the parents just won't listen... I mean, neither of them turned up at their hearing, and they had ignored an earlier order to get a mental health examination.

If i was the judge, i would whop em upside the head, tell em to take more cold showers, and then get them a few packs of condoms

MB 3528, RB 1182

[RoadRash 0]

Quote

Both unconstitional, yet in some instances understandable.

This will be thrown out immediately.

I agree with both statements...despite the fact that both the parents are obviously unfit to care for a dog, let alone children, they have the right to keep producing crack babies at will...I personally find this story disgusting, but not surprising...and I think that is the scary part......


~R+R

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Fly the friendly skies...^_^...})ii({...^_~...

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I think this could be used to threaten incarceration if they don't "voluntarily" agree.

Exactly. I don't see how this is any more un-constitutional then "volunteering" to give up your 2nd amendment rights to avoid having a civil judgment filed against you. I had a choice, do it voluntarily, or fact trial. Sounds like they have the same choice.

[panzwami 0]

It just makes one wonder at what point society no longer has a duty to make up for someone else's mistakes. Will there ever be a line drawn beyond which people are forced to take responsibility for themselves?

[Kennedy 0]

Come on Matt, you're in the DC area, you ought to know by now that no one is ever responsible for their own actions.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[quade 4]

Quote

Come on Matt, you're in the DC area, you ought to know by now that no one is ever responsible for their own actions.

Did you really mean to say that?

Does this include the guy that lives at 1600 Penn?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Kennedy 0]

There was a "" for a reason. And yeah, sometimes it seems like it goes all the way up and all the way down.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kelel01 1]

Well, this kind of goes along with my argument for letting gays adopt-- if any piece of trash who happens to be attracted to the opposite sex can hump and bear a child, why can't a perfectly competent, loving gay couple adopt a child?

That's about as controversial as topics get . . . but this is the Speaker's Forum. Too bad.

Kelly

[Guest]

Quote

Sounds like they have the same choice.

Yes, but in this case (unlike yours) it's deserved. They're obviously unfit.

I stand by my old sayings - "Stupid people shouldn't breed", and - "Life is tough. It's tougher if you're stupid."

mh

.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[TequilaGirl 0]

However if the government is paying for these children with my tax dollars - I certainly feel they shouldn't have anymore children....I will never forget the time a women at my office got pregnant - this was going to be fourth child by a fourth father - our firm offered her full medical benefits - should turned them down - stating if she didn't have them she would get a free ride from the government - plus more benefits for the fourth child from welfare....she was actually happy about it.....I was disgusted...

[Skyrad 0]

I agree, I think its a god idea. Personaly I'd like to see people have to pass some sort of licencing course before they're alowed to have children. I mean you can 't own a gun or drive a car without a licence some places you even need one to own a dog. But yet you can just go out and have as many children as you want regardless of wether you can support them or not. Unfortunatly I can't see it becoming a reality anytime soon (unless of course you live in China and are only allowed one child) I'm not for the Chineese approach before someone goes off on one. But with adults living longer and and life expectancy likely to increase something has to be done to control the worlds population.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[panzwami 0]

Quote

However if the government is paying for these children with my tax dollars - I certainly feel they shouldn't have anymore children....I will never forget the time a women at my office got pregnant - this was going to be fourth child by a fourth father - our firm offered her full medical benefits - should turned them down - stating if she didn't have them she would get a free ride from the government - plus more benefits for the fourth child from welfare....she was actually happy about it.....I was disgusted...

That's precisely my point. There is absolutely *zero* accountability for actions such as these. Why should someone bother going to work and putting forth any effort when it is so much easier to let someone else pay for it? The concepts of shame and dignity have taken a back seat to unbridaled laziness.

[wmw999 2,584]

I love the idea of preventing the children in the first place. If you punish the parent once they've had the child, it's the child who's hurt 9 times out of 10. A selfish parent is unlikely to sacrifice to give their child the best.

So then you're stuck with judging more harshly who is a fit parent or not, and whose children should be removed. It's very treacherous ground.

Welfare is not the best answer; but cutting off the children is not an answer either. School lunch programs and Head Start are wonderful, and I would love a better workfare. Right now child care and insurance is unaffordable for many poor parents, so welfare is their other option. Yes, maybe they should have chosen better, but creating a whole new group of underfed, under-cared-for, no-medical-care children who will have an extremely hard time catching up is not the best answer.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Yes, but in this case (unlike yours) it's deserved. They're obviously unfit.

Right, I'm just saying that I don't think it would be a constitutional issue in either case.

Quote

I stand by my old sayings - "Stupid people shouldn't breed", and - "Life is tough. It's tougher if you're stupid."

My dad's was a liitle more to the point, "Shit heads perpetuate shit heads."

[tkhayes 348]

pretty scary stuff - cannot agree with it as a freedom thing, but sure - we all think it is the right thing to do for this case. But I doubt it will stand up - opens too many doors to civil abuses by the courts.

from Steve Martin's movie Parenthood - "You gotta have a license to drive a car, or own a dog of even catch a fish, but they will let any butthead be a Dad..."

TK