E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSA 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. (Court documents do not mention who the father is.)
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.
According to the appellate ruling:
The judge ordered that Moe's parents be appointed as coguardians and that Moe could be "coaxed, bribed, or even enticed ... by ruse" into a hospital where she would be sedated and an abortion performed.
Additionally:
“...the judge directed that any medical facility that performed the abortion also sterilize Moe at the same time ‘to avoid this painful situation from recurring in the future."
Moe’s court-appointed lawyer, Doug Boyer, appealed Harms’ decision. Boyer did not immediately return a call for comment Thursday.
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.”
Massachusetts Department of Mental Health Commissioner Barbara Leadholm said the department's top priority "is protecting the safety, health and well-being of the individuals we serve."
"In this case, at the request of the individual’s independent medical provider and her parents and in the interest of protecting her health and safety, DMH petitioned the court to determine competency and to establish her parents as guardians. 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,” Leadholm said in a statement.
The Department of Mental Health is not taking a position on the authority to perform an abortion and says it never sought or advocated for an order of sterilization.
Despite scathing comments from women's rights groups and others, 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.
“Although, the parents of Mary Moe ARE legal guardians (of) her and her other child -- I think they DO have the right to say enough is enough. Having someone like Mary Moe OFF her meds is putting everyone in serious danger -- she could very well go off and kill herself, kill the parents, her other baby and then what? What would we all be saying?”
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News
Leave a Comment:
I am going to go out on a limb here.
I do recognize, as I think all here do, that almost any severely mentally ill person does not have the capability to raise a child. In this case, we already know that, because this person's parents are currently raising her child. Allowing her to continue to become pregnant is irresponsible to her, her family, and every child she may concieve. Further, the drugs she takes endanger the health of the fetus. She should not be having children.
I think the best solution is to permit the family to make the determination, and that the courts, after careful review and consideration would back them up. That is what happened in this case, with the exception of the careful review of the sterilization.
I know many here will disagree, and I understand that. Recognize that we don't live in a perfect world with perfect laws and health. Given the situation, I think the sterilization was a good idea, although it is clear the original court should have produced the legal argument as to why.
Where is the Father?
Have you heard of the Anthony girl who murdered her adorable daughter ? She wanted an abortion...she should have had one. That beautiful little girl would never have had to suffer as she did....unless she was unconscious when that tape was put over her nose and mouth.....did she wake up ? we will never know......don't you think it would have been more kind to scrape an embryo ? Her soul could have picked another mother who would have loved her and cared for her. See.....a newborn comes alive when it takes that first breath....the soul enters at that time. Until then, they look like clay....did you know it ?
The soul enters when the baby takes its first breath? You sound awfully certain about that. I wonder, on what basis do you draw that conclusion? You must be AWFULLY sure because otherwise you seem to be in support of the murder of innocent human life which you so eloquently write off as to "scrape an embryo".
I find your perspective utterly reprehensible. You state it with such authority and yet have NO BASIS WHATSOEVER for your position. Who are YOU to say when life begins or when the soul enters the body. What if it's at conception? How the heck do YOU know it isn't. Are you then in support of the brutal murder that you call "the scraping of an embryo".
And with regards to Caylee Anthony, what difference would it have made if her soul chose her pitiful excuse for a mother at conception or at first breath? If at conception and she was aborted, it would have been murder then too. But you seem oh so certain there is no soul until first breath. On that basis I guess you support partial birth abortion as well. After all, why not if there's no soul until first breath, right?
I come again to the same question: Who are YOU to say when life begins or when the soul enters the body. At present, only God knows. Until then I chose to take the most conservative road and assume life begins at conception else run the risk supporting the mass murder of millions by abortion. I can't live with that risk, can you?
I've never seen a soul, never seen a picture or schematic of a soul, and feel the "soul" argument is meaningless. There are now over 7 Billion people on earth, a great many of whom will suffer and starve needlessly. We dont need crazy people making more.
It is sad that the courts have to be involved in such a complicated case.
I actually feel for her parents, who have done as much as they can to help their daughter, especially taking in her son. It must have been a painful decision to have to ask the courts for help.
They could have just as easily walked away and left their daughter and children to the system. That would have been more horrible. I think they are trying to do the best they can on behalf of their daughter.
