BlogHer - Say 'No' to Babies: Texas Judge Tells Young Woman to Stop Having Children - Comments

Another View

Simply_B — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 11:04:38 -0500

Not only is the line fuzzy we don't know who it points to. One may become one million, but what if we wake up one day and realize that we are one of those million? I for one have had numerous pregnancy losses, what if someone somewhere thinks that because of that I should never have the ability to get pregnant again?

There are countries and belief systems that have similar things like this in place. Us on our high platform of safety here in North America openly frown upon those lifestyles because they seem barbaric and inhumane as well as uneducated to us with little understanding of those lives, countries, and religions. Not saying it is right or wrong, but do we as a nation want to become the countries and people that we think are so taboo and wrong because if we embrace this way of thinking we will be doing just that.

I love how this topic can get us thinking about things taking place in our own backyard as well as a plane ride away.

Life According to B

Thanks, Nordette, for

Yvette Perry — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 08:57:57 -0500

Thanks, Nordette, for direcing me to Laina's post on this topic. Like you, I tend to support anti-poverty, educational and other programs that some see as a failure. There certainly is plenty of work to be done. I think discussion in forums like this is part of that work.

In that regard, I do not see my contributions to this one as indicative of "having a fit" or otherwise being a rose-colored glasses-wearing, unrealistic dreamer about constitutionality or rights. I am not "idealistic" in the sense of the definition of being unrealistic and not practical. My opinions are based on my own experiences a middle aged woman and mother of color, as well as a my work as a family researcher. I do, however--like most--have "ideals" in the sense of goal-directed values. And (attempted) government control of reproduction--which IMO this case is about--is not in keeping with the values I hold.

At any rate, I offered on the other thread some other books on this topic for folks who might want to read more about it.

Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast

No new post on this from me. Lainad's posted on LaBruzzo

Nordette — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 22:58:47 -0500

I had planned to write more on eugenics in relation to the LaBruzzo deal down here, Yvette, but Lainad has written a post on it. No need to rehash it. Here's her link.

If you're really in a fit over this, I recommend your contacting Salazar's attorney to find out if any bigger guns will be taking this on and if she has a defense fund for an appeal because that's the only way to prevent these types of rulings and make politicians put programs into place to help poor parents rather than penalize them. Someone will have to sue and get a clear ruling that judges overstep their bounds if they rule that people can't reproduce.

For the record, I don't support the state taking over a person's right to reproduce; however, I do enjoy playing Devil's advocate. My position is fairly clear in the post I wrote at my own blog on LaBruzzo when the story broke. Nevertheless, I also recognize that under certain circumstances, when we fail to manage our own lives in a way that avoids injury to others, the state may step in and take away whatever freedoms we assume we should have. Gray areas are at play here and there's no need to pretend otherwise.

Instead of moaning about the children Salazar may not have in the next 10 years, I think we should be hoping she figures out how to pull herself together and get custody of the one that's breathing. We should be working, and I have done so before, to help organizations and promote policies that give a Salazar a fighting chance before she bears her first child. I suppose that means I'm for the kinds of educational and anti-poverty programs LaBruzzo calls a failure.

As for state-enforced time outs, there's nothing new about those. They're called prison. No matter what size rose-colored glasses we have on, we know that at some point someone's gonna pay. So, was the judge criminalizing motherhood or criminalizing the failure to protect a child (his ruling is not against motherhood in general) or was he criminalizing a certain type of motherhood but not any type of fatherhood because he said no such recommendaiton to Alvarado? After all, Alvarado committed the obvious crime. So, we're back to my original premise on this particular case, which probably is not a good case to make points against eugenics. LaBruzzo's proposal, however, is.

No need to go around in this circle again.

You're an idealist, Yvette. I applaud that and certainly I commend your zero tolerance for trampling on the rights of anyone who wants to bear or not bear a child.

Nordette is a Contributing Editor with BlogHer.com whose personal blog is hosted on another site at this link.

State-Enforced "Time Outs"

Yvette Perry — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:24:08 -0500

I think we are just destined to disagree on this, Nordette--and that certainly is OK. I am looking forward to reading your follow-up post on the other case.

