Former Judge Says Boston U. Rescinded Job Offer After Abortion Ruling

February 21, 2012, 12:15 pm

A Massachusetts family-court judge who ordered a pregnant woman with schizophrenia to undergo an abortion and be sterilized says her decision cost her a job at Boston University’s law school, The Boston Globe reports.

Christina Harms, who retired from the bench last month, took the unusual step on Monday of personally defending her ruling in a letter to state family-court judges. Ms. Harms had argued that the woman would choose, absent her mental illness, to terminate her pregnancy. But an appeals court overturned the decision, writing that her sterilization order was produced “out of thin air.”

Ms. Harms also denounced Boston University for rescinding what she said was a job offer after her decision was made public. A university spokesman told the Globe that the law school had never extended her a formal job offer but did remove her from consideration for the job after her decision sparked controversy.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

E-mail

katisumas

This reminds me of the film “Citizen Ruth”. It’s fits the scenario to a T and is hilarious to boot.
old nassau’67

Ms. Harms is a lawyer, judge, and putative law faculty member, yet expects to be believed on her say-so: “…what she said was a job offer…”. Such an unsubstantiated claim would be laughed out of any court. That she has not shown proof makes her claim risible.
tdb489

http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Lobotomy

In 1977, the U.S. Congress created a National Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research to investigate allegations that lobotomies [hysterectomies and sterilization] were used to control women, minorities, and restrain individual rights. The practice had generally ceased by the early 1970s, but some small-scale operations continued through the late 1980s.

Approximately 40,000 persons had forced lobotomies and over 65,000 individuals were sterilized under state compulsory sterilization programs in the United States.

The rescinding or not rescinding of a job offer, in my opinion, is a small issue compared to a possibility of the resurgence of lobotomies and hysterectomies to control women and minorities.

Have we regressed to the 20th century where such practices were considered an effective means of controlling society?
PMinMA

I object to the Chronicle’s headline. I am not a legal scholar, but it seems to me that describing this as an abortion-related decision by BU is inaccurate. As I read the rest of the article, it was the forced sterilization that was the primary concern–but that headline would be more sympathetic to the university. It seems to me that this publication ought to be able to rise above knee-jerk American genre expectations (David is always right, Goliath is always wrong).
blog21

Eugenics
icedgreentea

If there was a job offer, she would have a letter from the University.
22199179

I am not a legal scholar in an way shape or form but I have a feeling there is her view of the truth, Boston University’s view of the truth, and the real truth when it comes to the job offer and what actually went down.

As for the abortion and sterilization, I find it highly offensive that this judge would presume to know what this women would choose to do absent her mental illness. I worked with adults with long term mental illnesses for 10 years. Just because someone has been diagnosed with schizophrenia doesn’t mean they are stupid and unable to understand what is going on…ie make decisions!!!!!
buckaroo5

“It is always better to have no ideas, than false ones; to believe nothing, than to believe what is wrong. In my mind, theories are more easily demolished than rebuilt.”
–Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788.
baatap

Are you suggesting that BU is being dragged through the mud because the Big Powerful School violated the Laborer’s right to work? Possibly that is the point. It certainly could not be something else, for–as we all know–forced sterilization is “eugenics” but abortion is perfectly legal and a (natural?) right. (There may be no natural law, but there is natural right–the right of the strong to do whatever the hell they wan to the weak, whether those weak are mentally infirm or unborn.)
PMinMA

I meant no more than what I said. I think that the Chronicle (again, based only on what they chose to publish in this article) created a misleading headline to get the attention of readers who might not otherwise find this sensational enough to warrant reading, and I speculated that they did so by playing on a particularly obvious genre. I am not taking sides, and suspect, as 22199179 points out in her/his posting that there are at least two truths to this story.