Personally, I would want the abortion and sterilization also. Right to life is one thing, but a polluted gene pool only harms society in the long run.
John, I agree with you and stated the same thing with the parents. They have stepped in to help, to raise their grandchild and apparently continue to take care of their daughter. It's nobody's fault she is like this. They have no legal obligation to do what they are doing, they chose it. I can't imagine being in their position right now.
It would probably have been better for the daughter if they were caring for her by involving her in a group home or some other program. One that would watch the daughter and not allow her to get pregnant again.
And she keeps getting pregnant because???????????????????????????????????????????
Because she keeps having sex.........duh!
i have to say that i agree with the judge.
I agree that as hard as the decision is, the abortion is in the best interest of the family, the mother, and the unfortunate life of a very possibly affected child. The new baby will likely have mental health issues, or defects due to her medication, and will not be able to be cared for adequately by the mother, or his grandparents, who clearly are already stretched to the max, as you can imagine. Agreed, there are too many unwanted, starving, abused and horror stories of children out there that just make my stomach turn. It is the very hard choice, made by the loving parents of this daughter, who have already taken on so much, and now have to make this incredibly hard life decision. The daughter is just not able to make good decisions in her condition, and the parents are her coguardians. They are making their choice in good faith. I wish them all peace.
People keep saying that this baby will have likely have mental health issues or serious birth defects because of the mothers medications, but I ask you, does the first child have any problems? Does the son display the same tendencies as the mother? Does the firstborn have birth defects due to the mother's medications? Was she on them at the time of her first two pregnancies? Or are the meds a new development?
This woman's parents would be able to see signs and symptoms in the son after raising their own daughter.
And why, for heaven's sakes weren't the parents doing something to avoid this in the first place? The depo shot is pretty amazing. Why didn't her doctors suggest something? Just because she is schizophrenic, doesn't mean her body is broken. She is still (obviously) capable of reproducing just like most women.
It isn't necessarily the woman's fault, but a chain of events that failed her and will eventually fail the children as well.
captbrngdwn, bi-polar disorder and schizophrenia do not show up until adolescence. it is hereditary. i can tell you from personal experience that even if the child does not get the illness, being raised by someone with it is a living hell.
I don't know anything about being raised by someone with schizophrenia or any other mental illness, so I'll take your word for it.
However, the first kid isn't being raised by the mom, but the grandparents. And since schizophrenia is hereditary, don't you think one or the other of the grandparents might display signs of schizo as well? Unless it skips a generation? I don't know enough about it, so correct me if I'm wrong.
CaptBrngDwn, it shows up randomly but it is hereditary and people who suffer from it are now referred for genetic counseling if they want to have children. my father was bi-polar and i was terrified that it would turn up in one of my children. it didn't. yes, the child in the article is being cared for by the grandparents (who also have to deal with the mentally ill mom) and it was the grandparents who asked the court to force an abortion and sterilization.
I am not one who is for abortions, but I do agree that there are many people who should not be having babies. This woman, through no fault of her own, has a mental illness and is on medications to control that. She is under the care of her parents, who also are caring for their grandchild, which is not their responsibility but they chose to take that on. Kudos to them and for taking care of their daughter who it seems to me can be a little taxing. She has already had one abortion that we know of, as well. There are a lot of viewpoints to take on this matter.
I am not pro-life or pro-choice, but pro-situational - if that makes sense. Too many people take advantage of our systems (which we pay for), others just don't care about the decisions they make leaving dead children, starving children, abused children, children in foster systems...etc. There are so many ways this situation could be solved, but it involves a lot of different parties.
The parents - her legal guardians - are asking for this. I don't think it makes them bad people. They have raised a daughter who unfortunately had a mental break. They are now raising a grandchild. The article does not say how old they are. It sounds like they have a lot on their plate already, maybe they are tired, really old, struggling to make ends meet. It doesn't matter. Why should they be forced to take on another responsibility. By her track record this woman will just keep getting pregnant, having babies, and forcing them onto her parents or the foster system. I say sterilize her for sure or maybe put her on Mirena and see where she is at in 5 years. As for the baby, it's a hard call. It's obvious the grandparents are unwilling since they are the ones petitioning for it. Does the article say how the mother is when she is on her medications? If she only needs to be off them for the pregnancy, can't she be monitored? If she's normal on the meds, how is she with her child already here?