Regarding this one--whether it is a "time-out" or a more permanent move, what the judge did was make not bearing children a condition of this woman's parole. Which means that if she did have a child during this time period she would be violating that parole. Which means she would have to then serve out her sentence. To me this is criminalizing motherhood, and it is extremely concerning.

(Now, it is doubtful that enforcement of this aspect of the order would survive a court challenge. It is likely highly unconstitutional on 2 or 3 grounds at least. I am not a legal expert so I'll leave that to ohers to comment on.)

It perhaps would be nice if this young woman had someone who cared for her to pull her aside to talk to her. But the judge (I presume) does not have that kind of relationship with her. He is representing the State and he is linking this "suggestion" to a legal mandate. (Or attempting to, anyway.) Expressing an opinion that someone is not ready for motherhood may be judgmental, but it is not the same as agreeing that the State should have the power to enforce restrictions on some people's reproduction. I also want to note that not making further childbearing a condition of parole is not the same as "encouraging" someone to have more children.

So really, to me the issue is not so much whether the order was a temporary break, or whether we sometimes observe that there are some folks who appear better prepared for parenting than others. The issue is that many of us are comfortable with the State making decisions about, and enforcing criminal sanctions as a result of, the childbearing decisions of individuals. As a 40-something mother of two myself as well as someone who is pro-choice that goes against everything I believe in.

Again, I look forward to future posts on this subject. Thanks again for bringing the conversation to Blogher.

Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast

It was a time out, not a permanent order

Nordette — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 19:35:14 -0500

Thank you, Yvette. You bring up important points that I'll discuss in my next post about LaBruzzo suggesting Louisiana adopt a eugenics program, but as for this case and this particular mother's situation in Texas, I stand by what I said in that I don't think she's particularly harmed by putting off having children for a while. At 20, and given what happened to the child, I think she was not ready for a baby. (I'll agree that society may be harmed by such notions and we should fight thinking that it's okay to stop certain groups from reproducing, but her individual case gives me pause.)

Perhaps a white male judge should not have been the one to demand that a woman of color put off having more children. Perhaps 10 years is too long a period for her to go without having another child. Perhaps we'd like it better if an old brown-skinned matriarch had taken Salazar to the side, coddled her, comforted her through her grief about injuries to her baby girl, and then sent Salazar on to some parenting classes or sent her on someplace else to contemplate her navel, her existence and relationship with men. That may have been nice to do, and maybe the judge should have been creative and compassionate enough to think that way, but it still doesn't change the reality that this young lady needs to think long and hard about having another child. I don't mean that she should never have another child, and it doesn't sound like that's what the judge said, but clearly she didn't have the inner strength at the time to leave Alvardo before he hurt her daughter, and as I've already said, Alvarado may have even been abusing Salazar herself. I doubt that there were no signs leading up to the child's beating.

However, even if we argue that Salazar herself was a victim, I don't think any mental health professional would think that Salazar's life would improve or that she'd miracously know how to handle an abusive male by having another baby so soon after this incident.

That's my opinion as a 48-year-old mother of two children, one nearly grown and the other surely an adult, as a woman who's been through it with both a man and her own issues and who had her first baby at age 20.

Nevetheless, I certainly understand your point, and I made a similar point in response to another commenter and that is we have to be very careful because these kinds of practices usually start with only one person. We applaud one ruling and the next thing we know an entire policy has evolved that says it's okay to stop minorities and the poor from having children because "they can't handle it" and "it's a drain on the system." Yes, that's dangerous.

However, while we may think that the judge ruled this way because he's an old white guy and Salazar is a young woman of color (and we may be right), we cannot escape what happened to the child at the hands of Alvarado and the negligence of Salazar. If Salazar is not able to protect her children, then should we encourage her to have more at her young age? Is there no benefit in waiting to bear children until one is ready to be a parent and to nurture and protect?

So, an evil may begin with singling out one person, but this one person, Salazar, is the one in question and her circumstances are not abstract concepts but unique, concrete, and tragic. The judge could have required her to serve her prison sentence, and then, well, this subject would be moot.

