Mo judge tells woman: No more pregnancies

[deadparrot]

ST. JOSEPH, Mo. (AP) -- A St. Joseph woman who has three children says she was shocked when a judge ordered her not to have any more children out of wedlock while she is on probation for three years.

Mandy Nelson, 26, was given the unusual requirement by Buchanan County Circuit Judge Daniel Kellogg as part of her probation in a forgery case. Other conditions of her probation include community service hours, paying restitution and obtaining a GED or high school diploma.

"I was shocked," Nelson said. "I only have three kids. He made it seem like I was just having kids, kids, kids."

Nelson already was on probation for a prior forgery count. She is alleged to have tried to use $480 in counterfeit money at Commerce Bank in May 2005, according to a St. Joseph Police Department probable-cause statement.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/missouristatenews/story/6098E92F9A19636F8625720B004D909A?OpenDocument

[LisaM]

1. What an awful precedent (and I can't believe it will stand)

What about the father, or fathers involved?

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

18. posted in wrong place

blah!

[saigon68]

39. They need to read this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chastity_belt

[Katzenjammer]

2. I think that both she and the man or men should be sterilized

On the other hand, I think everyone should, once they've produced their 1/2 kid. 300 million people? And not enough work to go around? The only solution is a drop in pop.

[LostinVA]

3. Hmmm.... nice Eugenics attitude there

Du is such a perfect place to showcase it.

[Occulus]

7. If you think that's bad,

try this.

Not a pretty picture. Unfortunately, it also happens to be true.

:scared:

[Quantess]

29. Good point!

The human population is exploding out of control. Eventually overpopulation will be our demise.

[Katzenjammer]

9. I think you misunderstand what 'eugenics' means.

I'm not advocating selective sterilization to improve the gene pool, I'm suggesting that the USA (the world, really) is badly overpopulated. If I had my way, the entire world would make sterilization mandatory after 1/2 kid per person, and pre-natal sex testing would be a criminal offense.

If we stopped breeding like rabbits, maybe we (and the rabbits) wouldn't be facing the likelihood of all life above the cockroach going extinct in a hundred years.

[HereSince1628]

14. The current US birth rate is 2.1 children per woman.

We are hardly breeding like rabbits.

[Katzenjammer]

21. Maybe you should think about that more carefully

The USA is the principal malefactor overwhelming Earth's ability to cope with human pollution. Any above-replacement birthrate *AT ALL* in the USA is the equivalent of "breeding like rabbits" elsewhere.

[JVS]

22. Prenatal sex testing is good for hindering population growth

Unless people use it to choose daughters.

[jilln]

12. How is that eugenics, if advocated for EVERYBODY?

I thought eugenics was about preserving the "better" humans.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

49. read the article before judging the judge

the woman had 3 different kids by 3 different fathers
was passing counterfeit money
blamed her crime on fact that her kids 3 different fathers didn't pay child support.

[treestar]

57. So she goes to prison for what she is guilty of

End of story. That's all the system covers. Somebody should tell him he got the position "judge" but that is not the same as "God."

[merwin]

13. I'm not a doctor, but if we only allow people to have 1/2 of a child,

that will get pretty messy!

[Lochloosa]

20. Solomon will handle that problem.

:evilgrin:

[Tesha]

23. I'm pretty sure that "1/2 a child per person" with two parents = 1 Child.

NT

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

19. preach it!

I wish someone could stop my cousin from breeding - 22 years old and on her fifth kid.
She doesn't work, she lives in a camper without running water.

The grandparents on the fathers side of one of the children swiped theirs, but the four others all remain with her.

Sterilizing her would be the best thing anyone could do for her.

[LostinVA]

4. Totally illegal -- no way this will stand

I believe in personal responsibility, but I believe in civil rights more.

[superconnected]

5. The judge needs to be fired.

[Mend]

6. court-ordered abortions? so if she gets pregnant, I guess that's

her only choice. She would still "have to have the baby, now illegal for her, even if she gave the baby up for adoption. Wonder what the xians have to say about this guy.

