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

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.

Submitted by Nordette (view blog) on Sat, 09/20/2008 - 20:34

Comments

 

It's not as horrible as it sounds sometimes

Prior to going into insurance, I was an emergency nurse in downtown Los Angeles and Hollywood for many years. There were plenty of women, black, hispanic and white that needed to NOT bear any more children.

It sounds judgemental I'm sure, but when you see women with chronic alcohol problems and multiple children, complex mental health issues, drug abuse issues, it really makes you wonder if there is a rational way to place limitations on child bearing. I can remember one woman reeking of alcohol, full term, in labor swearing at the nursing staff that how dare we judge her, she hadn't smoked crack for a whole 3 days.

We had women over the many years who had a few kids that you automatically had to call Childrens' Services for because the mom was abusing something. Even if you look at only that, you have to be worried for the future of these poor innocent little dumplings that have a horrible future if the 'mom' is able to BS the system into letting her keep the baby. Fortunately, they are usually taken away. But then that subjects them to the foster care system.

So in my opinion there should be some way to limit this for some people, just not sure how to effectively implement it without comparisons to Nazi Germany. Just look out for the little ones may not have anyone else looking out for them.

Colleen King

Colleen King Insurance Agency

Northridge, CA

Blog: www.askcolleenking.com

Web site: www.CKinginsurance.com

Email: Colleen@ckinginsurance.com

Submitted by ckingins on Sat, 09/20/2008 - 19:41
 

If only we were God

So in my opinion there should be some way to limit this for some people, just not sure how to effectively implement it without comparisons to Nazi Germany.

I happen to agree with that sentence, but the stickler is (as you allude) "which people" do we need to limit and who's really making the calls on that decision? We want to protect children from crazy people and crazy people from themselves, and no one really wants to see a baby born already addicted to drugs, but how can a just society be just in this area?

Do we really want to step on this slippery slope of stopping people from having babies who have shown that they are ill-equipped to parent children (sometimes only a temporary phase) to finding ourselves in a place where wealthy people (and we're still in a country where whites tend to have more money), some of whom should also not have children because they're abusive or are alcoholics who like being drunks, for instance, a world where wealthy people can have all the children they want and abuse at will but a poor person who makes one error may be sterilized by the state? The slope is indeed slippery and we may be on the way to breaking humanity's neck.

When you throw race in as a factor and look at the numbers, then the sterilization programs look like a eugenics experiment.  So, you're right to make the Nazi Germany connection.

On top of that, fingers seem to point quickly at women of color first. "They must be stopped!" goes the cry, and it's another time that first is not good.

Also, as I said in response to the second comment, the case that started this post, Judge Baird's ruling, begs the question what about that father and his right to procreate?

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

Submitted by Nordette on Sun, 09/21/2008 - 09:16
 

CPS

I don't know where I heard this, but I thought CPS could basically take a newborn right out of a "previous unrehabilitiated offender's" hands.  For example, if the mother had her children taken away and did not do whatever the court required her to do to get them back (thus having her parental rights legally terminated), then the state could take any subsequent children she bore away from her as soon as they were born.  Maybe I didn't hear it right or maybe that was just a certain case.  Not sure.  If anyone knows for sure, please educate me!  I'll do some Googling as well. :)

Jenn Barnes

HR Wench

HRM Today

The Articulate Feminist

Submitted by hrwench on Sat, 09/20/2008 - 20:46
 

A man who beats his child is free to father
more, but ...

I don't know the answer to your question, Jenn, but to stay on Salazar's issue, I haven't read anything yet that says that Salazar herself ever physically abused the child or even committed any crimes prior to her arrest with Alvarado.

In other words, I wonder if the types of cases you've heard about involve a mother who's convicted of a crime, perhaps persistent drug abuse or who committed a felony and was told to not hang out with felons, and then if she doesn't change her lifestyle as required by the court (stop taking drugs and stop hanging out with felons), the children are removed. I just don't know.

I will say that something in this Baird/Salazar ruling doesn't sit right with me. I sense a double standard and a hard line being taken on the woman's reproductive rights rather than any real solutions being found to address the causes behind the problems. If not procreating is the right solution, then why issue Alvarado a male chastity belt for his probationary period. Oh, wait. Chastity belts were never made for men.

