Home / Privacy / Forced Sterilization After 105 Years
Print Friendly and PDF

Forced Sterilization After 105 Years

Written by Gary North on January 23, 2012

The state of Indiana was the first to pass a law mandating sterilization. That was in 1907. States are still quietly doing this.

BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, January 18, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – On Tuesday, the Massachusetts Appeals Court threw out a lower court’s ruling that would have forced a mentally ill woman to undergo an abortion and be forcibly sterilized against her will.

Norfolk Family and Probate Court Judge Christina Harms had ruled on January 6 that the 32-year-old could be “coaxed, bribed, or even enticed…by ruse” until she was sedated for the procedures.

The woman, who is identified only by the pseudonym “Mary Moe,” is approximately five months pregnant.

The woman does not want the procedure. The judge decided that her opinion would not prevail.

Moe, who suffers from schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, had a previous abortion in her history. She reportedly described herself as “very Catholic,” and told the court she “wouldn’t do that (abortion)” again. However, despite the testimony of a court-appointed specialist who determined Moe would not choose abortion, and the fact that Moe herself reportedly became “agitated and emotional’’ when Judge Harms mentioned her previous abortion, the judge ruled that the specialist’s findings were inconclusive.

Instead, Harms ruled that Moe was not mentally competent to decide whether to have the baby, and said that if she were mentally competent, she would choose to have an abortion so she could resume taking medication to treat her illness. She added that Moe’s opposition to abortion stemmed from her “substantial delusional beliefs.” Although no one had sought sterilization, Harms also ordered Moe sterilized “to avoid this painful situation from recurring in the future.” The request that Moe abort originated with the state Department of Mental Health.

Her lawyer appealed the case.

Appellate Court Associate Justice Andrew R. Grainger overruled the decision, noting Harms’ orders contradicted a 1982 state Supreme Court ruling allowing all the right to procreate. He added that Harms “simply produced the [sterilization] requirement out of thin air.” Another judge in a lower court will make a final ruling.

This is an old practice. Yet people still do not know that it goes on.

Others were surprised such measures were still being performed in the name of public health. “I didn’t realize that forced sterilizations were going on anywhere,” said Howard Trachtman of the National Alliance on Mental Illness Massachusetts. Daniel Pollack of Yeshiva University, said, “My guess is it happens a lot more than we know.”

The case demonstrates “the lingering shadow of eugenics, which has never left the ‘progressive’ agenda, despite its ugly history,” Father Shenan J. Boquet, president of Human Life International, http://hli.org told LifeSiteNews.com.

Continue Reading on www.lifesitenews.com

Print Friendly and PDF

Posting Policy:
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

4 thoughts on “Forced Sterilization After 105 Years

  1. Its all about control, the government is going to decide who lives & dies, who has children, etc. They want to have the perfect people & that means getting rid of the sick & mentally ill, etc. Hmm, Hitler tried that also but of course history is not taught in our schools anymore so many people have no idea what is going on. God help America

  2. Cliffystones says:

    "Judge Christina Harms"????

    You couldn't make her last name up if you tried!

    It's none of this judge's business as to whether or not this woman gives birth or not. How could any human being, much less a woman, pass a judgment on another woman like this? A judgment killing her unborn baby and preventing her from EVER being able to have another, talk about playing God.

  3. While it is dubious how good a mother this woman would be, forced abortion and sterilization at 5 months in to the pregnancy is cruel. The other comment that the Judge's name is very ironic, to say the least, is right on the mark. Judge Harms is playing God.

  4. Stay tuned folks! The change is upon us! And we might not have any hope if it continues.