For a forgery case? WTF?

He was probably trying to force her to get married, not to have an abortion. And probably patted himself on the back that he was thus solving her problems....

It kinda makes sense. She committed forgery because she didn't have enough money for her kids, so he told her not to have any more kids. If she were to get married, she'd theoretically have additional income from her husband, and wouldn't have the same issue.

But what gives him the right to make that kind of decision? It's invasive, insulting, and yes, assholish, especially when she's already had surgery on her tubes. If that's how he felt, he could have merely advised her that he didn't think she should have more children if it was going to cause her such financial hardship that she'd end up turning to crime, but apparently, she understands this and had already taken measures.

prairielily:

It kinda makes sense. She committed forgery because she didn't have enough money for her kids, so he told her not to have any more kids.

It makes no sense at all, actually. She didn't have enough money for her kids because their dipshit fathers weren't paying their child support. That's the proximate cause for her acts of forgery, not the (completely irrelevant) fact that she had her children out of wedlock. Having children out of wedlock isn't illegal. Failing to pay mandated child support is.

Well, it's illegal de jure, at any rate. De facto, not so much.

This is kind of like Citizen Ruth. If you don't know, that movie was based on real story in North Dakota about a Native American woman who was told by a judge she had to have an abortion. Shouldn't there be some law against judges dictating women's reproduction?

Yes, and 7 or 8 years ago, a young Japanese woman who was part of a forgery scam too, I believe, was kept in jail by the judge until her pregnancy was in the late second trimester while her male partners in crime were released on bail specifically to prevent her from having an abortion. And there was a judge or two some years back who required their female convicts to get Norplant.

It's disgusting and appalling, and such restrictions are never placed on male convicts or ex-cons in this country, even when their crimes are specifically sexual in nature. Remember the whole sex-offender/viagra scandal a little while back?

I didn't say it did make sense. I said it kinda made sense, meaning that I could see where his line of thinking came from, and that it makes some sense on the surface, at first glance, but not if you think about it. (I suppose you wouldn't know that's what I meant unless you know how I use words.) The fathers weren't being accused of the crime at that time, she was, so he punished her. Creepily, and wrongly.

Personally, if I were the judge, I would have told her to bring the men in to see me if they kept giving her trouble.

WTF! I guess I'm naive, but is this really legal?

If she had more time and more money, it would probably be overturned on appeal--but since she doesn't, yeah, it's basically legal. The Bill of Rights only applies if you either have money or are backed up by others who have money. Thank God for the ACLU.

Cheers,

TH

EG, was that convicts, or ex-cons? making women get birth control implants while in prision suggests a whole new set of problems.

Back to the article, if the father(s) wouldn't even pay child support, why would you force a woman to married one of those losers?

Maybe this judge should bring the deadbeat dads into court and mandate that they all be sterilized.

To me this ruling isn't about morality or the law. Its about insulting a woman who was poor enough to commit a crime in the interest of helping her children that she could not support. In my eyes, this woman is a perfect example of why we have welfare, free education and other programs for women like her and her children. Ugh. Seriously, who the heck does this guy think he is? Just because your a judge doesn't mean you get to bash everyone else who didn't have the resources to go to law school and have a career.

Mastermind, there was a rash of judges in the early 1990s giving women convicted of child abuse, drug abuse, or sometimes just welfare fraud (I think--it was a while ago) a choice between prison time and Norplant. The ACLU page about it is here: http://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/contraception/16528res19940131.html

And while child abuse is clearly awful, I have yet to read of an abusive dad being forced to get a vasectomy.

I do not see what the problem is. First of all, this woman has made some stupid choices.

She chose to have sex with, become pregnant by, and keep a child with an irresponsible man. Then, She chose to have sex with, become pregnant by, and keep a child with an irresponsible man, again. Then, She chose to have sex with, become pregnant by, and keep a child with an irresponsible man, for a third time.

After that, she committed a felony, her motivation being the results of her three previous stupid choices.

It is not unreasonable to prohibit a person, with a history of stupid choices leading to criminal behavior, to refrain from continually making those same stupid choices with the same tendency to lead to additional criminal behavior.
While on parole, it is not: unreasonable to prohibit convicted pedophiles from doing things that may lead them to re-offend, like hang around kids, view porn, etc. Unreasonable to prohibit a thief who stole to support his drug habit from using drugs. Unreasonable to prevent a drunk driver from drinking alcohol. To prevent a Hacker from using a computer.

So why is it any different to prohibit this woman from having more unsupported children, which is why she committed her crime, than to prohibit a heroin addict for using, why is why he committed HIS crime? Except that with the Addict, the only victims are himself and those who he steal from, whereas for her, the victim is herslef, those who she stole from, HER THREE CHILDREN, and the next child she might otherwise have?

If you can not afford to care for two children, it is absolutely wrong and in my mind criminal to have a third. No-one is helped, and the children are harmed.

No abortion would be neccessary. If she did carry to term, she would violate parole, rejecting the courts gift of freedom. Further, she could always try to learn from her past stupidity, and keep her legs closed around irresponsible men. Besides, with three children, shouldn't she be far too busy caring for her children and looking for work to feed those children, then looking for someone with whom to make a fourth tragic mistake?

Parole is not a "gift," Phil, and the men who impregnated this woman have made bad decisions, too--which they will never have to pay for because people like you run the country.

Besides, she had her tubes tied--something that her boyfriends never had to worry about doing, because they knew they'd be able to skip out on her if she got pregnant.

No offense, Phil, but posts like yours make me want to get gender reassignment surgery.

Peace,

TH

Damn, we have lots of trolls this week!

It's an unusual sentence because she was convicted of forgery. Even if she forged because her husband did not pay child support, the sentence is not connected to her crime. If anything the guys who can't pay child support should get vasectomies. She had her tubes tied already and didn't intend on or expect to have any more children. Her other punishments -- community service, paying restitution and obtaining a GED or high school diploma -- make more sense. Castration for pedophiles would at least be connected to the crime. Drug addicts are treated with methadone.

"I didn't think that was legal. Mandy has always taken care of her kids. It made it look like she was a welfare bum." "We're in what century?" asked Monroe, founder of Women of Vision Ministries Inc. "That, to me, is a moral statement, not a judicial statement."

The ruling may be ridiculous, but clearly Mandy had not "always taken care of her kids," as her mother claimed while she disparaged women who were obtaining legal assistance, ie., "welfare bums." Mandy stole money, had apparently stolen it before, and cited supporting her children as the reason. Out of curiosity, what would be an appropriate sentence for her?

Whatever the sentence would be for a man who had committed the same crime, for the same reason. A sentence that has nothing to do with her reproductive organs.