I've been wondering whether it's possible that Salazar herself was regularly abused by Alvarado and so suffered from battered person syndrome, which would mean she felt powerless to stop Alvarado from beating their daughter. Let's face it--only a psycho beats a toddler senseless.

If Salazar was in a state of battered person syndrome and since no report indicateds that she also beat the child, then we really do have to wonder why the judge would tell her not to bear children during her probabtionary period but put no such burden on Alvarado, such as to not father a child when he gets out on probation.

Actually, I don't get a knee-jerk response to the judge's instruction based on his Salazar ruling alone, and said so in a post at my personal blog:

As for Judge Charlie Baird telling Felicia Salazar
that a condition of her 10-year probation is she not bear more children, if I interpret the condition clause correctly, then I think Baird may have been wise. Salazar needs ten years to grow up, find herself, and to develop the feminine strength to never let anyone abuse one of her children, which also suggests Salazar needs to get strong enough never to be a victim of abuse herself. (WSATA)

I mean that Baird may have been wise in how he ruled on Salazar alone, but I don't think he was fair when we consider another party was involved. His ruling implies that a man who beats his child may father more children, but the woman who does not stop him should have no more. What's up with that?

I wonder if Salazar herself had beaten the child would the judge have sentenced her to jail and also ordered her not to bear more children during her probationary period upon release. I'm curious about that.

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

Submitted by Nordette on Sun, 09/21/2008 - 08:28
 

Wow...very interesting and good points...

Makes my head explode.

Here in BC we don't get the race thing too much.  However a native friend was offered 'free' sterilization after her 4th child.  It was assumed that her kids were unwanted and that she was unable to take care of them because of being native.

Now while she IS poor...all her kids were a choice and she works hard as does her husband..but against terrible odds...living in a bad area, surrounded by poor influences and choices.....

Anyway..a neighbour here (white) has kids by various fathers.  And while chirping on about wanting MORE babies she told me that the current boyfriend and father of  the youngest child has impregnated another woman.

So yes...how do we stop the men and when will we all learn to keep our legs closed.

I figure my neighbour yearns for nurturing environments and that is why she wants babies...but at what cost. 

 

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

Submitted by Crunchy Carpets on Sun, 09/21/2008 - 08:50
 

Good points

Nordette, you bring up some very good points about Alvarado.  I wonder, if Alvarado were NOT going to prison for his crimes (and instead was given a suspended sentence & probation like Salazar) if the judge's instructions to him would be the same: don't father any more children.  But since he is going to prison, it's pretty much impossible for him to father any more children while he's there, whether he wants to or not.  But once he gets out....

The Statesman article pointed to another case, "a father of nine who was convicted of intentionally failing to pay
child support was ordered to have no more children as a condition of
probation. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin upheld that condition."  While it wasn't the same judge as this case, it makes me wonder if this case is not about gender, but simply about child abuse and neglect and a judge that has probably seen too much of it.

In my state, child neglect (failing to provide for or protect against abuse they knew about OR "should have" known about) is against the law just as child physical and sexual abuse is.  When it comes to "severity" in the eyes of the law, I'm thinking neglect in the case of "failure to protect" is considered less serious than failure to provide (food, clothes, shelter).  Hence, the suspended sentence and probation for Salazar.

I do find it interesting that Salazar's parental rights were terminated.  I wonder if this was due to the severity of the abuse the child was not "protected" from or if Salazar voluntarily gave up her rights or what.  Yes, Salazar failed to protect her child and that is horrible, but with the physical abuser in prison, and if Salazar was provided with counseling & assistance, isn't safe reunification possible?  Typically isn't reunification the major goal of CPS wherever possible (regardless of whether the parent is "thought of" well by the public)?

I guess I'm missing a big point here: we don't know all there is to know about the case so this question will probably go unanswered. 

As far as battered person/partner syndrom goes, it could very well be the case for Salazar.  However, unfortunately, even when a parent suffers from a condition that he or she cannot control (i.e. mental illness, physical illness, etc) the law about child abuse and neglect still stands: children can be removed from homes where the legal definition of abuse and/or neglect occur and there is a substantiated risk of immediate harm to children.

