Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Go Forth And Give Birth No More
Travis County, Texas, Judge Charlie Baird orders a woman who neglected to protect her daughter from an abusive father, or get her appropriate medical care after the beating, to bear no more children. (The dad's in jail, the daughter's in foster care.)
From the Austin-American Statesman report:
Baird said Texas law gives judges the discretion to set any conditions of probation deemed reasonable. He also said that neither Salazar nor her lawyer, Kent Anschutz, objected.
"When you look her background, the circumstances of this case," he said, "a reasonable condition of her probation was that she not conceive or bear any children."
Anschutz said he is considering his options on behalf of Salazar. He described her as concerned about Baird's order.
"Although I fully understand the sentiment and perspective of the judge in this matter, I question the enforceability of that particular condition," he said.
I swear to heck I remember reporting a similar story for reason's "Citings" section back in the 20th century about a wicked man ordered to father no more children, but I can't seem to find it. And the story says all the lawyers the reporter talked to "say they are not familiar with any similar orders."
Tip thanks to faithful reader Marissa Stewart.
gorgonzola\'s foil|9.12.08 @ 3:54PM|#
So if she (gets pregnant and/or gives birth) she can be arrested
and presumably sentenced for breaking her probation. And if the
probationary period ends, she presumably can then freely attempt to
get pregnant again?
And presumably the order does not state a specific means (Norplant,
etc) for prevention to occur?
While this is not in the same league as the sterilization of mental
defectives that was all the rage in the 20's, it's still icky.
|9.12.08 @ 3:54PM|#
Baird said Texas law gives judges the discretion to set any
conditions of probation deemed reasonable
I hate this shit. Probation is supposed to be "you fucked up but we
don't think you belong in jail but we're going to keep an eye on
you and if you fuck up again maybe you do go to jail". It is not
the ability to tell someone how to live their life.
gorgonzola\'s foil|9.12.08 @ 3:56PM|#
Though I'd love to see the smoke come out of the ears of a non-dispensing fundy pharmacist if she took her court order with her to get a dose of Plan B.
|9.12.08 @ 3:57PM|#
I'm not seeing a huge problem here. If you're going to be a dumb piece of white trash and let your "man" wail on your kid, and then fail to provide your child with the proper care, you've shown yourself categorically unable to take care of those for whom you have a duty to care.
|9.12.08 @ 4:00PM|#
O Rly, TAO? So when you spank your kid and Child Protective
Services takes them away from you and an arrogant judge says the
same about you, will you be singing the same tune?
The judge doesn't get to have a say in what she does with her body
unless he throws her in prison, and then he still only gets to
control where that body is confined to.
|9.12.08 @ 4:03PM|#
Please, Epi. The POS "man" was sentenced to 15 years for
breaking the bones of a 19-month-old. This isn't a spanking; he
probably goddamned near killed her.
And the judge has a point when he says "If I put her in prison for
10 years, she could not conceive or bear children...I don't know
how this is unreasonable for probation."
He's actually being generous...she could just go to
prison.
|9.12.08 @ 4:08PM|#
I know I am going to get a lot of, likely justified, flak but I
can agree with the sentiment of this judge.
I have done dependency, child removal, cases for about 2 years now.
After a while when you see some of the biggest pieces of shit
download these kids that they can't or won't take care of, you
start to think that maybe it is a good idea if the right to have
children isn't for everyone.
If a 18+ woman wants to go back to an abuser for what ever reason
(whether it is lack of self esteem, he has the drugs, the money,
the house)that is her decision, but why should you have to force a
8 year old boy to grow up watching that crap and learning from the
behavior that he sees?
And Epi -- O Rly, TAO? So when you spank your kid and Child
Protective Services
I have never seen a child removal case because some parent spanked
thier kid. They get their kids removed because, 1) Pevasive
domestic violence in the household, 2) the child was born substance
exposed, 3) Methamphetamine use, often with the child present 4)
child abuse (like getting drunk and driving with the child unbelted
who gets thrown out of the car when mom swerves out of oncoming
traffic), 5) Sexual abuse 6) the child is uncontrollable because of
some mental illness.
|9.12.08 @ 4:08PM|#
It sets a precedent. Next thing you know this judge will decide
he can issue rulings on what a person eats while on probation,
etc.
If she deserves prison, send her there.
Mad Max|9.12.08 @ 4:10PM|#
The problem in this case should be obvious even to a lawyer with a two-digit IQ. If this woman finds she's pregnant, she'll want to get an abortion so that she won't get her probation revoked. The judge will have the baby's blood on his hands.
|9.12.08 @ 4:13PM|#
Why shouldn't the woman be allowed to have kids with a caring
father and do it right the next time? If she's so dangerous, she
should get parole.
I'm with Episiarch on this one.
Elemenope|9.12.08 @ 4:18PM|#
I would agree *completely* with Epi but for the fact that prison is a terrible place, and so sending someone there is not exactly productive.
Dagny T.|9.12.08 @ 4:19PM|#
Epi's completely right. In addition to the above reasons, in
case she does become pregnant, and doesn't want to have an
abortion, can the state force her to terminate the pregnancy? Is
accidental conception considered a breach of her probation? It's
just a shitty idea all around.
