Abortion Creates Family Destruction

Family law is not commonly presented in a restorative context in a law school course on family law, but law students at Regent University are encouraged to take the initiative to think critically about family law and policy and how it fosters family restoration, or family breakdown. Justin Drach, 2012 Juris Doctor Candidate and current Family Law student has this perspective on a recent controversial court case on a woman's right to choose: 

 In January 2012 one of the most appalling cases of abuse of discretion occurred in a Massachusetts probate court. Norfolk Probate Judge Christina L. Harms, ordered that a 32-year-old woman known as “Mary Moe,” who was mentally ill, be "coaxed, bribed, or even enticed ... by ruse" into a hospital where she would be sedated and an abortion performed. (Read the case opinion in its entirety here.)

Even more appalling, the judge ordered that any medical facility that performed the abortion also sterilize Moe at the same time "to avoid this painful situation from recurring in the future." By now, I would imagine that the lawyers reading this know what is coming next, but first, I cannot help but to think about the Nazi "doctors" and the atrocities committed during World War II by Josef Mengel and his colleagues. Something is obviously inherently wrong with any judge ordering an abortion and sterilization.

Fortunately, a Massachusetts Appeals Court overturned Judge Harms's ruling, and skewered her in the process. The appellate decision noted that Moe “has consistently expressed her opposition to abortion” and likely would “continue to do so if she were competent.” As for the sterilization order, state Appellate Court Associate Justice Andrew R. Grainger wrote: “No party requested this measure, none of the attendant procedural requirements has been met, and the judge appears to have simply produced the requirement out of thin air.” Essentially, the judge was depriving Moe of the constitutionally protected fundamental right to procreate without due process of law. As a completely separate issue, Moe's fetal child is still being subjected to the drugs that Moe must take for her mental illness.

Now for the argument that everyone is expecting. 

The underlying issue here is clearly abortion, rather than Moe's best interests. Since coming to law school, I have had the opportunity to expand my knowledge on the subject. I have met several wonderful advocates against abortion who are zealous in their beliefs and their arguments are quite sound. Persuasive enough to change the philosophy of this hard-headed "devil's advocate," (I find it amusing, and with tongue-in-cheek humor, to call myself the "devil's advocate" at Regent School of Law), I've come to realize that most people do not recognize the collateral damage upon the family that abortion brings. While I am not going to reveal my exact philosophy so that you can use it against me during a future Supreme Court confirmation hearing, I will tell you that this is a case where abortion seems to be a catalyst in one woman's mental illness. Ironically, the first abortion, if not for logical or pro-life judges, has almost led to a second abortion!

Because of a previous abortion, Moe suffered a psychotic breakdown when she was a college student. Thereafter, she believed people were staring at her and stating that she killed her baby. She becomes agitated and emotional when discussing the pregnancy that ended in an abortion. During the probate proceeding, Moe states that she is "very Catholic," does not believe in abortion, and would never have an abortion. Her parents, who have been appointed as Moe's guardian, however, have stated that she is not an "active" Catholic. Moe's parents seem to believe that it is in the best interests of their daughter to terminate her pregnancy. Interestingly, Moe's parents are also caring for her minor son.

Because there is a likely chance that some of you who are reading this blog may not yet have a personal faith in Christ (If you are one of these people, I encourage you to look into it. And aside from the factual evidence for the person, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, I offer you simple reasoning on why you should consider being a Christian: 1. Christians are generally more happy in all aspects of life. 2. Happy people live longer. 3. Pascal's Wager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager) clarifies the wager each individual makes: If God exists, it's infinitely good to believe, as you enjoy life now and eternity. If He does not exist, you have lost nothing, and enjoyed life. So overall it's a better wager to believe), I want to highlight how an abortion contributed to the mental illness of Mary Moe. Additionally, the repercussions of that decision are eroding this particular family. Furthermore, the motives of the Department of Health initially, and then Moe's parents now for seeking an abortion of their 32 year old daughter's fetus are not clear.

As a law student I am taught to analyze the facts in light of the law. Here, relevant facts to consider include 1) the parents' assertion that Moe is not an active Catholic, 2) that they feel an abortion is in the best interests of Moe, 3) that the parents are caring for Moe's minor son, 4) the financial and time burden of another minor child during their golden years, and 5) the burden and frustration of caring for their mentally ill daughter. The law, however, generally protects vulnerable individuals like Mary Moe. I fail to see how any of these motives supersede the due process rights of Moe. Nor can I see that these facts justify subjecting a child to excrutiating and fatal pain. Nor can I see that this ruling can actually be in the best interests of Mary Moe. Furthermore, where is the father of either child? Is he in Moe’s life? What is his take on the matter?

There is an inherent breakdown in Mary Moe's family on many levels, and it is quite sad, tragic even. The Massachusetts Department of Health and lower court have further fostered that breakdown, all to the great detriment of Mary Moe. And all these sad realities are because of abortion.

With a cohesive family, and dare I say a vibrant, personal Christian faith and values, an individual may be significantly less likely to be in such a quandry. While I hope you may have been entertained with my Saturday morning that turned into Saturday afternoon thoughts, I more importantly hope I convinced you of the two things you now know I set out to accomplish. Family restoration is never possible in an abortion context. Now, back to chasing around my 18 month old!