Mentally Ill Woman Nearly Undergoes Unwanted Abortion, Sterilization At Judge’s Request


Just as we will condemn those who force women to continue pregnancies against their will, we condemn those who would take away any woman’s right to continue a pregnacny.  Even a judge.

According to ABC News, a Massachusetts judge ordered a mentally ill woman who discovered she was pregnant to have an unwanted abortion, and to be sterilized against her will, as well.

[Family and Probate Court Judge Christina] Harms found the woman would choose to end her pregnancy if she were competent and agreed to appoint her parents as guardians “for the purpose of consenting to the extraordinary procedures of abortion and sterilization,” the Appeals Court said.

The Appeals Court ruling does not identify the woman, who is believed to be about five months pregnant.

The judge reasoned that if Moe were competent, she would opt for an abortion to benefit from medication that otherwise could not be given to her because of its effects on the fetus.

The Appeals Court said the judge also directed the clinic to sterilize the woman at the same time “to avoid this painful situation from recurring in the future.”

The Appeals court said that the woman, who considers herself Catholic, refused requests to have an abortion, and that no one besides Harms had even brought up the idea of sterilization.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

To schedule an interview with contact director of communications Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

Follow Robin Marty on twitter: @robinmarty

  • beenthere72

    Wow.  I had to look up more on the story since it’s my state.  It seems this judge has made many other controversial rulings.   There’s quite a bit more on the story here.

  • equalist

    One thing I noticed in both the link provided and in the article here, there is no mention of the father of the child.  I’d be curious for information on his views of the situation as well.

  • progo35

    Thank you for noting this injustice, Robin. I read about it on a pro life site and I logged on here expecting to hear the sound of crickets in response to this story, but you proved me wrong! Thank you! This is one of the issues upon which pro choice and pro life people can agree. :)

  • equalist

    Progo, that’s because pro choice is all about choice, whether that choice be abortion, adoption, or birth.  It’s about women having the final say over what happens to their bodies.

  • progo35

    Equalist-yes, but sometimes the actions/words of certain pro choicers, esp. this particular website, don’t belie that conviction. Sometimes this website seems utterly pro abortion as being superior to the other possible choices and seems to ignore choice issues that aren’t connected to someone being denied an abortion.

  • progo35

    Equalist-yes, but sometimes the actions/words of certain pro choicers, esp. this particular website, don’t belie that conviction. Sometimes this website seems utterly pro abortion as being superior to the other possible choices and seems to ignore choice issues that aren’t connected to someone being denied an abortion.

  • prochoiceferret

    Equalist-yes, but sometimes the actions/words of certain pro choicers, esp. this particular website, don’t belie that conviction.

     

    Actually, those are anti-choicers (a.k.a. “trolls” around here). You can tell them apart because they don’t think women should have the final say over what happens to their bodies.

     

    Sometimes this website seems utterly pro abortion as being superior to the other possible choices and seems to ignore choice issues that aren’t connected to someone being denied an abortion.

     

    Well then, you need to get your eyes checked, because this Web site is not pro-abortion. Although I will admit, RHRealityCheck.org does sometimes ignore choice issues that aren’t connected to someone being denied an abortion, because they do run articles on people being denied abortions every now and then.