Friday, January 20, 2012

The Progressive State owns you

They want your soul, but they'll settle for your body:

Earlier this month, a Norfolk [Massachusetts] probate judge declared a pregnant woman with schizophrenia incompetent and ordered her to undergo an abortion, stating she could be “coaxed, bribed, or even enticed’’ into the hospital for the procedure.

Unbidden, the judge further directed that the 32-year-old woman be sterilized “to avoid this painful situation from recurring in the future.’’
Via Stephany, we find the most appalling abuse of the Mentally Ill by the State that I've ever heard of, at least since the bad old Progressive days of Eugenics.  Back then, they had no hesitation to sterilize the "feeble minded" for the greater good of the American Race.

Ah, but if we only get "really Smart regulation" written by "really Smart people", all will be for the best, as together, shoulder-to-shoulder, we build the New Soviet Progressive State!

Fortunately, this madness was stopped, but it took an Appeals Court to do so.  Think about that.  A Court of Law in the Commonwealth actually ruled that a woman be sterilized and her baby killed, against her will.  I mean, we don't want any breeders like that Sarah Palin woman, do we?

Or old people:

Under Obamacare, an “ethics panel” will convene to determine whether your life is worth saving or not. But you will not be a “you”; you will be a thoroughly de-humanized “unit.” And the reason you will be a “unit” is because if this enlightened sort of “ethics panel” discussed you as a male or a female, they might be tempted to think of you as a human being — someone’s mother or sister or wife — a person who is beloved, and whose life is valued, even if the brain and body aren’t functioning at optimal levels.

So if you are a 70 year-old Nancy Pelosi
, or Paul Krugman — with a potent private health insurance plan such as the one enjoyed by Members of Congress and other bureaucrats — you will get every appropriate surgery and treatment applicable.

But if you are a 70 year-old former bookkeeper or waitress on Medicare, well — you have swung your last golfclub or danced your last waltz, because the “ethics panel” that assesses your unithood will have no problem inventing a equation that goes something like, “Potential-Tax-revenues-minus-potential-cost-divided-by-social-and-political-value-equals…a negligible unit.
And (via The Anchoress) in case you think that I'm exaggerating that this is precisely what Realy Smart People™ think is Really Smart Policy™, here ya go:

The only two truly unavoidable things in this veil of tears are death and taxes, and Paul Krugman rolls them both together into one neat package for you.

And so, gaze upon your State, ye Progressives.  No, these aren't mistakes - or if they were, the "mistake" was that the mask slipped, we got a glimpse at the man behind the curtain.

But you will obey - the State will decide decide your health care choices, from cradle to grave.  It's all done by such cleverly Smart people, don't you know?  And if the time between cradle and graze collapses to zero, well, just think of all the money that the future Fed.Gov has to distribute to favored political interests!  A single death is a tragedy, but a million deaths help balance the budget!  And nobody would ever take this too far:

Nazi pro-Eugenics poster via Wikipedia

Onward to the New Progressive State, Citizen!  And right now, if you know what's good for you.

Postscript for those who think that I am being too harsh to the Progressives: This isn't a one-off, a "black swan" (from the same Boston Globe article):

Daniel Pollack, a professor at Yeshiva University who has studied the issue of consent in such cases, said it is not clear how often such orders are issued.

“My guess is it happens a lot more than we know,’’ he said.
The Judge who made the original (now overturned) decision is named Christina Harms.  If I still lived in Massachusetts, the following (First Amendment protected) opinion would risk me losing my guns*:  Judge Christina Harms should not be impeached for this grotesque and illegal abuse of her authority.  Rather, Judge Christina Harms should be horsewhipped through the streets of Norfolk, Massachusetts.

* The Commonwealth of Massachusetts can kill kiss my ass. [Thanks to commenter Rick C for pointing out a rather unfortunate typo.]


Jake (formerly Riposte3) said...

Words cannot express my disgust at this, this... delon mor dagniron en eruanna ar man.

And I'm thinking a good vigorous session with a cat o' nine tails, followed by a lemon juice wash and a week in the stocks, would be just shy of sufficient for the judge that wrote that original ruling.

Rick C said...

Did you perhaps mean the Commonwealth could kiss your ass?

Borepatch said...

Uh, yeah. Thanks, Rick.

Rick C said...

Also, I didn't comment on the other blog where you linked from because it requires OpenID but if you read to the very bottom of the newspaper article it says the judge retired this month.

Anonymous said...

Well, well, well....something that falls smack dab in my arena.
I am an oncology nurse. That means I treat patients that have cancer. My clinic treats from 25-40 patients a day. My health system has 9 outlying clinics. On any given day 3-4 of the clinics are running and treating. That figures to be 60-80 patients per day that are being treated for cancer. And we are one of THREE health systems in this area that treat cancer.
So bunches and bunches of folks with cancer are being treated daily.
This past month we have been told that our health system has to begin a structured system, in which patients will be counseled as to the odds of survival vs cost of their treatment.
The insinuation was that sometimes the cost/benefit ratio was too small; in other words the chances of a person surviving their cancer was very low and the cost of the treatment was too high.
Sounds like a "death panel" to me.
Where did this thought process begin? I don't know, my pay grade is too low for that kind of information.
But I tell you what, when some of our breast cancer patients sit down in the treatment chair, and it cost $17,000 for each treatment, and those folks have to declare bankruptcy and go on medicaid.......


greg said...

I was all ready to be all kinds of full of rage at this article, and while I am still mad, I'm also more than a little sad.

The lady's parents were facing a tough call(save you daughter or save you potential grand-child). The judge was basically ruling in favor of the parents...until she introduced the 'sterilization' concept.

That was above and beyond anything the parents were seeking out, and if the judge hadn't already retired, I would offer to help co-pilot the car to assist in the horsewhipping.

Anonymous said...


Red Rover said...

I have been reading up on this story ever since I first heard of it, and there is evidence that the women in question first suffered her mental breakdown after her first pregnancy when she choose to have an abortion. The judge should have sought to introduce the women to post-abortion counseling. Even though she has had a child in between, she is obviously still suffering from the first abortion. Also, when has adoption become a non-option. So the Grandparents don't think they can raise another child for her. There are plenty of good people out there that would love to adopt.
I am working on my Master's in counseling and that along with a sister that has made herself crazy over her internal conflict with conscience and lifestyle, I have some decided ideas about "mental illness". I think we categorize many things under "mentally ill" that do not belong there.