Fantastic.

How on earth are they going to enforce that? I can understand his thinking, heck where I work I wish sometimes I could just tell these women to stop having more babies, but its just no possible or my right to do so.

Even the most liberal and accepting of us has rolled our eyes at some families and wanted to scream, "Stop having kids!" But to legally mandate it just doesn't sit right with me. I get it, but it seems to cross the line into a weird territory.

This is...bizarre.

I mean, she sounds like one of those people of whom I say, "Damn, some people shouldn't have kids," but to actually make that a court order?

Ummm my personal beliefs as an individual is that she probably shouldn't have kids until she gets her stuff together, I don't think the judge has a right to regulate what she does with her body at least not until the overturn Roe V Wade. This is insane, I think she should have been charged with child abuse like the husband if she knew he child was being beat and did nothing she is just as guilty as him and should lose custody and serve jail time.

I'm also wonder about some fact regarding this case, I find it hard to believing that the terms of her probation actually said "If Felicia gets pregnant, must she abort....."?

P.S. Where is Gloria Allred? ahahahaha

that sounds really really wrong. what was this judge thinking?!

Ummm, how are they going to enforce this?

What was the judge thinking about not charging her with Felony Child Neglect/Abuse and putting her in jail with. That way the judge could have almost made certain she wouldn't be procreating for a while. As well as give this lady some type of mandatory counseling as terms of her parole once she gets out of jail.

Seems to me like if she gets pregnant, she goes to jail. Not that she has to abort or give it up for adoption, she just forfeits probation.

Well she's on probation and has a probation officer so I'm pretty sure she gets checked up on. If she violates the terms of her parole, she goes to jail.

As for whether this is constitutional, I have no idea. Is it constitutional to put someone under house arrest? You are taking away their rights there, aren't you?

I just find it interesting because she had to give up the abused child into foster case. And yet she can just go have another one. So the state has deemed her unfit for one... then why not the next as well?

It's unfortunate that women like her seem to be the ones who continue to prodcue children whom they do not care for. But it makes me uncomfortable that a court has ordered someone to not have children. I think he should have charged her with the same thing he charged the father and thrown her in jail.

[How on earth are they going to enforce that?]

A golden chastity belt with an alarm maybe?

I don't see where the confusion is about this

Its really interesting to me that this just happened. I'm in law school and I'm interning with a family law lawyer right now and a couple of weeks ago we were in Family Court on a case about terminating parental rights. And the lawyer made a comment about the justice system regulation people having kids. I'm surprised that someone has actually done it, but not altogether opposed to the idea.

Now this is real news!

I agree this case is not over. The law can't tell a woman what to to do with her body. This women is obviously very young and there are many more effective ways to rehabilitate/punish her. I think she should be charged with felony neglect/child abuse but she does have the right to procreate.

The law can't tell a woman what to do with her body? Isn't that what putting someone in jail is? What a restraining order is?

If that's the case why don't they force her to get her tubes tied?

Would that be unconstitutional?

"If that's the case why don't they force her to get her tubes tied?"

Because the probation and the conditions of the probation aren't permanent.

I suppose they hope she can be rehabilitated and have children down the road.

I obviously didn't mean it like that! Yeah they tell her to take her body to jail, but I don't think they can take away her right to reproduce. That could open up a huge blackhole as far as reproductive rights are concerned. I do agree this women is unfit to have kids and she needs to go to jail.

Punishing someone for having a child is different than jailing someone and a restraining order. It has been shown that when a Government agency imposes these type of sanctions on child birth that it causes a huge societal problem. and tale her she can't create a new one. Take China for instance ( although some circumstances are different) people are restricted to having one child which is causing a dramatic rise in kidnapping of small children and young women ( although I don't think that would happen here part of China's issue is cultural) there are consequences if judgments like this go unquestioned and other judges jump on the bandwagon.

I'm more concerned about the lady who gave her kid a gun because of the bullies at school.

"I'm more concerned about the lady who gave her kid a gun because of the bullies at school."

She's awesome!

Yeah -- she's a winner!

Seriously? If she does get pregnant she probably goes to jail - I cannot imagine them forcing her to abort it. Maybe they will take the baby away and put it into a foster home because she has shown she is unfit and she violated her terms but yeah...this seems really bizarre to me.

They aren't really taking away her reproductive rights though, are they? They're just attaching a consequence to it.

Attaching consequences to reproductive rights is as bad as taking them away. Like I said there are unknown social concequences on both sides and judgements like this it sets a bad presedence.

China didnt' think that by controlling their population by restricting 1 child per married couple would mean that kidnapping would rise.

I'm just wondering if this type of judgement was passed on a man that he could not procreate and if he did he would be jailed ...what kind of outrage it would be. Furthermore I don't think any judge would dare attach that type of consequence a mans reproductive rights.

Be clear I'm not talking about cases of pedophilla that is a another ball of wax completely

Are her reproductive rights being violated by the state putting her child into foster care?

If the answer is no, then how about this. If she gets pregnant right now and has a baby 9 months later, are the courts violating her rights by taking that baby as well?

It's a little bit harder to tell that men have reproduced.

They should have thrown her in jail too. She has as much fault as the guy for the abuse the child went through.

could you make a chasity belt with an alarm, like the ankle bracelets? what could you call it?

sounds like she's not fit to be a parent and that's why he ordered her not to have children
hello - she omitted medical care to her beaten baby

perhaps she'll go to jail if she gets pregnant

perhaps the judge is trying to prohibit her from birthing a child she can't properly care for and will therefore end up in protective custody

it may not be a perfect system but he's correct on one point = she has no business being a parent

Yikes.

It's Texas after all

"It's Texas after all"

Wow stellar argument.

wow...good luck enforcing that one....i'm interested to actually see what will happen if she happened to get preganant again....what actions would snowball from all of that

GS-I admit I would have said the same thing but I would totally be joking.

In my defense, I make fun of non-New York states all the time. My favorite states to insult are Texas, New Jersey, and Virginia.

well i think that they are getting to be very creative here - but i guess when it's a matter of child endangerment, the are trying to keep her from having more kids to have this happen again. i'm sure that there is going to be a lot of talk about this one - seeing as how they said that she would either have to have an abortion or go to jail. i'm not sure that you can really say that can you?

I think the point is if she knows her butt is going to jail if she gets knocked up, she will be pretty damn careful with her birth control. Everyone's imaginations are going haywire with this one. It is just a term in her probation. Your reproductive rights aren't threatened.

Wow that is the best ( not) avatar ever!

Me?

Well at least she doesn't currently have custody of her daughter. Some people just shouldn't be parents, but I wonder what kind of precedent this sentence will have.

I'm guessing "cream of nothing"

Yours is cute GS. I relate

I thought it was the cream of nothing avi too.

yeap..... Cream of Nothing

lol, ok! I was like, who doesn't love dorks?!?

i think some people need to be given tough sentences. and although i know there must be certain rules and regulations and laws for everyone, i think there should be a case-by-case analysis. this woman sounds like she deserves to have her reproductive rights taken away...as does the man.