A 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.”
…]
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.
And then we are later told: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.
What the heck? And then the headline doesn’t square with the article:Moe also states that she is “very Catholic,” does not believe in abortion, and would never have an abortion.
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.”
Possible that she converted to the Church or reverted some time after the first abortion.This case makes little sense and is rather confusing. I can’t make heads or tails of the two following statements:
And then we are later told:
What the heck? And then the headline doesn’t square with the article: