Ex-judge defends ordering an abortion for woman
Getty Images
BOSTON - A retired Massachusetts judge is defending her decision to order a mentally ill woman to have an abortion and be sterilized against her wishes.
Christina Harms is also criticizing Boston University for withdrawing a job offer after her ruling sparked controversy and was overturned by the state Appeals Court.
Harms, who retired last month, defended her ruling in a letter she sent Monday to other Massachusetts family court judges, saying she believed the schizophrenic woman would have chosen to have an abortion if she had been mentally competent. The letter was first reported by The Boston Globe.
"I believed then, as I do now, that she would elect to abort the pregnancy to protect her own well-being," Harms told The Boston Globe. "She would want to be healthy."
However, the Massachusetts Appeals Court said the woman, who has schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, had described herself as "very Catholic" and made it clear she did not want an abortion.
The Appeals Court reversed the order, saying no one had requested it and the judge "appears to have simply produced the requirement out of thin air." The judges sent the case back to the lower court.
Harms says BU withdrew a job offer soon after her ruling became public.
BU says Harms was not the appropriate candidate for a job that required interaction with students, alumni and the judiciary.
Popular on CBSNews.com
- TWA Flight 800 gets another look 17 years later
- America's endangered historic places 11 Photos
- Reporter Michael Hastings dies at 33
- FBI: No sign of Jimmy Hoffa's body in Detroit suburb
- Google asks FISA court to lift gag order on NSA requests
- Taliban: We killed 4 U.S. troops at Afghan air base
- Scientists say shipwreck timber in Lake Michigan centuries old
- Girl who lost feet in lawnmower gets prosthetics
That is why we have other judges. Though our system may not be failsafe, it has some protections. Perhaps he has neither read Buck v Bell, nor its undoing by later researchers who exposed the research behind it as fraud.
He is a judge, beneath those black robes is a human being with the faults any human being can have.
Good post. Now she can live with the ramifications of HER choice...
THANK YOU JUDGE HARMS
I also know some not mentally ill people who are horrible parents.
Tough case, but, when in doubt, err on the side of caution.
The judge said that it was to protect the woman's "well-being." Does that mean that giving birth would have put the woman's life in jeopardy due to some complication? CBS, could you guys please elaborate on that in the article? It sounds like this is a very relevant point that should be included. I'm not sure it would change anything, but at least it would reduce the implications somewhat.
But assuming the only reason for forcing it was because the woman is mentally ill, I find the implications of that VERY disturbing. From a bioethical standpoint, instituting forced sterilizations of the mentally ill is unconscionable! It may even rise to the level of crimes against humanity if done on a larger scale.
Either way, I think withdrawing the job offer based on one questionable ruling is very petty on the part of Boston University. All other indications show that this woman is more than qualified and has a distinguished career to back it up. She made one bad ruling out of probably thousands. But there's no indication that corruption or any other form of misconduct was involved; she just made a bad call. Umpires do that all the time and they're still able to find jobs later in life.
Now, people who have a HISTORY of mental illness in their family (any mental illness) are more likely to be mentally ill themselves.
However, where do we draw the line? When one of out 10 of a generation is mentally ill? When 2 out of 2 generations are mentally ill?
The reality is that we shouldn't start this in the first place, it's going way too far down the slippery slope past anything that can stop us.