I will say, however, that if a judge had told me not to have more children for 10 years, I'd be mad as hell at his presumption that he can rule my ovaries, but I would also hope that such a drastic, insulting ruling, would cause me to reflect not on what's wrong the judge but on my life's decisions especially if my own immaturity contributed to my child being beaten severely. Some people could say that view is judgmental. I say it expresses honesty about the human condition. Sometimes people need a time out.

Nordette is a Contributing Editor with BlogHer.com whose personal blog is hosted on another site at this link.

A Power, Not Just Gender, Disparity

Yvette Perry — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 10:00:27 -0500

Nordette, I completely understand your focus on the apparent gender disparity in this case. Yes, historically women have more often been the targets of efforts to control sexuality and reproduction than men, but men certainly have not been immune to such control. Especially--again--if we are talking about certain men (poor. minority, disabled, etc.). And, by the way, the control of men's reproductive capacity has been (and still is) a by-product of imprisonment.

So, I understand your focus on this particular facet of this case. And I guess I should have begun my comment by thanking you for bringing this case up in the first place. I'll say that explicitly--Thank you!

I guess the point I was trying to make is that, for me, the more glaring issue is not the gender discrepancy between the father and mother, but the power issue between the judge and the mother. And by extension, between those of us commenting on this case and the women who are often the targets of the discussion. Why is it that the judge feels it is his place to impose limits or even to make suggestions on this woman'sfuture reproduction? Why is it that you yourself do not "have an issue with her being told to not have babies for a while"?

I understand that some will say that they are concerned for the welfare and/or rights of children. But there is a distinction here: We are not talking about actual, living children but future, potential children. To use a term that many anti-abortion folks use: We are talking about the "unborn." I ask that we examine why we are so quick to advocate limits on (or express that we wish there were a way we could limit) the future reproduction of some women. Especially those of us who consider ourselves "pro-choice."

You really should not be surprised at "how quickly people are willing to agree that the mother should not have any more children." History in the US has shown widespread support for the notion that some people's childbearing should be controlled by the State. Again, this control is often directed to those who are some combination of poor, minority, immigrant, disabled, mentally challenged, and substance addicted.

(And of course at one time, enslaved. And that particular case is an interesting one, in that at one time those of us who are of African descent were encouraged to reproduce while more recently our reproduction has been seen largely as a bother. It all comes back to the economic needs of a country at any given time...)

To me, the "low hanging fruit" is the issue of men being approached differently in the court system than women. It is much harder for us, IMO, to face our own gut reactions to such cases.

Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast

That line is way too fuzzy

Nordette — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 16:43:58 -0500

You're right, Simply B. Where do we draw the line? That's why these types of discussions are scary because the fastest way to get rid of a taboo is to discuss it and ask why should the practice be a taboo? We have believed that using the law to single out groups to stop having babies is wrong and so our antenna go up when we hear of an individual being told to stop having children. Usually thinking that anything is "okay" begins with us thinking it's okay for just one person. What happens when one becomes one million?

Thank you for your thoughts.

Nordette is a Contributing Editor with BlogHer.com whose personal blog is hosted on another site at this link.

Not completely focused on gender

Nordette — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 16:35:38 -0500

Hi, Yvette. I've mentioned the gender issue most because the Texas case involved a gender discrepancy--a man (the father) who beat his child but was not told to stop fathering children while a woman (the mother), who was present but did not beat the child, was told to not have any more children.

Otherwise, I attempted to tie my post to some of the other issues (usually race and class) that seem to influence decisions about sterilization and that target poor women of color.

I drew comments back to the dicussion of the gender issue because I was surprised how quickly people are willing to agree that the mother should not have any more children but don't mention the father in this case in terms of procreation. He'll probably be able to father children long after the woman can not conceive. (Actually, I don't think the judge said she can't ever have children again, but instead that she can't have children for the next 10 years or until she's 30.)

I honestly don't have an issue with her being told to not have babies for a while because it sounds like she needs to figure out who she is, but I do have a problem with permanent sterilization of women and men when programs pushing such procedures target minorites and the poor, which is why I referenced the "slippery slope" in one of my responses. Who are we to play God?

