Archive for the Eugenics in Massachusetts Category

Judge says ordering of abortion was justified

Posted in Eugenics, Eugenics in Massachusetts, forced abortion with tags , , , , on February 21, 2012 by saynsumthn

By Peter Schworm
| BOSTON GLOBE
FEBRUARY 21, 2012


A family court judge who ruled that a pregnant woman with schizophrenia should undergo an abortion and be sterilized sharply defended her decision yesterday, while denouncing Boston University for withdrawing what she said was a job offer amid the controversy.

In a rare personal defense of the reasoning behind a court ruling, Christina Harms, who retired from the bench last month after 23 years, said she concluded that the woman, a 31-year-old who suffered from delusions, would choose to terminate her pregnancy if she were mentally competent, chiefly so that she could resume antipsychotic medication that would have harmed the fetus.

“I believed then, as I do now, that she would elect to abort the pregnancy to protect her own well-being,’’ she said. “She would want to be healthy.’’
Speaking in detail for the first time about the decision, which an appeals court reversed last month in unsparing terms, Harms described the case as “a tragic set of circumstances for which no outcome would have been easy or obviously correct.’’ The woman had described herself as “very Catholic’’ and expressed opposition to an abortion, while her parents were seeking consent for the procedure.

In a letter that she sent yesterday to other family court judges in Massachusetts, Harms outlined the reasons for her determination and criticized the appeals court ruling, which she called simplistic and unfair.

The appeals court ruled that the woman had clearly expressed her opposition to abortion as a Catholic, but Harms wrote that “the statements of a person suffering from schizophrenia surely cannot simply be taken at face value.’’

Harms said she has requested a meeting with the chief judge of the appeals court to register her objection to the “insulting tone’’ of the decision.
She also stated that Boston University’s law school rescinded a job offer shortly after her decision came to light, an abrupt move she said could discourage judges from making unpopular decisions.

“It strikes at the heart of what judicial independence is about,’’ she said. “We need to protect judges from the popularity of the moment.’’
A BU spokesman said yesterday that the university never officially offered the job but acknowledged that it eliminated her from consideration for the job – a new position that would guide students toward judicial clerkships – after her ruling came to light and stirred public outcry.

“It was the reaction to the decision that gave us pause,’’ said the spokesman, Stephen Burgay. “The more we learned about Judge Harms, the clearer it became that it was the wrong job fit,’’ he added.

“As time and negotiations continued, it was clear that there were many factors that led us to conclude that it was not a good fit,’’ he said.

Donald K. Stern, former US attorney now at Cooley LLP, said BU’s decision was worrisome in its focus on a single case and the public reaction.

“It strikes me as a gross overreaction, and from a surprising source,’’ he said. “It’s troubling in the sense that you do want judges to make decisions free of influence.’’
According to Harms, BU law school officials canceled a meeting for her to complete her employment paperwork days after the appeals court ruling. A few days after that, she said a law school administrator told her she was no longer a candidate for the position.

Harms, 58, said law school officials explicitly cited the controversy at their meeting, saying the university could no longer “market her’’ as planned.
In a letter to Harms’s lawyer, BU’s deputy general counsel, Erika Geetter, wrote that although the law school had been “very optimistic’’ Harms would be hired, it had not formally made a job offer.

The school had reached a “legitimate conclusion that it did not want to worry about whether an individual who was at the center of a controversy would need to overcome that obstacle when serving as the public face of the School,’’ Geetter wrote.

The school concluded that Harms was “not the appropriate candidate for an outreach position that required immediate and sustained interactions with students, alumni, and the judiciary.’’

Harms said she began meeting last summer with administrators at the law school last summer, and said they ultimately created a new position that was designed specifically for her and that it was not posted publicly.

Harms said she and the university had agreed on a salary and a day before her decision became public an administrator asked her for a biography and a photograph so she could be introduced to the law school community. She said she understood the paperwork was a formality.

In a Jan. 30 letter, the lawyer for Harms, Joan A. Lukey, said it was “extremely improbable’’ that the law school would have failed to hire Harms if the opinion had not involved abortion.

Harms said she decided to disclose BU’s actions because she believes they were “antithetical’’ to the concept of judicial independence, and to explain to her colleagues why she will not be working there.

“It’s about principle,’’ she said.

The judge’s decision, which has been sealed, stemmed from a petition from the schizophrenic woman’s parents to have their daughter declared incompetent, a step that would allow them to be named guardians and seek a court-ordered abortion.

The woman has been pregnant three times, and had one abortion previously. Her parents have custody of her child.