[AnneD]

8. This won't stand.....

What century are we in is right? But this is justice for women in this country. No support for the kids from their 'fathers'. You try to keep things together 'by hook or crook' and some pompous ass throws the book at you. If I were in her shoes-I know I would do anything to take care of my kids (illegal would be a last choice-but it would be on the table.

We are too long on law, too short on compassion and tolerance.

I would think he would be fired, but this is MO. Ashcroft's stomping grounds. But if it is any consolation, a dead man beat Ashcroft an election.

[havocmom]

38. Decades ago, in KC, MO, a judge got pushy like this with a woman.

INSISTED she name the fathers of her children to the courts. Soooo... she named him as the father.

Now, I'm not fond of blame innocent men for something, but in her case, just how innocent was the judge?
:evilgrin:

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

10. A part of me agrees with most of the comments made so far

but another part of me wonders if it is right to let three innocent kids live in poverty because their mother and father(s) can't use birth control methods properly.

Apparently, this woman does not have a high school diploma. While she and her partner have a right to procreation, that right comes with the responsability of being able to support your child(ren). Having three kids at 26 years of age with barely an education is not a recipe for success.

[LostinVA]

11. The social ills behind the three kids living in poverty

need to be fixed -- not have rights taken away.

She probably lives like she does because she is uneducated -- both academically and socially.

[Gormy Cuss]

16. But she's no 'welfare bum'

Nelson's mother, Kelly Metcalf, was in the courtroom when the sentence was imposed.

"I was really surprised when he said that," Metcalf said. "I didn't think that was legal. Mandy has always taken care of her kids. It made it look like she was a welfare bum."

Maybe it's time she enroll in TANF and take the legitimate help available to her rather than engaging in forgery.

(the judge's order is totally out of bounds, regardless.)

[progressivebydesign]

35. I think it was actually 3 different boyfriends who won't pay support. n/t

[judaspriestess]

15. I'm glad this judge spoke up

what about the quality of life for her three kids? Is continuing her forgery, life of crime, no education and possibly prison better?
all the judge is saying in my opinion is, hey cool the reproducing for a minute, get your life in order and get yourself an education.

[OKthatsIT]

17. It's inappropriate. It's illegal. It has nothing to do with her case.

[progressivebydesign]

34. he was trying to get her to get her shit together.. for the kids..

you know.. the ones she claimed she was trying to feed by committing forgery? He also told her to get her GED. Probably doesn't want to see her or her children coming back to his court year after year.

[pnwmom]

51. Oh really? But she said she forged the checks because the three fathers

of her kids weren't paying their support money on time.

[progressivebydesign]

36. That's how I understood it. He was trying to help her.

But the people who get all upset by it are just enabling her and allowing her to stay in her bad situation. He's probably predicting she'll be back in court again if she doesn't get her act together. And then.. what becomes of the kids? It's a cycle he was trying to break by asking her to stop the reproduction, and get an education so she could work and support her kids. Sounded reasonable to me.

I do find it odd that people are more outraged that he said this, than they are at a woman with three children who is committing a crime that could send her to prison unable to care for the kids.

[ecstatic]

24. She can continue having more kids when she's off probation, right?

Why risk getting pregnant while serving jail time is a real possibility? :shrug: I'm sure the law can't be enforced, and I'm sure some sort of prejudice played a role in the decision/punishment, but she probably should wait before having more kids (especially if she is doing illegal things).

[pnwmom]

52. She said she already had her tubes tied, so I don't know

why this is such a big deal.

[bleedingheart]

25. Three out of four of the recommendations were positive

1. Community Service
2. Paying restitution
3. Getting an education

[La Lioness Priyanka]

26. the judge is right...he is just not in the position however to legislate

this...thats all..

she shouldnt be having more kids if she cant afford them.

[uncle ray]

27. she probably used the kids as her sob story in court

"but you honor, i was just trying to get money to feed my babies!"(starts crying)

[pnwmom]

53. She did. She said the three fathers weren't paying support on time,

so she forged the checks.

[maxsolomon]

28. put a niqab on her & we'll have a double DU cause celebre!

just think if she was a gun-nut smoker with a pit bull...

