Court orders woman to not get pregnant

peacocky

peacocky

Flaunt your Fringe
Dec 7, 2005
4,758
5
#1
WLKY.com - Family - Judge Orders Woman Not To Get Pregnant

This is from one of my local news station websites. I read this and laughed. I didn't know judges could do that.


ST. JOSEPH, Mo. -- A judge is giving Mandy Nelson an unusual order -- don't get pregnant.

Nelson, who already has three children, was given probation by a judge in a forgery case. But if Nelson wants to stay out of jail, she can't have another baby out of wedlock.

The Buchanan County, Mo., circuit judge also ordered Nelson to perform community service, pay restitution and go back to school for her GED or high school diploma.

The 26-year-old Nelson said she's shocked by the judge's no-preggers order. But Nelson noted she had an operation to make her sterile after the birth of her third baby.
 
#2
I've never heard of anything like this, and I want to say that the judge can't possibly have the power to do that. It's a little scary if he does... though it'd be nice to have some people who shouldn't be breeding receive similar orders :P
 
#3
Good for the judge, i'm guessing from the charge the government is paying her way and its about time someone put heir foot down to stop this type of person from having more kids.

I'm all for it!!

She should count her blessings she's not in jail.
 
#7
I think it is ok! I agree with Bag Fetish, it looks like the gov. helps her. So the judge should be allowed to do that! I have seen so many ladies getting pregnant, and they already have a lot of kids, and what do they do, go get the gov. to give them money! I understand sometimes that is teh only way out, but when you don't work, and you are just lazy at just hooking up with guys, please!
 
#8
^^ agree, and if that is the case they need to get out of an abusive place fine. but to have more kids and continue to love off the gov't NO!
I think if the gov't did this with more and also put this on people in general that are on gov assistance we'd have less people there.

I find too many people find this as an easy way to sit on their asses and collect my tax money.
 
#11
A few years back here in Wisconsin, there was a story in the news about a man who had nine kids with I think five different women. He was in court for not paying child support for any of his nine kids, and the judged ordered that he not father anymore children. I don't know what became of it after that though.
 
#12
Good for the judge, if she has been living off the government! I get tired of having to pay increased health insurance and taxes, so some of these ladies can keep having babies as a "job". Unfortunately, alot of the children end up abused or neglected and in the care of the state later on. It's so sad. I feel for the children but I have no sympathy for a deadbeat.
 
#13
NVMyLV said:
Good for the judge, if she has been living off the government! I get tired of having to pay increased health insurance and taxes, so some of these ladies can keep having babies as a "job". Unfortunately, alot of the children end up abused or neglected and in the care of the state later on. It's so sad. I feel for the children but I have no sympathy for a deadbeat.
Click to expand...

:true: :drinks:
 
#14
my fellow human beings are kind of astounding me right now. and not in such a good way.

despite what your personal opinion of the uneducated and/or poor may be, they are, in fact, people. living, flesh-and-blood beings with the same human rights that the rest of us have no matter our background, financial situation, or class position in society. nothing in this article states that she was found to be neglectful of her children or unable to support them (the charge was forgery, if i'm still able to see and read), and shame on all of you for assuming the right to pass judgment about the poor and complain about 'your tax dollars' (the overwhelming, vast majority of which, i promise you, don't go to aid for the poor - the percentage is shockingly low. if you still like things like roads and public schools, i'd stop complaining).

i also find it rather shocking that anyone with the largesse to collect handbags worth hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars thinks that they can say that the poor have 'an easy way to sit on their asses and collect my tax dollars.' assuming that you have half of a clue about the struggle that impoverished people live every day in order to just scrape barely by is repugnant, ignorant, and ugly on a number of levels. i doubt anyone with any actual knowledge of the welfare program would say that living on welfare is easy; at most, it's rarely more than a few hundred dollars a month, even for those with kids. how easy does that sound?

at any rate, this ruling is absurd (not to mention on-face unconstitutional) and will certainly be struck down. it's easily cruel and unusual punishment for a judge to have the arrogance to order someone not convicted of neglecting, abusing, or molesting children to not have any more kids. this isn't north korea - you cannot revoke a woman's right to have children just because you feel like it or because she's uneducated.
 
#15
^^ I don't understand why the judge made the ruling myself. What does her committing forgery have to do with having kids. It would make sense if she was in trouble for neglecting/abusing her kids. Heck, the ruling in the Wisconsin case I mentioned makes more sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Back