I may have to write on this topic again soon because a local politician down here wants to pay "welfare" mothers $1000 to stop having babies and offer an incentive to "the educated" to have more children. Spooky. And doubly spooky when I consider that a state like Louisiana, not known for being progressive, could actually pass his proposed bill should he ever write it. His whole logic is he wants to reduce the welfare rolls while increasing the tax base. Uh huh.

What intrigues me in all this is not just the progressive community's silence but also how many conservative, "prolife" people are all for singling out groups to be sterilized, especially when it's the poor or people of color. In fact, the local politician I mentioned is "prolife."

Thanks for contributing to this discussion. Your comments are provocative and informative.

Nordette is a Contributing Editor with BlogHer.com whose personal blog is hosted on another site at this link.

Just Thinking

Simply_B — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:49:40 -0500

This story caught my attention too. I feel iike something should be thought about, but what, and to what extent? Who's to say that a woman who is not mentally unstable or hooked on anything is going to make a good mother/father? I know a gal who is having yet another baby. She hates children and uses them as pawns to get what she wants. Those kids get a meal a day, usually french fries. They get smackd around and yelled at. They see terrible abuse on the end of their mother and her current man (whomever he is at the time). Social services does nothing because there are children who are living with alchoholics and drug addicts and are in "wrose situations." If you ask me this woman should never have another child either, but where and with whom do we draw the line?

Life According to B

Just heard of a local case here in Canada

Crunchy Carpets — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:12:43 -0500

The woman and her boyfriend are basically considered mentall challenged..but not enough to qualify for help or assistance.

She has had 6 babies now and everytime she delivers, the gov't just quietly takes them away for adoption and fostering. Some of these kids have had fetal alchohol and other issues.

But there is no law or help to stop this woman doing what she is doing ...or obviously family.

Very sad.

Look for me at http://crunchycarpets.com or check out the ladies at www.wetcoastwomen.com

Children As Well

Sara Gunderson — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:21:33 -0500

First? I can't see that prioritizing one group over all others would be a good thing. That simply substitutes one hierarchy for another. How about, "as well"?

Sara

Eugenics, redux

Yvette Perry — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 10:27:31 -0500

I am continualy amazed at the lack of outrage about cases like this. I have observed that some of the same progressives who would base their voting decisions on candidates' stance on abortion access are surprisingly consevative when it comes to views about which women should be "allowed" to have children. (Please note that I am not accusing any commenters here of this double standard. This is a general observation.)

Nazi Germany has been mentioned in this comment thread. Actually American eugenics programs predated and (according to some scholars) was the model for the Nazi programs. Traditionally, American eugenics has not just been about prohbitting certain people (mostly women) from having children, but encouraging others to do so. Thus, we have had "Mississippi apendectomies" as well as good family tree awards at state fairs. This dynamic is still alive and well today, for example as certain women and couples are successfully gaining access to infertility treatment (and even lauded when they have 6 babies at once!) while immigration and "unchecked" childbearing by others is seen a dangerous.

Another leg on this shaky table involves our child welfare system, and which parents (especially, again, mothers) are more likely to have their parental rights terminated and children placed in foster care. Again, many progressives (which I consider myself to be one) seem not too interested in the paths these children have taken to the foster care system, or what the State may do to them once they are there (e.g., allowing them to be used in clinical trials without proper advocacy).

Many people have spoken on this issue far more eloquently than I have. (See, for example, Dorothy Roberts' work.) It would be great if more people looked at the wider context of cases like this. At the core is this fact: Reproduction and childrearing has always been tied not just to gender, but to race, class, and whatever economic needs are prevailing in the ocuntry at any given time. To focus on just the most obvious issues (e.g., gender) to the expense of the others and how they all intersect is a huge mistake and lost opportunity.

Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast

Children first

KDQ — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 00:26:55 -0500

I agree - someone needs to ask "what about the father," but as long as women are the ones able to bear children, the burden will remain. Ultimately, I think children's rights need to be placed above all else. As a mother, I cannot bear to hear about even one more child abused or dead because he or she was born to the wrong parents, and society failed to intervene. Heck, as a human being, I can't bear it. I'm a feminist, and I will champion women's rights 'til the day I die, but it's high time children's rights came first.

Rights...whose rights?