If any future children are found to be in abusive or neglectful
situations, remove them. But last I checked we don't have a
pre-crime division yet.
|9.12.08 @ 4:19PM|#
I seem to recall a case back in the early 90s where a California
woman was ordered to get Norplant as a condition of probation for
child abuse.
The woman I was dating at the time got very upset about this
viiolation of her reproductive rights. While I am normally opposed
to compulsion on this issue I must confess that I was somewhat
ambivalent in this case. I didn't give voice to this ambivalence at
the time, however.
I also know a 60 plus year old English socialist who has spent half
his life on the dole who thinks that mandatory birth control,
sterilization and abortions are splendid ideas because they would
reduce the level of welfare abuse. The marvel was that he seemed to
be able to say this without sensing the slightest trace of
irony.
|9.12.08 @ 4:21PM|#
Fine, I have no problem with sending her to prison. Then she can
stop exposing children under two years old to men who break their
bones.
Sorry, guys, but this doesn't get my libertarian sensibilities in a
rile.
|9.12.08 @ 4:22PM|#
I would agree *completely* with Epi but for the fact that
prison is a terrible place, and so sending someone there is not
exactly productive
I detest the idea of locking people up like animals. It may be
necessary with the most dangerous. But I am absolutely not
promoting throwing her in prison, I'm saying that if the judge
thinks she's that bad then he can throw her in the clink instead of
trying to control her body.
|9.12.08 @ 4:22PM|#
But last I checked we don't have a pre-crime division
yet.
This is a condition of probation. She already committed a
crime. If you guys think prison is the place for
her, be my guest. Frankly, she's lucky she's NOT going there.
|9.12.08 @ 4:23PM|#
In addition to the above reasons, in case she does become
pregnant, and doesn't want to have an abortion, can the state force
her to terminate the pregnancy?
If this is allowed to stand as a probation rule, then they're
already controlling her body, so why not? It sets a terrible
precedent.
|9.12.08 @ 4:24PM|#
I won't shed a tear for this woman. Im sure she would do humanity a great favor by not having any more kids.
|9.12.08 @ 4:29PM|#
In addition to the above reasons, in case she does become
pregnant, and doesn't want to have an abortion, can the state force
her to terminate the pregnancy?
No, but I have seen cases where people who have already had their
children removed by DCF are not allowed to keep their newborns. Out
of the womb, into the system(or to a family member).
|9.12.08 @ 4:29PM|#
I couldn't care less about this either. Frankly, if it were me I'd say to sterilize both parents.
Mad Max|9.12.08 @ 4:33PM|#
The woman should have received an active prison sentence, if (a) she let her boyfriend break her baby's bones and (b) she's in danger of having other babies exposed to similar situations. In prison, she won't be in a position to abuse any children. Giving her probation on condition she doesn't get caught having more children is just an invitation to abortion. The judge (if he's thinking at all) seems to think it's better for a baby to be killed than abused. Or he thinks that a baby is a mere "clump of cells" while in the womb, so it can be destroyed at will.
economist|9.12.08 @ 4:33PM|#
I'm with TAO here. This woman deserves to go to prison and anything less severe is an act of undeserved generosity. I'm guessing that if she were to become pregnant, she would be allowed to carry to term, but the child would be taken away at birth or soon thereafter, and she would go to prison for breaking probation.
Famous Mortimer|9.12.08 @ 4:36PM|#
"I'm not seeing a huge problem here. If you're going to be a
dumb piece of white trash and let your "man" wail on your kid, and
then fail to provide your child with the proper care, you've shown
yourself categorically unable to take care of those for whom you
have a duty to care."
You routinely post some of the most knee-jerk, ill thought out,
thinly veiled tyrannical bullshit that I see on here.
Take the "optimist" part out of your name, and leave the "angry"
part. It certainly fits.
If she's meant for jail, then send her there. Dictating someone's
reproductive habits as an aspect of probation is the kind of
psychotic, dictatorial decision that a deep down, social
conservative can't wait to get on board with.
You know, just like those dastardly Communists.
Libertarian my ass. You're just a run of the mill crank.
Dagny T.|9.12.08 @ 4:40PM|#
This is a condition of probation. She already committed a
crime.
OK, but what is the purpose of this condition? Is it a punitive
measure ("you've been a bad girl, no more kids for you"), or is it
to prevent possible future harm to as-yet unborn children?
If she needs further punishment for her crime, fine. Community
service, jail, whatever. But this is not an appropriate form for
that punishment to take.
However, if the purpose is to ensure her past crime is NEVER
repeated, that's probably not something gov't can promise in any
criminal case (short of life in prison or execution). So this
condition is applied in order to control her future behavior, when
there is no way to tell what that behavior will be.
It's like if someone commits a crime while drunk, and one of the
conditions is that they never drink again. That's absurd, in part
because it presumes to know that whenever this person drinks, they
will commit a crime. It's not the drinking that's the problem, it's
the actual crime. I'm not saying no punishment is necessary, but
this particular punishment is based on many very problematic
premises.
hotsauce|9.12.08 @ 4:52PM|#
then he can throw her in the clink instead of trying to control her body
The former is most certainly a (partial) subset of the latter.
