It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Judge arranges sterilization as part of Charleston woman's probation

page: 1
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Judge arranges sterilization as part of Charleston woman's probation


wvgazette.com

CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- A Charleston woman agreed in Kanawha Circuit Court Monday to a judge's suggestion that she have her fallopian tubes tied as part of her probation.

Jessica Michelle Butterworth, 21, pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute marijuana on March 23. At her sentencing hearing, Judge L.D. Egnor suspended a one- to five-year prison sentence in favor of five years of probation.

Egnor, a retired Cabell County Circuit judge who has been hearing cases while Judge Paul Zakaib Jr. recovers from an illness, said he had made arrangements for Butterworth to have the st
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Unbelievable! What happened to America? I saw this article on
infowars. When did the courts get authority to sterilize people? I am truly speechless on this. What a shame our wonderful country is going down the road to a Nazi Germany style court system. There was a section in ENDGAME movie that talks about this type of punishment.

wvgazette.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   
She's got three children, and no way to support what she has.

I don't agree with forced sterilization.

However, sometimes including it as an option for life changes is necessary.

Today, you don't NEED working fallopian tubes. You know her eggs work. You know her uterus works.

If she gets straightened out, and later decides to have more children with a new man she could have her eggs harvested and implanted. She has no physical issue making it hard to catch and carry to term. She'd be an excellent candidate for it.

Force - no. Option - yes.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 11:33 AM
link   
The judge would send a stronger message if he hired an equally poor and uneducated woman who had enough self control not to produce out of wedlock children. Studies have shown poor women with children do better economically than poor women who choose to not have children out of wedlock. Reward systems usually work better than punishment systems. He is taking the easy way out ,but there would still be negative consequences for and because of poor women leading bad lives even if no out of wedlock children were produced.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   
i have also heard that this is governement guildlines as part of Operation T-4.

[edit on 3/6/09 by Harlequin]



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by dntwastetime
 


I would be very interested to know if the "suggestion" was made before or after sentencing. It is hard to imagine that any suggestion prior to sentencing wouldn't have an impact on the punishment if not followed. I am a little relieved to see that it isn't a condition of her probation.




"As the procedure was something that my client had expressed interest in in both the past and present, as well as the fact that Judge Egnor was not ordering her to get the procedure done as a condition of probation, I did not feel that my client's rights were being violated," Payne said.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   
I agree that there should not be forced sterilization.

However, I think that in cases like this, or as a prerequisite to welfare, sterilization should be forced.

If you can't take care of the kids you have, there is no way you should EVER have more.

Look at it from the kids perspective, he's brought in to his world by a drug dealing addicted whore.

Would you want that to be your mother?

Will those children have good lives?

Will they turn out just like her and have kids of their own they can't support?



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by breakingdradles
 


You are ignoring that this is still a mobile society where people move up and down all the time. Some people are poor through no fault of their own. It would be ridiculous to sterilize a former Nun who is still celibate.



[edit on 3-6-2009 by eradown]



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by dntwastetime
 



When did the courts get authority to sterilize people?


It's not forced. It's part of the deal. Get your tubes tied and go on probation or stay in jail.

It's not forced.
Nothing has "happened" tot his country.

It's actually a good thing. People liek this woman should not be allowed to reproduce anyways.

Tough Love.

It's no different than saying "if you go to rehab, ill let you out of jail"

If you can't behave responsibility, you shouldn't be allowed to do certain things.

Props to this judge for having the balls to do what's right.

[edit on 3-6-2009 by Fremd]



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by breakingdradles
 





However, I think that in cases like this, or as a prerequisite to welfare, sterilization should be forced.


We have record foreclosures, people losing their jobs in record numbers and we have people that believe that individuals should be sterilized for going on welfare. I am glad things are still good enough for some to be able to afford a high horse but be careful what you ask for...



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Fremd
 





It's actually a good thing. People liek this woman should not be allowed to reproduce anyways.

Tough Love.


Tough love? In a free society it is not the role of the government to provide tough love. And punishment that involves eliminating ones natural means to reproduction is reprehensible. What happen to the fundamental ideals???




posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by harvib
 



Tough love? In a free society it is not the role of the government to provide tough love. And punishment that involves eliminating ones natural means to reproduction is reprehensible. What happen to the fundamental ideals???


I never disagreed with that.
But if she wants out of jail on probation, i believe this is a perfectly acceptable clause to add to it.

They're not forcing it. It's a deal.
Take it or leave it kind of thing.

Big difference between what it really is, and how the OP is trying to pass it off.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   
She was given an ultimatum, it doesn't sound like a deal to me.

Now excluding my opinion - if it was a "deal" it's a very sick one. It's out of line for a judge to suggest sterilization on anyone, whether they want it or not. Sterilization has no business in the court room. He may not be forcing this, yet. We need to realize this is the tip of the iceburg. Once the courts introduce something like this, it will spread.