TiredMama — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 20:35:19 -0500

What about the rights of the kids? The right to be brought up in a loving enviroment with their basic needs met?

I'm sorry, I can't agree with sterilization against a woman's wishes, but the children should be taken from these woman when they can't take care of them....

I only wish there was a better system to put these innocent children into once we do.

Maybe THAT should be a campaign issue.

Reply to Jenn and Nordette

ckingins — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 23:39:15 -0500

Jenn,

Part of the problem (at least in the days I was in the
hospital world) is that women would have kids in different facilities
over time, and they could lie about previous children, so that would
blow out the possibility of snagging the babies automatically based on
prior 'nonrehabiitation.' Or they could just say another kid was with
their dad, out of state, with relatives because dad was out of state
and she was in the hospital, the BS goes on.

Nordette,

You're so right; everyone looks to the woman to control pregnancy and fewer people will say that a man should 'rein it in.' I think that results from the idea that women supposedly are the main 'blockade' as to whether or not she gets pregnant. Oh, be real! Men that would be involved with women of a certain ilk aren't going to bust a gut to prevent pregnancy generally.

Years ago, I had a thought that I'm almost concerned to share here, so please don't jump on me, my sister bloggers--we always hear people say, 'you need to take a test to get a driver's license, but anyone can have a kid.' Well, maybe people shouldn't be born capable of procreation, but rather have to take some sort of test, then have their fallopian tubes or vas deferens hooked up. But then we get back to my initial reply to this post, who would or how would we set 'THE STANDARD?'

I'm done--have a great week ladies!

Colleen King

Colleen King Insurance Agency

Northridge, CA

Blog: www.askcolleenking.com

Web site: www.CKinginsurance.com

Email: Colleen@ckinginsurance.com

Say 'No' to Babies: Texas Judge Tells Young Woman to Stop Having Children

Nordette — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 20:34:24 -0500

We've heard this before. We may have even said this before: "Some people should not be allowed to have children." A Texas judge has put that belief into action:

On Sept. 5, state District Judge Charlie Baird sentenced Salazar, who had no criminal istory, to 10 years of probation after she reached a plea bargain with prosecutors. In Texas, judges set conditions of probation. In addition to requiring Salazar to perform 100 hours of community service and to undergo a mental health assessment and setting ther typical conditions, Baird told Salazar not to have any more children. (The Austin American Statesman)

Please, hold your outrage for a moment and hear the crime for which Salazar was sentenced. She admitted that she failed to protect her 19-month-old child from the little girl's father, Roberto Alvardo, Salazar's 25-year-old boyfriend. In addition, Salazar admitted that she did not get medical help for her daughter after Alvarado beat the toddler, who "suffered broken bones and other injuries." According to The Statesman article, the child has been placed in foster care, and experts question whether Baird violated Salazar's constitutional right to bear children.

I first learned of this case at Black and Married with Kids while researching data for another post that I've set aside in favor of this topic.

After reading the piece at The Statesman, I had mixed feelings. I'm not sure what to think of the judge's ruling. One side of my heart says, "The judge is playing God," while the other side of my heart screams, "But we should protect children! Maybe Baird did the right thing."

My brain also shouts, "True, but what about the father? Why didn't the judge tell him he should never impregnate a woman again? After all, he's the one who beat his own little girl, not the mother."

To be fair, I don't think Baird ordered that Salazar never bear a child again. He suspended her 10-year prison sentence and gave her a 10-year probation of which the "no babies" order is a condition. When her probation is over, if she's complied, I guess she can have another child if she chooses. She'll be 30 years old then and still able to bear children more than likely.

If she does not comply, then perhaps she'll join the growing number of pregnant women and young mothers in prison.

The judge sentenced, Alvarado, the father, to 15 years in prison. So, unless he's entitled to conjugal visits at some point, it's unlikely he'll father a child in the next 15 years. But what about when he gets out? Can we be sure that after 15 years in prison that he'll be any less inclined to beat children? Texas prisons are not known for rehabilitating people.

Don't get me wrong. Alvarado deserves to be in prison. But what happens when he comes out?