[PassingFair]

45. and on a work-release program

...at Olive Garden.

[mtnester]

30. So, why didn't he order pre-sterilization for any man who would consider

sleeping with her? What about finding the fathers of her children, convicting them, and ordering them sterilized based on the fact that they cannot seem to find support money and keep sleeping with women anyway? I mean, it is already a court convened....

World gone mad

[pnwmom]

54. He's not ordering her to be sterilized. She had ALREADY had her tubes

tied, according to her, anyway.

[Xenotime]

31. Typical case of a man telling a woman what to do with her body.

[depakid]

32. Since she's already had her tubes tied- seems like it's a non-issue

And she's probably fortunate to just get probation for a counterfeiting charge.

[pnwmom]

56. Finally! Someone else who read the whole thing.

:hi:

[progressivebydesign]

33. Judge is probably tired of seeing the same story over and over every day..

It seems pretty commons sense for a judge to say that. It's soo fucking funny how everyone gets so upset that he said that to her, yet no one mentions how she shouldn't committing forgery. It's always that odd disconnect that keeps women in her situation from ever going forward in her life. The outrage should be that she got pregnant 3 times with 3 different guys who refuse to pay child support, and that she turned to crime knowing that her 3 kids faced a life without her if she got caught. She was forging to feed her kids? Anyone believe that? I don't. The judge is probably tired of seeing these characters in and out of his courtroom daily... by asking her to also get a GED, he is TRYING to get her life back on track, and that is what the whole not getting pregnant thing is all about.

WOuldn't it have been in her better interest if all the people who are so outraged that he would suggest such a thing, actually did something positive to get this woman out of her situation and into a productive life??? They do her no favors. The judge had the right idea. It's not about the pregnancy, per se, it's about getting her shit together so her KIDS do not live a life with Mom in prison.

[ldf]

37. just to add a little more gas to the fire...

quite frankly i don't think anyone has the right to fuck us all into oblivion.

there is enough of a problem with unwanted children, neglected children, abused children.

having a child is a great responsibility.

let's jump eagerly into the 21st century.

we need to figure out a way to innoculate both young men and women, so that they can't produce fertilized eggs until they are ready and able, both physically and financially.

the female won't be in a position to "murder" children by having abortions, and the male won't be able to father a bunch of children he has no intention of supporting.

we have a type of birth control that can be injected under the skin for females, we need one for males.

none of these kids having sex are trying to have kids. they are just having sex. and the adults that are having kids in horrendous situations are also just having sex. they aren't (necessarily) trying to have kids they don't want and can't support.

you want a kid, you make sure you can support one. then you have the birth control removed.

strange, you have to get a license just to have a car, at the age of 16 at the earlies.

yet you can have a baby as soon as you have your first period, with absolutely no guidelines whatsoever.

makes LOTS of sense.

the only drawback to this idea is that it may encourage someone to have sex before they are married. and ENJOY it.

and you know we sure don't want THAT to happen.

:shrug:

[rucky]

40. but teaching about birth control in schools is immoral!

immoral, i tell ya! and premarital sex gives you cancer.

[Moloch]

41. What a fundie asshole...

A judge can't order a woman not to have babies out of wedlock. That's messed up.

[MODemocrat]

42. I wonder if any of the fathers are paying child support

She really needs to get her act together for the sake of the three children she already has. I always
feel sorry for innocent children.:cry: :cry:

[SoCalDem]

43. The difference between "should" and "shall"

legally he cannot command her to remain celibate (or at least child-free), but common sense tells us all that a single woman on probation with 3 "child-support-free" kids already, does NOT "need" another kid.

Look, we all "love kids" and no one wants to be in a position to deny anyone the right to bear a child, but part of childbearing is also child-rearing.

Children cost money, and if someone expects the PUBLIC-at-large to support his/her children and any number of future children, that's just plain wrong.

We all know that "stuff happens", and I don't mind one bit, helping to support a broken family, or people who escape abuse, but when people "game" the system, a line must br drawn somewhere.

We cannot legislate morality, or even properly define it, so there has to be a nuts & bolts approach to the funding or non-funding of behavior that is not good for the whole of society.