Paul|9.12.08 @ 4:57PM|#
I swear to heck I remember reporting a similar story for reason's "Citings" section back in the 20th century about a wicked man ordered to father no more children,
You did. This isn't the first time that parents with an agressively
bad child-care background have been ordered to quit bearing
children.
Paul|9.12.08 @ 5:00PM|#
It's an ugly world out there, folks. I'm not sure which is worse, barring a woman from "controlling her body" or simply taking the offspring away. Sorry if it tarnishes my libertarian credentials, but I'm not sure what the answer is on some of these.
|9.12.08 @ 5:00PM|#
Look guys (Dagny T, Moritmer, et al.), probation is still a
criminal sentence, it's just not served in a jail. If this woman
were to face 10 years in jail(and all of it's inherited
restrictions) vs. 10 years probation with conditions that mimic
some of those found in jail, what's the difference?
I am not for placing restrictions on the populace in general but
this person is, for the next ten years, a ward of the state. The
state has opted that she serve out her sentence someplace other
than the lockup.
You can argue with the conviction or the length of the sentence but
to act like and equal amount of time on probation is worse than
jail time is ridiculous.
It's like if someone commits a crime while drunk, and one of the conditions is that they never drink again.
Probation isn't indefinite. It has a fixed time limit as do all
criminal sentences. If the time served on probation is in excess of
the typical sentence for jail time then there is a disconnect and
one I suspect would be challengeable in court. But the only way
this would function is if an individual was effectively sentenced
to "life" on probation and I am not sure if that even happens.
|9.12.08 @ 5:01PM|#
In addition to the above reasons, in case she does become
pregnant, and doesn't want to have an abortion, can the state force
her to terminate the pregnancy?
Not at all. She will have a choice between abortion on the one
hand, and having the kid and going to jail on the other.
Although she might be able to get off by immediately giving the kid
up for adoption.
|9.12.08 @ 5:03PM|#
It is not the ability to tell someone how to live their
life.
Uh, guys, probation is ALL ABOUT them telling you how to live your
life. Drug tests, electronic monitoring, random visits at home and
work...
Epi, I can see your point, but ultimately disagree. There was due
process. She also had a choice between probation and confinement.
Not choices she necessarily liked, but choices nonetheless.
I don't think you'd ever see a forced abortion, particularly not in
Texas. What you'd see is the woman being confined in a special unit
for pregnant inmates, giving birth in the slammer, and the kid
handed over to social services after 48 hours.
Mort, get an effing life. What I said to Epi, above, only with more
venom for you. Due process.
|9.12.08 @ 5:10PM|#
Uh, guys, probation is ALL ABOUT them telling you how to
live your life. Drug tests, electronic monitoring, random visits at
home and work...
It is about them checking up on you, but being an alternative to
totally controlling you. If they ramp up the control to near-prison
levels, what is the point?
Epi, I can see your point, but ultimately disagree. There was
due process. She also had a choice between probation and
confinement. Not choices she necessarily liked, but choices
nonetheless.
Ok, but this sort of imperial pronouncement from on high from the
judge doesn't bother you?
What if he forbade her to have sex? What if he forbade her to
masturbate? What if he forbade her to have ice cream sandwiches?
Where does it stop?
Zeb|9.12.08 @ 5:11PM|#
While I certainly don't think that this woman ought to be having any more children, it seems to me that if anything is a fundamental right which can never be taken away, then making babies is such a right.
Paul|9.12.08 @ 5:13PM|#
Ok, but this sort of imperial pronouncement from on high
from the judge doesn't bother you
Those crazy judges, always imperially pronouncing from
on-high.
Parlour game: Go into a courtroom and ask the judge who he thinks
he is.
|9.12.08 @ 5:15PM|#
Kwix, IANAL and am not familiar with Texas law. However, am
generally familiar with the criminal justice system.
Probation is a sentence, as is confinement. Generally probation is
given in lieu of confinement when it's felt that confinement would
not be productive. The term of probation is generally the same
length of time as the convicted would serve had she been sentenced
to confinement.
If the supervisee (person on probation) violates probation, it's
the dark stripey hole for them.
Probation is generally only given to misdemeanor offenders
(definitionally crimes for which the sentence is under one year),
or for minor felonies.
BTW, misdemeanor convicts (1 year) to prison.
|9.12.08 @ 5:22PM|#
Why shouldn't the woman be allowed to have kids with a
caring father and do it right the next time?
Because women like this can't or won't pick "nice guys." It is like
they are attracted to the jerks.
I am not ever too keen on sending people to prison for what that
don't (in this case, failure to protect) do rather than what they
DO do (say armed robbery).
And I agree with Epi's concerns about what probation is supposed to
be. But probation officers have an enormous amount of authority
over other human beings. Too much IMHO. Probation officers can tell
you "no more drinking" and there is no fucking due process
regarding their decisions. And I think too many conditions for
probation simply sets people up to fail which is fucking
stupid.
So I think the answer whereby the most amount of freedom can be
exercised by her is to have some sort of reversible sterilization.
No probation, no prison. If she can show that she isn't going to
shack up with a jerk, has a job, has a place to raise a child,
doesn't use meth, then she could have that one right that is taken
away, returned to her.
|9.12.08 @ 5:23PM|#
Meant to write: BTW, misdemeanor convicts (sentence 1 year) to
prison.
A little joke: What's the difference between God and a judge? God
knows he's not a judge.
Ok, but this sort of imperial pronouncement from on high from
the judge doesn't bother you?
It does, a bit, but serveral orders of magnitude less than I'm
bothered by the toddler with broken bones. And lose the "imperial"
bit, you're hyperventilating like a liberal.
What if he forbade her to have sex?
But he didn't.
|9.12.08 @ 5:26PM|#
For some reason my correction keeps getting eaten: Misdemeanors are crimes for which the maximum sentence is one year or less, felonies are crimes for which the minimum sentence is one year or greater.
Dagny T.|9.12.08 @ 5:28PM|#
probation is ALL ABOUT them telling you how to live your
life. Drug tests, electronic monitoring, random visits at home and
work...
It is about them checking up on you, but being an alternative to
totally controlling you. If they ramp up the control to near-prison
levels, what is the point?
Right. I would also add that I disagree with drug tests as a
condition of probation as well, for the same reasons. These are
among the long list of activities that the state should have no say
in. They are not crimes, nor do they inexorably lead to
crimes.
Checking up is one thing, but expanding the penal state even
further beyond the walls of prisons is a scary, scary thought. The
state already has sufficient powers to discipline and punish, I
think.
|9.12.08 @ 5:32PM|#
Uh, guys, probation is ALL ABOUT them telling you how to
live your life. Drug tests, electronic monitoring, random visits at
home and work...
this is the way it is.
It is about them checking up on you, but being an alternative
to totally controlling you. If they ramp up the control to
near-prison levels, what is the point?
This is the way it is supposed/should to be.
|9.12.08 @ 5:32PM|#
And lose the "imperial" bit, you're hyperventilating like a
liberal.
Do you have a paper bag I can borrow?
What if he forbade her to have sex?
But he didn't.
Still, what next?
But probation officers have an enormous amount of authority
over other human beings. Too much IMHO.
And sometimes they purposely set you up so they can violate you and
pump up their numbers. It's a serious problem and judges and POs
setting all kinds of arbitrary rules make it much worse.
This is an interesting argument but unfortunately I must go and
play Ultimate Frisbee.
Kolohe|9.12.08 @ 5:34PM|#
It is about them checking up on you, but being an
alternative to totally controlling you. If they ramp up the control
to near-prison levels, what is the point?
Because it's cheaper.
|9.12.08 @ 5:52PM|#
Libertarian my ass. You're just a run of the mill
crank.
Oh, does this mean we're not friends now?
Damn.
Some of you seem to want her to have actually gone to prison
instead of being allowed to roam free (with some limits). How
bizarre.
What if he forbade her to have sex? What if he forbade her to
masturbate? What if he forbade her to have ice cream sandwiches?
Where does it stop?
All of that, right there, can be imposed on you in prison. So,
right now, she can do all of those things, she just can't have
kids. If she were in prison, the things you listed above would be
at the total discretion of the jailers (read: she couldn't do any
of them) AND she couldn't have kids.
What's better for her?
Elemenope|9.12.08 @ 5:53PM|#
While this is not my usual schtick, I'm going to go ahead and
channel my S.O., who would undoubtedly say the following:
1. You guys (and gals) in favor of this crap are sexist simply
because interfering with the reproductive rights of a *man* in this
situation would be right out, never contemplated, and would be
overturned without hesitation if it were attempted faster than a
prior restraint order written by a chimpanzee
2. The state has *no right* to interfere with the disposition of a
woman's womb...and here you guys all call yourselves Libertarians!
Hah!
3. Unless the state is also going to provide some compensation for
the birth control that she would be forced to use (unless you're
reading this as an order *not to have sex*, which I think we can
all agree the court can go fuck itself on, or *mandating abortion*,
which, um, ditto times ten), the state is imposing quite a
financial burden on the woman.
|9.12.08 @ 5:55PM|#
I am not ever too keen on sending people to prison for what
that don't (in this case, failure to protect)
I disagree. You should be have a legal duty imposed on you to take
care of your children. You put them in harm's way and brought them
in naked and hungry and ignorant. It's your job to make sure that
they're clothed and fed and cared for.
|9.12.08 @ 5:58PM|#
El - your #1 is false. From the article:
[I]n a past Wisconsin case, a father of nine who was convicted
of intentionally failing to pay child support was ordered to have
no more children as a condition of probation. The Supreme Court of
Wisconsin upheld that condition.
The state has *no right* to interfere with the disposition of a
woman's womb...and here you guys all call yourselves Libertarians!
Hah!
Are you kidding me? You don't think there's some reasonable
disagreement amongst libertarians here? This is your litmus
test?
the state is imposing quite a financial burden on the
woman.