Read the ruling, it gives some information that can answer many questions. She previously spoke of killing a baby, she is approx five months at the time of this ruling, and she is currently on meds and is deemed incompetent. She denies she is pregnant even at five months. The psychiatrist said it would be more dangerous for her to be off her meds, so that means she would need to stay on them the duration of the pregnancy.
Okay, so no abortion. Now the question is, who will care for the child? The grandparents already care for one grandchild and should not be expected to continue to "bail out" their daughter. This unborn child has rights, too. Who will protect those rights? Will another court order the child into an already-overburdened foster system or require that it be placed in an adoptive home? Taxpayers shouldn't carry the burden for this woman's irresponsibility either.
Forced abortion equals wrong, wrong, wrong. Every time. Key word being "forced".
A deplorable situation either way . . . if she has the child, it is either a burden to her parents (again) or to society---unless someone else assumes the care. OR . . . the child is aborted and another life lost. Seems that we as a "civilized" society are faced with a no win scenario.
In addition, if she has the child and he/she is severely mentally deficient---who wins?
Can you say "CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT"?! This woman needs to be assigned a women's rights advocate to help her with this!
A GAL was assigned and reviewed everything. The GAL was the one who reported that she would not choose abortion even if competent.
Who had sex with a mentally retarded woman? He should be terminated!
Not a mentally retarded woman. A woman with mental health issues. Totally different things.
true-ism. I said retarded but meant ill. Thanks for being polite about it.
Wow this is tough. I feel for her parents. I think that in this case, you need to treat the potential mother as a child. She is clearly unable to make sound decisions on her own or else she would not have ended up in this mess. That being said, her parents need to have the final say. If anyone would know whether or not she could be a fit mother or handle pregnancy it would be those closest to her, not necessarily the courts. Her parents have clearly made their choice too, so I think it should be done. Some would say, why not continue the pregnancy and give it up for adoption? I think that is really not a solution in this circumstance, you are just creating more problems and what if's? You bring this child into the world, and adoption or not, it is bound to have all sorts of troubles of it's own from the effects of the medications her mom took during pregnancy, to the fact that her crazy mother will probably search for her for life, her grandparents will be even more heartbroken, etc...
Yes, everyone should have a choice, but of those who cannot decide for themselves, someone must, and that is the unfortunate truth. The responsibility falls to her parents and the courts should back that decision.
Sounds like this Mary Moe is seriously messed up. She needs to get her tubes tied because she won't be able to take care of human being. Szitzo with Bi-polar wow
This is a hard case! Its easy to judge when your on the outside looking in, but we really do not know how she found herself in this predicament in the first place... there could be more to the story than what is being told. It very well could be that she is out there not caring what happens and being irresponsible, but something much more terrible could have happened as well. I strongly believe that she should have been on birth control in the first place! Especially since she cannot take care of her current child and since she does have the choice to make over her own body then long term birth control such as the IUD should be mandated. This way she will still have this child (if it makes it to full term) and she would not have to fore go forced sterilization. Since she is under the custody of her parents they will be able to make sure she goes in for more. I am sad for her having these diseases in the first place and I am also sad for her children!
I work with the mentally ill - which has changed my opinion about what right's they are due. Someone who is diagnozed with a major mental illness with no hope of recovery needs to be protected from passing their illness on to an unborn child. Some of my clients are not only mentally challenged but have learning disabilities -- they will never overcome. It puts my stomach in nots when one says they want to get pregnant and I know they can't take care of the child and live on social security. The state ends up supporting the child. I can't even believe I am for this but the reality is that any major diagnosis of mental illness needs to be treated on a case by case basis. The system is ready to crack and can't take anymore. I have this one client who will never have a quality of life from her mental illness - she is not med compliant and have #6 baby a couple of years ago. She's seldom home taking care of her child and recently said she wants another! All her children are on welfare. She is not mentally stable to take care of make these decisions. Human rights are important - but what about this dilemma?! Truly need King Solomon's wisdom.
Thy Shall Not Kill.....simple enough for you?
No it isn't mike. "Mike Russell is willing to pay for the expenses of raisning these and other similar children" would be simple enough for me. How about you mike?