That's why there are so many laws on the books against doing things that are deleterious to the commons, when "committed" by the individual.
Some laws are adhered to with time served behind bars, and some are enforced by removal of financial gain.

This issue is going to bite us on the ass in the future..in a big way. people who have two or three jobs and are juggling responsibilities are the ones who are actively limiting their families, and the people with no boundaries, no jobs, and apparently little control or foresight are the ones who are having many children. It's not fair to "blame the children", but what happen when those kids are teenagers who have never been taught responsibility, and who have lived a chaotic life with little discipline.? How do we deal with them when they are no longer cute little toddlers?

republicans are building private jails at a break-neck pace.. does that give us an idea?

[proud2BlibKansan]

44. Um why not look up the fathers and make them support their kids?

This ruling also makes no sense. What does her crime have to do with the number of kids she has?

[Lyric]

46. An observation

The problem I've always seen with the whole "If you can't afford kids, don't have kids!" line is the assumption that because someone is poor right *now*, that they've always been that way.

I work for a women's advocacy/assistance group. From my own experience, I've found that the VAST majority of poor women with kids (at least in my area) were *not* poor when the children were born. They become poor *after* their kids were born--mostly because of divorce, with some abuse, abandonment, medical emergencies, and job losses occasionally thrown in for variety. It's actually uncommon that we get a client who was poor/on welfare at the time her kids were born.

I agree that women know they can't afford to care for children should choose not to have children. But I will never, ever advocate a position of making it *illegal* for poor women to get pregnant, because that's a slippery slope that will inevitably lead to some outside body defining what level of income you must have to procreate, which is a frightening thought. And what happens when that law is broken? How are the violators punished? Do we toss them into jail, thus leaving the children both poor *and* parentless? Do we levy fines that we know damned well a poor person will never be able to pay? And what happens from there? Once we open the door to regulating pregnancies for this particular reason, what group of people will be next in line for "regulation"? Disabled or ill people? Gays and lesbians? Women over 35? It makes NO sense to pass a law that you cannot clearly define or enforce, and such a law would be a conglomeration of Constitutional violations just begging to be tossed out by the SCOTUS.

The solution here is what we've all been trying to tell the idiotic conservatives for decades. Comprehensive sex education. Easy access to contraceptives. Better support for parents recovering from divorce, medical problems, etc. And most of all--tougher penalties for nonpayment of child support and more intense prosecution of deadbeat parents.

[pnwmom]

55. The irony of this whole case is that the woman in question, mother of

three babies by three fathers, says that she ALREADY had her tubes tied.

Case closed.

[colorado_ufo]

47. This could set an undesirable precedent, however

it was ordered just for the time of her probation - three years - and she is nowhere near menopause. The judge is thinking more of the welfare of her children than of the mother's individual rights. She is already turning to crime; there is no way that she can get her life together while taking care of three children and having more. The judge is attempting to help her by trying to instill a sense of values, through ordering restitution and community service, and to help her get ahead by mandating that she receive education. It did not appear that there was any move to take her current children from her.

If read in context, with understanding, this judge's actions were compassionate and oriented toward a better future for this young woman and her children. He could have sent her to prision. In fact, her attitude speaks of denial of the reality of her situation. She needs help, and this judge is trying to give it.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

48. She used the kids as excuse for passing counterfeit

Sorry, but she laid it down in such a way that she was asking for that:

Nelson already was on probation for a prior forgery count. She is alleged to have tried to use $480 in counterfeit money at Commerce Bank in May 2005, according to a St. Joseph Police Department probable-cause statement.

Nelson mentioned in court that she was having financial difficulties because she had three children whose fathers weren't paying child support.

Kellogg said, "My feeling was that would be to help ensure she wouldn't have any more financial difficulties. It's not a moral judgment. It was just to address what were her legitimate concerns. It was more to give her support than to serve as punishment."

The judge was trying to keep her from the pressures that having so many children
seem to cause her.

I don't feel sorry for this criminal - I feel sorry for her children.

[pnwmom]

50. Exactly. Plus she says she's already had her tubes tied.

So this doesn't sound like a really big deal.