She imposed it on herself. Again, I ask, would you
rather she have went to prison, where she would *zero* rights or
control over *anything* she did?
|9.12.08 @ 5:59PM|#
unless you're reading this as an order *not to have sex*,
which I think we can all agree the court can go fuck itself
on
Not necessarily. In this case, yes, I would find that onerous. But
if you're HIV+ and have demonstrably been shown to infect others
recklessly and without informing them of your condition, I don't
have a problem regulating your sexual activity to the point of
banning it.
|9.12.08 @ 6:06PM|#
"Unless the state is also going to provide some compensation for
the birth control that she would be forced to use...the state is
imposing quite a financial burden on the woman"
Damn, how much are condoms going for now a days? (I have been
married for sometime now)
|9.12.08 @ 6:11PM|#
shit, even the basic price for "the pill" is 47 bucks a month.
That's a couple extra hours a week flippin' burgers.
Don't give me a bunch of sob stories.
Paul|9.12.08 @ 6:12PM|#
lmnop:
1. You guys (and gals) in favor of this crap are sexist simply
because interfering with the reproductive rights of a *man* in this
situation would be right out, never contemplated,
Not true, I believe that a man has been ordered to not father any
more children. You're reaching on this one.
2. The state has *no right* to interfere with the disposition
of a woman's womb...and here you guys all call yourselves
Libertarians! Hah!
I tend to agree, but only if that's extended to a mans penis. Which
it has been. Not every infringement is about gender.
Unless the state is also going to provide some compensation for
the birth control that she would be forced to use
I'd be ok with that. Condoms are cheap-- and free for that
matter.
the state is imposing quite a financial burden on the
woman.
Umm... hmm. Where to go with this one. Mmmaybe. If she has more
children, that won't be a financial burden to... herself? Oh wait.
No, wait, that'll be a financial burden to me. You've convinced me.
Let's give her free condoms.
Elemenope|9.12.08 @ 6:15PM|#
TAO --
Your reading comprehension is slipping. I said these would be my
S.O.'s arguments, which I agree with on the merits if not the
minutiae of the details. (p.s. Do you honestly think that the
probation restriction of "don't have kids" for a guy would survive
SCOTUS review? Srsly?)
And, FWIW, point the second is not an abortion litmus. Libertarians
can disagree honestly on whether a fetus is a human being, yadda
yadda yadda, but I'd be hard pressed to find a Libertarian argument
for a state *interfering in a woman's potential use of her own
uterus to make a baby*.
Not necessarily. In this case, yes, I would find that onerous.
But if you're HIV+ and have demonstrably been shown to infect
others recklessly and without informing them of your condition, I
don't have a problem regulating your sexual activity to the point
of banning it.
Of course you don't. You don't have HIV. And this would be an
entirely faithless argument from a libertarian perspective, since
to engage in mutually consensual behavior incurs responsibilities
on those participating to first guard themselves from harm. Your
argument (that somehow if you have sex with an HIV positive person
without protection it's somehow their fault instead of yours that
you didn't use protection) is the same logic that bans gun
ownership and supports many other onerous regulations.
Do you support readily-visible tattoos for TB carriers, TAO? Same
logic.
|9.12.08 @ 6:16PM|#
Not necessarily. In this case, yes, I would find that
onerous. But if you're HIV+ and have demonstrably been shown to
infect others recklessly and without informing them of your
condition, I don't have a problem regulating your sexual activity
to the point of banning it.
I agree. For example, I would be against a law that flat out said
that people with HIV can never have sex. If I want to take that
risk (which, with protetion, is less of a risk than going hunting
with Dick Cheney), that is my business. However, I would be in
favor of limiting someone whose purpose is to kill people with his
dick.
1. You guys (and gals) in favor of this crap are sexist simply
because interfering with the reproductive rights of a *man* in this
situation would be right out, never contemplated, and would be
overturned without hesitation if it were attempted faster than a
prior restraint order written by a chimpanzee
actually no. These pricks, pun intended, that have tons of kids
that i end up paying for through welfare and food stamps, I would
have no issues reversibly sterilizing them (no prison, no jail, no
probation) and saying, once you can show that you are paying for
the kids you alreay have, then you can have more. Again, I see this
as the altervative that solves the problem, paying for kids that
aren't mine, while keeping that largest amount of freedom.
Elemenope|9.12.08 @ 6:20PM|#
For all y'all who are arguing "condoms are FREE!!", keep in mind
that condoms fail (with statistically significant regularity higher
than *never*) so if the court were serious about not making
complying with this order the equivalent of joining a cloistered
order of nuns, they'd have to provide supplementary protection in
the form of spermicidal lotions and/or creams, or a norplant, or
other supplementary prophylactic care.
And information and/or training on how to use those things. After
all, a person could reasonably say to the state "I wish to comply
to the best of my abilities, but I don't know how to use those
things effectively".
And then there are the compliance tests, which would cost money. At
the very least the court would be required to get a doctor to
confirm a pregnancy if it occurred.
|9.12.08 @ 6:33PM|#
Do you support readily-visible tattoos for TB carriers, TAO?