And then, there's the race thing. As one message board poster spun this story, "Right-wing judge tells poor, Hispanic woman to stop having kids." The poster placed the story in the "race and ethnicity" category, and if you visit the link, you'll find some pretty hateful comments about poor, ethnic women having babies they can't feed.

Before I read The Statesman story, I wondered if they'd have a picture of the mother, what was her race, was she black? These thoughts crossed my mind because I've read about efforts to sterilize poor, black women at rates disproportionate to sterilizing poor, white women. Often these programs target black, female crack addicts with claims that it's better to stop the women from bearing children than to let them bear children addicted to crack.

I've always thought sterilization to avoid a pregnancy is a pretty permanent solution to what might be a temporary state of confusion and irresponsibility. Writer D. Kelly Weisberg addresses the racial implications and probably racist agenda behind such sterilization programs in one part of her book "Application of Feminist Legal Theory to Women's Lives" (1996).

According to Weisberg, Medicaid "will pay for sterilization, but often does not make available information about and access to other contraceptive techniques and abortion."

And then there's CRACK (Children Requiring a Caring Community), a nonprofit organization that pays poor women addicted to crack to get sterilized:

After Cathy Mayne saw a flyer near her grandson's elementary school that read, "If you're addicted to drugs, get birth control -- get cash!" she called CRACK on Nicole's behalf. The organization's premise is radical, if dizzyingly simple: CRACK gives addicts $200 they'll throw in an extra $50 if a participant recommends a friend) and sets up the medical procedures at a public hospital or clinic. All Nicole had to do was sign a release form, and two weeks later she had her tubes tied at a local hospital. She received a check the following month. (Salon, 2003)

Nicole is Mayne's grandaughter and Mayne was already caring for three other children Nicole bore while addicted, according to Salon. Prior to the Salon article, Mother Jones published a 2001 article article, "Surgical Srike," on CRACK's program.

I don't know whether CRACK still places fliers at elementary schools, but the program is still around and operates as Project Prevention with founder Barbara Harris at the helm. Today it has a requirement that a person, either female or male, must be sober when she/he signs the sterilization form, and the program also offers alternatives to sterilization such as Depo-Provera, according to a June 2008 article at Colorado's Grand Junction Sentinel. The reporter seems to think the program is new, but she also describes another Harris community outreach technique.

Harris, who drives a 30-foot motor home emblazoned with images of pregnant mothers drinking alcohol along with statistics about the effects of drug addiction, touted the program Wednesday night at the Mesa County Health Department to an audience of about a dozen people, mostly media and members of the liberal advocacy group A Voice of Reason. The latter group opposed the concept, on the grounds that giving drug addicts money enables people
to buy more drugs. They also claim that sterilizing people who use drugs is racially discriminatory. (GJS)

More deceptive practices may have been used by other organizations to stop female drug addicts from conceiving children, according to Advocates for Pregnant Women. The group claimsthat some leaders advocate and have implemented practices such as spiking Methadone with contraceptive drugs. Methadone recipients may not know they're also taking birth conrol medication with their treatment cocktails, according to the group's post, which asserts that advocates of spiking believe the following:

If you are poor, a person of color, and use certain drugs, you are a bad person and the more of these characteristics you have, the more undeserving you are to be a mom. (APW)

Yet, there are people of color who believe the saying at the beginning of this post, that "some people should not be allowed to have children."

Comments on the post at Black and Married with Kids regarding the recent Texas ruling on Salazar ranged from the judge's ruling was unconstitutional and unfair to some women should stop having babies. However, you can never be sure about the ethnicity of commenters.

At another blog that possibly has fewer readers who are people of color, RightWingPundits.com, opinions on Judge Baird's ruling seemed mixed. Some people said our laws are becoming too intrusive while others declared that people who declare such law-and-order rulings unconstitutional are idiots.

The Wall Street Journal also has a lively discussion about Judge Baird's ruling. Some of those commenting assert that all Americans have a constitutional right to bear children.

I'm surprised that I did not find more women talking about this case, and perhaps a lack of women discussing a male judge and his no-babies-for-you order is why I have not seen more bloggers asking "What about the father?"

Nordette is a BlogHer.com Contributing Editor whose personal blog is at this link on another site.