This is very wrong. That woman needs a new lawyer.

Her not being able to take care of her kids is not a valid argument. People are not in the same economical or emotional status their whole lives. It is no one's right to take away the ability to reproduce.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by harvib
reply to post by breakingdradles
 





However, I think that in cases like this, or as a prerequisite to welfare, sterilization should be forced.


We have record foreclosures, people losing their jobs in record numbers and we have people that believe that individuals should be sterilized for going on welfare. I am glad things are still good enough for some to be able to afford a high horse but be careful what you ask for...


Ok, so you agree that these people, though through no fault of their own, cannot afford the children they have.

Should they be allowed to have more children?

Most of these procedures are reversible, I'm just trying to look out for the kid who is going to be raised in a household that cannot afford his needs.

It's these kids, who when they get older, will go down the same path their parents did.

The cycle has to stop somewhere.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 08:01 PM
link   
I find it incredible that posters lay claim to pontificating on the rights of others. The important and salient points of this case is two or more fold, but the two points I'll make here are that the Judge is deemed to have acted 'coercively' and 'precedently'. He has waved the conductor's baton by which the 'holier-than-thou' choir sing to his tune...the hymn, 'Thou shalt not have the right to be sovereign over your own body, because we think you are a crack-addicted whore.'

It seems a few members of the choir have posted to this thread. Hell! If you expand on their rationale, we should be able to justify having her executed, or flogged, or both as a public spectacle and example. We know she has had sex on at least three occasions, and out of wedlock! She must be called Hecate...



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by breakingdradles
 

Even assuming impoverished kids are a detriment to society (not all of them are) it is reprehensible that the statists assume all people will abuse their free will and so they would like to take the right of people to control their own destiny. This may start small with poor people ,but the more people in the tight fist of the government control ,the easier it will be for the statists to take away more rights from more people, including your right to think anything you wish. The statist would love for the none elitists to have lobotomies, because people with brains may try to change the status quo. The elitists also decry the pitiful condition of people who are too smart for their station and the fact that there just is not room for all people to be brilliant thinkers . It is easy to see why this trend must be stopped before it picks up momentum.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Fremd
 





But if she wants out of jail on probation, i believe this is a perfectly acceptable clause to add to it.


Punitive sterilization is illegal under U.S. law as ruled by the supreme court in the case of Skinner v. Oklahoma. It is also illegal under the Eighth and arguably the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S Constitution.




They're not forcing it. It's a deal.
Take it or leave it kind of thing.


Actually it is not a term of her probation. As making it a term of her probation as stated above would be illegal for several reasons. However she may have been coerced into the procedure which is of great concern from a civil liberties point of view. But who cares about the civil liberties of a person that would dare to posses marijuana. Cheers to that over some beer and whisky.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by breakingdradles
 





Ok, so you agree that these people, though through no fault of their own, cannot afford the children they have.


I am not sure. I have not met this lady and I am assuming that neither have you.




Should they be allowed to have more children?


In a free society you or I would not have the jurisdiction to stop them.




I'm just trying to look out for the kid who is going to be raised in a household that cannot afford his needs.


That's very noble of you however maybe their are more effective and longer term solutions then eugenics. I am just trying to look out for the kid who is going to be raised in this Country.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by breakingdradles
I agree that there should not be forced sterilization.

However, I think that in cases like this, or as a prerequisite to welfare, sterilization should be forced.

(Underlining added)

Was there a typo on your part in the above lines?

Your statement basically says the following.

I think there should not be forced sterilization but I think that it should be forced in these types of cases or as a prerequisite to getting welfare.

That statement does not make sense.



Sterilizing anyone is very dangerous. Once the state begins to determine whether or not someone has the right to have children things can get very bad very quickly.



Originally posted by Harlequin
i have also heard that this is governement guildlines as part of Operation T-4.

[edit on 3/6/09 by Harlequin]


If you mean Aktion T4 (Action T4) in Nazi Germany you are exactly correct.

If you mean a different T-4 could you provide any information on it?

Now you may say Action T4 targeted the disabled and not the poor and is most well known as a massive euthanasia program but it heavily involved mass forced sterilization.

Wikipedia Article on Action T4


Whether the person agreed to it or even asked for it is irrelevant a court should NEVER be able to add this into it's ruling on a case. However, as stated that would be illegal.

Even if the person wishes to be sterilized it should never be court mandated. (If it is put into the court deal as a requirement I would consider it court mandated.)

[edit on 4-6-2009 by Studious]



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 03:11 AM
link   
Wow, it's crazy to see sterilization eugenics come back to the USA, after you pioneered it. I agree that this is not quite the same as the old days, when it was completely forced, but doing it through this type of coercion is not much better in my opinion.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join