Same logic.
WTF? What WOULD you do about someone carrying a highly-contagious,
airborne and possibly deadly disease?
Your argument (that somehow if you have sex with an HIV
positive person without protection it's somehow their fault instead
of yours that you didn't use protection)
No. HIV+ individuals should (and do) have a duty to disclose. The
assumption is that you are HIV-; if you have fail to disclose a
condition like that and someone has sex with you under the
assumption that you're "clean", you SHOULD be the one to be in
trouble for that. It induces consent on false pretenses.
Do you honestly think that the probation restriction of "don't
have kids" for a guy would survive SCOTUS review? Srsly?
That Wisconsin case I cited above was denied certiorari by SCOTUS,
so there's no telling. But if SCOTUS wanted to weigh in on this,
they had their chance.
Paul|9.12.08 @ 6:35PM|#
I agree. For example, I would be against a law that flat out
said that people with HIV can never have sex.
I'm a little lazy to look it up, but I believe that in the
nineties, someone who was HIV+ and was having a lot of unprotected
sex and subsequently infecting people did get some kind of court
order against his... personal activities. Too lazy to look it up
now.
|9.12.08 @ 6:38PM|#
Really LMNOP,
pushing the argument that birth control is "quite a financial
burden" is much, even for you... Com'on... surely you must be
joking.
It's very difficult to take anything else you have to say on this
subject seriously.
|9.12.08 @ 6:39PM|#
"However, I would be in favor of limiting someone whose
purpose is to kill people with his dick."
Ok, that made me spew my drink in laughter. I totally agree with
it, but it was still funny.
Paul|9.12.08 @ 6:39PM|#
And information and/or training on how to use those things.
After all, a person could reasonably say to the state "I wish to
comply to the best of my abilities, but I don't know how to use
those things effectively".
And then there are the compliance tests, which would cost money. At
the very least the court would be required to get a doctor to
confirm a pregnancy if it occurred.
Dude... dude...
Reasonable people can disagree about this case. I'm still on the
fence. But this argument about the complexities and costs of birth
control? Please. Let's go have a drink and forget this
nonsense.
Elemenope|9.12.08 @ 6:40PM|#
TAO --
Moral duty, definitely. Legal duty? I don't think it's a good
idea.
I thought having sex was an inherently risky activity and as such
the burden is placed on the participant to protect him/herself from
harm.
|9.12.08 @ 6:43PM|#
I thought having sex was an inherently risky activity and as
such the burden is placed on the participant to protect him/herself
from harm.
OK, El, so let's say that you have sex with a young woman and the
condom breaks (because, as you noted, condoms do fail) and,
surprise! she gives you HIV.
Don't you think that you should have been fully informed
before taking that risk? After all, it is entirely
possible (indeed, probable) that you would not have engaged in
sexual intercourse with that partner in the first place, had she
fully disclosed.
And do you think sex SHOULD be an "inherently" risky activity? All
activities have risk, but that doesn't mean that they're "risky".
Sex shouldn't be a game of Russian Roulette.
Elemenope|9.12.08 @ 6:44PM|#
rana:
Evidence about compliance with a probation order requires, in this
country of laws, findings of fact. The only way to get judicial
notice of a pregnancy is to have a doctor say someone is
pregnant.
That costs money.
Do I have to check to see if I'm on the same site where people
threw a goddamned shit-fit because it might be useful to require
restaurant owners to clearly post nutritional information? This is
the same site where today (many of the same) people are very
cavalier about the actual costs *to you and I, the taxpayers* that
would be incurred by enforcement of this intrusive
regulation.
No points for consistency, guys.
|9.12.08 @ 6:45PM|#
"Your argument (that somehow if you have sex with an HIV
positive person without protection it's somehow their fault instead
of yours that you didn't use protection) is the same logic that
bans gun ownership and supports many other onerous
regulations."
huh? what about a HIV-infected spouse having unprotected sex with
his or her spouse (who is not aware of the other's HIV), would your
argument still hold?
Are you telling me that everytime I have sex with my husband I
should ask him if he is HIV positive? and if I dont, or he lies, if
I get infected from him is it MY FAULT?
Elemenope|9.12.08 @ 6:46PM|#
Sex shouldn't be a game of Russian Roulette.
This isn't Candide, this is reality. The "shouldas and
shouldn'ts" on individual conditions don't enter into it. Fact is,
sex *is* risky, and everyone not having been asleep for the last
half century is aware of this fact.
Paul|9.12.08 @ 6:49PM|#
I thought having sex was an inherently risky activity and as
such the burden is placed on the participant to protect him/herself
from harm.
You're sooo libertarian. Get with the new millennium. There's a
smoking thread above where a bunch of Supreme Court justices
disagree with risky activity being "the burden on the
participant".
Just sayin'.
|9.12.08 @ 6:49PM|#
Do I have to check to see if I'm on the same site where
people threw a goddamned shit-fit
Fallacy of composition. Just because "members of the site" argued
with you there does not mean that "THESE members of this site"
argued with you there.