The judge ruled in favor of the abortion, drawing national attention and raising concerns that courts were not properly heeding the wishes of those with severe mental illness.
Harms said of her ruling that she was deeply concerned that the woman, known in court records as “Mary Moe,’’ would try to harm herself during her pregnancy, describing the interruption of her regular treatment as “potentially life-threatening.’’

In overturning Harms’s ruling, the appeals court said her sterilization order was produced “out of thin air.’’ But Harms said she felt obliged to determine what the woman’s wishes would be absent her mental illness.

“Certainly, the easy road for me as the trial judge would have been to avoid this topic and I did find this the most difficult part of an unrelentingly difficult decision,’’ she wrote. “After much thought, the issue seemed to me to be too closely connected to, if not inextricable from, my “substituted judgment’’ that an abortion was appropriate.’’

Forced Sterilization in Massachusetts reveals eugenics leader quoted in book written by Planned Parenthood founder

Posted in Eugenics in Massachusetts, forced abortion, Forced Sterilization, Margaret Sanger, Walter E. Fernald with tags , , , , , , , on January 19, 2012 by saynsumthn

State led way in blocking patients from breeding
By Erin Smith
Wednesday, January 18, 2012 –

Massachusetts historically led the way in the movement to sterilize or incarcerate the mentally ill to prevent them from breeding — inadvertently inspiring Nazi leader Adolf Hitler’s own eugenics agenda.

“All of this is abhorrent and really sounds bizarre to us today, but at the time it was considered scientific, and to many people it was considered progressive,” said Michael D’Antonio, author of “The State Boys Rebellion,” the shocking tale of boys held at the Fernald State School in Massachusetts in the mid-20th century.
There were about 50,000 court-ordered sterilizations nationwide between 1900 and the 1940s, according to D’Antonio.

Walter E. Fernald, who ran the Waltham mental institution later named in his honor, was a leader in eugenics — a movement aimed at removing what were seen as defective or undesireable traits from the gene pool.

“At state fairs in Massachusetts there would be exhibits promoting eugenics and the best families. You could win a prize if you had the best looking, smartest, happiest children. It was in the very same vein as prized pigs. You’d get a blue ribbon,” said D’Antonio.

Children at the Fernald School were abused and locked away for life as a form of birth control, according to D’Antonio.

A 1927 Supreme Court decision upheld sterilization for the mentally ill, in which Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. wrote, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


In Planned Parenthood’s Founder Margaret Sanger’s Pivot of Civilization

We read:

The curious situation has come about that while our statesmen are busy upon their propaganda of “repopulation,” and are encouraging the production of large families, they are ignoring the exigent problem of the elimination of the feeble-minded. In this, however, the politicians are at one with the traditions of a civilization which, with its charities and philanthropies, has propped up the defective and degenerate and relieved them of the burdens borne by the healthy sections of the community, thus enabling them more easily and more numerously to propagate their kind. “With the very highest motives,declares Dr. Walter E. Fernald, ``modern philanthropic efforts often tend to foster and increase the growth of defect in the community….The only feeble-minded persons who now receive any official consideration are those who have already become dependent or delinquent, many of whom have already become parents. We lock the barn-door after the horse is stolen. We now have state commissions for controlling the gipsy-moth and the boll weevil, the foot-and-mouth disease, and for protecting the shell-fish and wild game, but we have no commission which even attempts to modify or to control the vast moral and economic forces represented by the feeble-minded persons at large in the community.

Also Read: Another Eugenics monster is the recipient of Planned Parenthood’s “Margaret Sanger Award”

Eugenics sterilization proponents had ties to Planned Parenthood,received awards,funded Sanger

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Agency Defends Seeking Abortion Order:

The head of the state Department of Mental Health is defending her agency’s efforts to arrange a court-ordered abortion for a 32-year-old schizophrenic woman, saying the request was made in the patient’s best interest and at the behest of her parents and doctors.

“The Department conveyed the request of health-care providers and the parents’ wishes in order to ensure the safety of a patient with severe mental illness,” DMH Commissioner Barbara Leadholm said in a statement to the Herald.

Her response came a day after the state appellate court overturned a ruling by just-retired Norfolk Probate and Family Court Judge Christina L. Harms that not only gave the woman’s parents permission to consent to an abortion but ordered that she be sterilized as well. The appellate court threw out the sterilization and handed the abortion decision to another judge.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Court Nixes Order for Mentally Ill Woman’s Abor…, posted with vodpod

Court strikes decision for mentally ill woman’s abortion
Backs rights those ruled incompetent

By Peter Schworm JANUARY 17, 2012
Earlier this month, a Norfolk probate judge declared a pregnant woman with schizophrenia incompetent and ordered her to undergo an abortion, stating she could be “coaxed, bribed, or even enticed’’ into the hospital for the procedure.