Also, and just a small note here "THOU shalt not kill". Thy implies personal ownership, like thy mother, or thy father, or "passeth thy doobie leftward, for the right way is wrong".
What a sad and horrible situation. I feel for the parents of this woman as well as the woman herself. I have no idea what the correct answer is to this moral conundrum, but I wonder if adoption might be an option. There are families who want a child and would be willing to take one that might have "special needs" (for lack of a better term) in the future. Also, rather than sterilizing the woman against her will how about discussing the insertion of an IUD? It is an effective form of birth control that lasts 5-10 years. Whatever happens in this situation I'm afraid there will be no winners.
Having some small experience in the medical field, it's entirely possible that the anti-psychotic cocktail this woman is on would react poorly with an IUD or other birth control. It may be that this option has already been explored and dismissed as infeasible. Personally, I find it in poor taste to question her parents who have been shouldering this responsibility and taken the long and difficult road to come to this decision.
Thanks for the reply STPFC. I had no idea her meds could react with the IUD. If that is the case, then it may be a hopeless situation. Like I said above, there will be no winners in this situation. Very sad.
Wasn't it in NC or SC where several women who were ordered sterilized by the court were recently awarded $50K in damages for each individual? It is not up to the state or the courts to choose who can give birth and who can't. While I understand the complexities of the case I also feel like there are many people who are looking for babies to raise and that there are other options that serve the interests of all parties. The parents/grandparents who don't want to or can't take care of another baby, the pregnant woman who doesn't believe in abortion in spite of having had one previously, and the baby who needs a good nurturing home. I understand that she needs to come off her meds to avoid possibly hurting the baby and that makes it difficult, however she can be cared for properly to ensure that she isn't a risk to the baby. At the end of the day it is her body and her baby and she has the right to choose life, even if she DOES NOT have the right to keep the baby. It is and always will be a woman's right to choose.
The question here is not about her rights, but her competency. If she were capable of making the decision to have this baby, this article wouldn't exist. The poor woman imagined meeting people she had not met before and didn't know the gender of the child she already had. These are not indicative symptoms of a person capable of making their own decisions.
No forced abortion, but forced birth control for someone who is not able to care for their child would be a good thing. If she gets well, then she could rationally think about children. Otherwise it will be her parents or the state who will have to care for that child, because it is doubtful she would consider adoption.
You want the state to be involved in this decision? It is my hope that an incompetent person have birth control, but that is not a decision for the state to make, it is a family decision. If there is no family, then a guardian ad litem can become involved to make that decision.
Make no mistake, I am all for birth control and for abortion where there is a competent person making that decision. I do NOT want the state, be it legislature or court, to make that decision for anyone.
David, if she is mentally incompetent it isn't "her body and her baby". Mentally incompetent people can't consent to sex so they don't have that control of their body. Mentally competent people are appointed guardians to make important decisions in their lives so that they don't get taken advantage of. Not you or anyone else's business what her guardians decide if the woman could decide the same issues if she were mentally competent!
I am pro abortion FOR COMPETENT people. In this case there is an incompetent person and she can not competently give consent. I think the court made the correct decision in this particular case. This is a matter for her parents or other responsible person to deal with, not the state. The lower court was wrong in making its decision to the point of forced sterilization--that is a bridge to far.
Irate Ken:
?
James A.
My question, which may be the same as some others, is: If she is under the care of a guardian and is mentally ill enough to be hospitalized, how is she able to give informed consent for sex in the first place? The man who impregnated her would, at the very least, be charged with statutory rape.
She never gave "informed consent". Technically, the father can be charged with rape. However, there are many such people having children. The problem is--do you want government people making decisions on behalf of these people which can then be expanded to cover many more people? Not me. It is my position that the community (you and me) will be taking care of the offspring of those with no family or resources and that is the price of living in a civilized society. I do not want anyone in government telling any of us who can and can not have a child. It is a better thing for my tax dollars to be used to support them than to have another person make that decision and carry it over to the rest of us.
I'm as pro choice as it gets and I don't think a forced abortion is cool.
However, this person is a ward of the state and I think she needs to be sterilized. She won't get better and she'll endanger any future children she has.
If a ward of the state is mentally incapacitated, it is society's responsibility.
You really trust the government for that?
She isn't a ward of the state. She is under her parents care. When her parents pass away, then she and her son will become wards of the state.