I also call an extremely weak analogy. It is exceptionally easy to
get the full rundown of the food you're going to eat. It is
exceptionally difficult to find out (nigh on impossible, actually)
if your partner has HIV.
Elemenope|9.12.08 @ 6:51PM|#
rana --
And we have finally crossed over into bizarro-reason.
YES! If you have sex with someone, and you don't use appropriate
protection from STD transmission vectors, then it is *at least*
as much your fault as his.
Now, if you ask and he lies, and harm directly results from the
misrepresentation, you surely would have a civil claim. But
criminal? No way.
|9.12.08 @ 6:51PM|#
The "shouldas and shouldn'ts" on individual conditions don't
enter into it. Fact is, sex *is* risky, and everyone not having
been asleep for the last half century is aware of this
fact.
No shit. I never said it wasn't *risky*. I said that it's
unacceptable (I guess, to me) to allow individuals with a lethal
virus to infect all and sundry in the name of their "right" to do
so.
Would you please answer my question about if you contracted HIV
from a nondisclosing partner?
|9.12.08 @ 6:52PM|#
"That costs money."
Many things cost money. A pack of gum or a condom costs money. A
BMW also costs money.
Your argument is that the financial burden for birth control is
significant. That is hogwash, and any reasonable person knows
it.
Besides, any birth control costs would be the same, with or without
the probation terms, unless she is looking to get pregnant, in
which case I submit that having a child is a greater financial
burden.
Elemenope|9.12.08 @ 6:52PM|#
It is exceptionally difficult to find out (nigh on
impossible, actually) if your partner has HIV.
Not everyone who has HIV is aware of their status. How would you
prove (given reasonable privacy laws regarding medical records)
that a person actually knew they were HIV positive?
|9.12.08 @ 6:54PM|#
YES! If you have sex with someone, and you don't use
appropriate protection from STD transmission vectors, then it is
*at least* as much your fault as his.
You *honestly* find it reasonable to place the burden on an
individual in what she believes is a monogamous relationship to ask
every single time if her husband contracted HIV outside
the marriage?
The individual who has upset the "normalcy" of the situation is the
one who should have a legal and moral duty to disclose. I find it
absurd to think that it should be permissible to introduce
lethality on unsuspecting people.
Paul|9.12.08 @ 6:55PM|#
This is the same site where today (many of the same) people
are very cavalier about the actual costs *to you and I, the
taxpayers* that would be incurred by enforcement of this intrusive
regulation.
We are concerned with the cost of having a bunch of abused,
rat-bastard kids who grow up to rob me in ten years.
Our services are based on a sliding fee scale.
That means that we charge clients based on their ability to pay.
No one is turned away because they cannot afford to pay. We also accept medical coupons and private insurance. There are state programs that can pay for some or all of your birth control services even if you have your own insurance. Our clinics can help you to find out if you qualify.
http://www.metrokc.gov/health/famplan/clinics.htm
Just sayin'
|9.12.08 @ 6:55PM|#
How would you prove (given reasonable privacy laws regarding
medical records) that a person actually knew they were HIV
positive?
I don't know...ask the prosecutors who have successfully proven it
and jailed reckless individuals like that in the past. It would
depend on the facts of the case.
Of course, if a number of your partners called you and said "Hey, I
got HIV from you" and you still refused to get tested, I would say
you are at least negligent in that regard.
|9.12.08 @ 6:59PM|#
"And we have finally crossed over into bizarro-reason..."
Hmmm, yes, because reasoning that I should be able to have
unprotected sex in a monogamous relationship (marriage)... is...
bizarre.
Paul|9.12.08 @ 7:00PM|#
Also, El, you have an outstanding TB-related question to
answer.
Yeah, what if you're trapped in a room with a prostitute dying of
consumption? Huh? Huh?
Elemenope|9.12.08 @ 7:48PM|#
What WOULD you do about someone carrying a
highly-contagious, airborne and possibly deadly disease?
Uh, NOT THAT. And absent confining them indefinitely or issuing
permanent badges of stigma, I don't see what a government (which
respected the right of autonomy even a teensy bit) *could*
do.
IIRC, there is a scene in the movie Outbreak where a
government official makes precisely this point. Sure, incinerating
a small town filled with people infected with a plague that could
kill most of humanity might be the right moral thing to do, and yet
he couldn't find anything in the Constitution that grants the
government leave to do such a thing.
If I were in such a position, I would probably do what he did (and
hopefully get impeached later), knowing full-well it is outside the
scope of government's legitimate powers. But I would *never*, if I
were a judge, make a ruling that such activities are a legitimate
part of the State's arsenal in dealing with unfortunate
situations.
You get the difference, right?
|9.12.08 @ 8:12PM|#
I were a judge, make a ruling that such activities are a
legitimate part of the State's arsenal in dealing with unfortunate
situations.
Yet again, prison was in the State's arsenal, with all of that
control that entails.
Elemenope|9.12.08 @ 8:42PM|#
Yet again, prison was in the State's arsenal, with all of
that control that entails.