Unbidden, the judge further directed that the 32-year-old woman be sterilized “to avoid this painful situation from recurring in the future.’’

Yesterday, the state’s appeals court struck down the decision in unusually harsh terms, saying the woman had clearly expressed her opposition to abortion as a Catholic.

“The personal decision whether to bear or beget a child is a right so fundamental that it must be extended to all persons, including those who are incompetent,’’ the opinion stated, citing a 1982 ruling by the state’s Supreme Judicial Court.

In sharp words, yesterday’s decision also denounced the sterilization order, a directive that several legal specialists said they had not heard of in recent memory.
“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,’’ wrote Appeals Court Judge Andrew Grainger.

The case provides a rare window into the wrenching ethical issues involved in treating pregnant women with chronic mental illness and the delicate balance between respecting their autonomy and protecting their best interests and those of an unborn child.

Specialists said the Norfolk judge, identified in the decision as Christina Harms, overstepped her bounds, and praised the higher court’s swift and unsparing reversal.
“It’s a case that stands out for protecting the rights of the mentally ill,’’ said Frank Smith, chairman of the Massachusetts Bar Association’s Individual Rights & Responsibilities Section. “The record seems clear that she did not want to have an abortion.’’

Douglas Boyer, the woman’s court-appointed lawyer, said the appeals court “acted appropriately’’ to make sure his client’s wishes are heeded.

The case, which Boyer called the most agonizing of his career, will return to family court, he said. The woman is up to five months pregnant.

The woman, identified in court records by the pseudonym Mary Moe, described herself to court officials as “very Catholic,’’ and said she would never have an abortion. When asked about an abortion at a December hearing, she replied that she “wouldn’t do that.’’

At the same time, she denied to court officials that she is pregnant and has refused obstetrical care and testing. She became “agitated and emotional’’ when discussing a previous abortion that came to light, the opinion stated.

As a result, Harms ruled that the woman was not competent to make a decision about an abortion, citing “substantial delusional beliefs,’’ and concluded she would choose to abort her pregnancy if she were competent.

The woman would “not choose to be delusional’’ if competent, Harms ruled, and would choose to have an abortion “in order to benefit from medication that otherwise could not be administered due to its effect on the fetus.’’

She ordered that the woman’s parents be appointed coguardians to give their consent to the abortion and sterilization. The parents, who have custody of the woman’s son, believe that terminating the pregnancy is in their daughters’ best interests, according to court records.

But the appeals court concluded that Harms improperly decided the matter of the woman’s competence, and noted that a court-appointed specialist had determined that the woman would “decide against an abortion if she were competent.’’ Without conducting a hearing, Harms found the specialist’s report inconclusive.

Legal specialists said courts must base such decisions on what they believe the woman would decide if she were competent.

“The judge is not supposed to determine what is in the person’s best interests or in her child’s,’’ said Frank Laski, executive director of the Mental Health Legal Advisors Committee in Boston. “The judge has to determine what she would do if she were competent.’’

Laski called the initial decision extreme, and other specialists said they believed it was an anomaly.

Daniel Pollack, a professor at Yeshiva University who has studied the issue of consent in such cases, said it is not clear how often such orders are issued.
“My guess is it happens a lot more than we know,’’ he said.

Still, courts are far more likely today to recognize the autonomy of the mentally ill than in the past, he said.
Because of the sensitive nature of the case, previous court records, including Harms’s decision, have been sealed. Harms, who a court official said retired earlier this month, could not reached for comment yesterday.
The plight of the woman became a legal matter in October, when she appeared at a hospital emergency room and was found to be pregnant. Doctors concluded that taking her off the medication would be risky for her.
The state Department of Mental Health then filed a petition to have the woman’s parents named as guardians so they could give consent for an abortion.

The woman mistakenly maintained she had given birth to a baby girl, Nancy, and wrongly said she had met the judge before.

The woman, who also has bipolar disorder, has been pregnant twice before. In the first pregnancy, she had an abortion. In the second she gave birth to the boy.

At some point between her abortion and the birth of her son, she had a “psychotic break’’ and has since been hospitalized numerous times for mental illness, court records say.

There is a disturbing history of eugenics being replayed in this story- learn more watch: Maafa21