My opinion of prison is approximately the same as Epi's; locking up
people like animals is on the ragged edge of cruel, a sensibility
from another and much darker age. The actual (not pro-state
propaganda palace crap) conditions in prisons reflects exactly what
they are: inhumane, dehumanizing, and sociopathic.
I agree with Nietzsche on punishment: you have three options. If it
is an anti-social compulsion you are dealing with, attempt to treat
the compulsion. if unsuccessful, remove the person from the
society, either by expelling them (a la penal colonies) or giving
them the option to commit suicide, with refusers going to the penal
colony.
Prison only makes people worse, generally speaking.
|9.12.08 @ 8:49PM|#
El, you are more than free to have your opinion about prison. I
think that's great; I'm very much inclined to agree with you.
However, the choice here was:
1. Prison, where there are *zero* freedoms and
2. Parole, with limitations placed on the nature of the offense
(failure to properly care for your children means you cannot take
on that obligation).
That's it!
Also, I'd like to ask this: Under the Nietzschean rubric, where
would *you* place this woman?
Elemenope|9.12.08 @ 9:32PM|#
TAO --
As shocking as it might be, I don't think this woman belongs on any
penal rubric. She's despicable, yes, but long ago we social
creatures decided to divide those things which are merely
detestable from those things where the society has a greater
interest in interfering in order to actually punish.
At best, I think intercessory action to remove a child after it has
been shown the child is being abused is reasonable. It is *not*
reasonable to take away someone's right and/or ability to
procreate.
Thus, in this case, my problem is with the underlying law which
indicates punitive action.
economist|9.12.08 @ 9:39PM|#
Elemenope,
While this is slightly paternalistic, I think "society" has an
interest in her not procreating because the state would have to end
up taking away that child, taking care of him or her, and then
dealing with the child when he or she becomes a grade A screwing
because their dad beat them into retardation while their mom stood
by and watched. This bitch has no right to have children. Hell, I'm
not sure I would let her have a pet goldfish.
Paul|9.12.08 @ 10:22PM|#
As shocking as it might be, I don't think this woman belongs
on any penal rubric.
Hey now, isn't the penal rubric the very thing we're trying to get
her off of?
Kolohe|9.12.08 @ 10:56PM|#
1. You guys (and gals) in favor of this crap are sexist
simply because interfering with the reproductive rights of a *man*
in this situation would be right out, never contemplated, and would
be overturned without hesitation if it were attempted faster than a
prior restraint order written by a chimpanzee
IIRC, there's been been chemical castration proposed (i.e.
"contemplated") for rapists and child molesters. Don't know if
anyone has actually undergone such a treatment nor what the courts
have said about it.
dpsc:|9.13.08 @ 4:02AM|#
Thank god I've found some kindred spirits. I'd explode that bitch (I'm that big).
|9.13.08 @ 8:40AM|#
with refusers going to the penal colony.
Could your conscience really take you being responsible for another Australia?
Elemenope|9.13.08 @ 2:52PM|#
Could your conscience really take you being responsible for
another Australia?
Yes.
Especially since conditions don't have to be that bad. For far less
cost than we now spend on prisons, you could set up a decent colony
on some shithole island with a decent standard of living.
Australia (and Georgia, and other experiments with penal colonies)
proved beyond a doubt that criminals are not *inherently*
sociopathic, because given an opportunity they will create
societies of their own. Since they don't work in ours (I think this
particularly applies to recidivists), let them try their hand at
building one of their own. If they create their own hell, I don't
feel nearly as bad as I would if I threw them in one of my own
making.
Famous Mortimer|9.13.08 @ 7:36PM|#
"Probation is a sentence, as is confinement. Generally probation
is given in lieu of confinement when it's felt that confinement
would not be productive."
This fails to address, in any way, why the state should be allowed
to embark on the slippery slope of restricting someone's
reproductive rights. The standards for such an issue can always be
"rationalized." If this was a Communist country supporting such a
decision, then we would most likely receive incredulous responses,
or the usual "See, I told you so."
It's utterly shocking to me that this is even being seriously
entertained on a site like Reason.
"The term of probation is generally the same length of time as the
convicted would serve had she been sentenced to confinement."
Son, we're talking about reproductive rights, not about telling
someone that they can't commit a crime while on probation. I would
also support the idea that drug testing while someone is on
probation is also outside the bounds of the purpose of
probation.
The false analogies are running rampant around here.
I'm almost compelled to favor forced sterilization for those who
actually think that this is any way a reasonable duty of the state.
It has terrifying implications.
|9.13.08 @ 9:43PM|#
INRE the sexist aspect of this case:
I think the thousands of sex offenders who have been placed
involuntarily on depo-provera might disagree with you.
|9.13.08 @ 9:45PM|#
And LMNOP: The society that became Australia was 90% populated by voluntary immigrants, not convicts.
|9.14.08 @ 3:27AM|#
It's utterly shocking to me that this is even being
seriously entertained on a site like Reason.
OH NOES! The freethinking around here is driving Mortimer just MAD!
Sorry, sir, we'll toe the line from now on.
Famous Mortimer|9.15.08 @ 8:26PM|#
No, hypocritical politcal philosophies drive me mad.
"Free-thinking" is far more rare.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245