Jenn Barnes

HR Wench

HRM Today

The Articulate Feminist

Submitted by hrwench on Sun, 09/21/2008 - 10:04
 

The judge was not thinking about gender

I didn't say that this case was about gender as far as the law goes. I think it's a reflection, however, of not only one judge being fed up with child abuse (and rightfully so) but also society's attitudes about gender and who bears the blame when children are abused. Apparently, the mother may be held responsible even if it's possible she's afraid of the attacker herself. I don't think gender factored into the judge's decision at all from the standpoint of telling Salazar not to bear children; however, by his leaving no such direction for Alvarado when he gets out on parole, the judge gives us more evidence that the courts would rather tell a woman how she may use her body and not a man how he may use his.

Alvarado should come with a warning label when he gets out to any woman that might consider becoming intimate with him.

As I've suggested, I don't think any harm is really done to Salazar by telling her she can't have children for the next 10 years. She needs to think about how she didn't do what she could for the first one, and so I agree with the judge's ruling for her alone. It would have been good, though, if whatever the judge said to the father had been made public and if the judge's commentary made it clear that he also thinks Alvarado should not have children. Going to jail for 15 years means no children for 15 years and he'll be 40 years old if he serves his full term, but men have been known to father children in their 80s.

We really don't know enough about what happened the night the father beat his daughter or what type of relationship the parents had with each other. At least Salazar did not go to jail since it seems she did not beat the child herself. I think she's guilty of neglect. But as you say, perhaps with counseling she could be a good mother and as I've said, perhaps with maturity she'll learn how to protect a child better.

It's true that battered person/spouse syndrome is classified as a mental illness, but the question is does the battered person get better once the abuser's out of the picture or does she keep making the same mistake of choosing abusive males? I'm it sure the answer depends on the woman and whether she works through a recovery.

I keep going back to Alvarado. He'll have to go through some kind of major psychic reboot to be considered safe to be a father in my opinion. Was he drugging? What caused him to beat a 19-month-old? It's a question we ask ourselves every time this type of case comes up.

Thank you, Jenn, for adding more information to this discussion. 

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

Submitted by Nordette on Sun, 09/21/2008 - 13:03
 

Reply to Jenn and Nordette

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

Submitted by ckingins on Sun, 09/21/2008 - 20:39
 

My two cents

I do not support the notion of a judge telling someone not to have children, but in all candor, I can not help but agree with Baird's statement to this woman.. and I have seen examples of others like her, who have children merely to collect welfare benefits, who could care less about what happens to them. He wasn't demanding she be sterilized, I believe he was trying to make her stop and think. Her judgement is clearly a problem. Any mother who would not only allow such abuse, and even worse, not seek medical care for the child after the fact is criminal. Children depend on their parents. As much as I care about women's rights, there exists no right to abandon one's children by allowing them to be victimized and then deny them the care they desperately need. Just what kind of woman is this sort of thinking in aid of supporting, encouraging? Selfish, careless monsters whose only concern should be themselves? Sorry, but there are far too many women out there like that, we don't need more.

Where I work, (at a clinic) there have been a few young Hispanic teens who have become pregnant after being molested by either their father, or an uncle. I was told by a nurse that she is not supposed to suggest that such cases of incest should be reported because such things are normal in Hispanic culture and she could potentially be leaving herself open to charges of discrimination or "raacism". This nurse is no racist, she is in fact of indigenous heritage and a caring woman.

Submitted by Jenn_Perry on Sun, 09/21/2008 - 17:38
 

The slippery slope

We don't do enough to protect children in our society.  It is shocking to me how little time offenders do for crimes against children.  It feels like a knee jerk reaction to sentence someone to not bear any more children.  I can understand the rationale but I question whether someone who is in this situation in the first place is going to be able to comply.  I work in the criminal justice field and I get concerned when judges "play God".  I don't claim to know what the answer is...failing to protect a child is a horrible crime.  Choosing an abusive partner over a child is a terrible thing.  We have done abused women a diservice by expecting less from them and justifying the decisions they make.  I don't know the answer but I don't think that this is it.

http://mycoffeetalk.wordpress.com/

http://laceylittledog.blogspot.com/

Submitted by Chapita4 on Sun, 09/21/2008 - 18:18
 

Rights...whose rights?

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.

Submitted by TiredMama on Tue, 09/23/2008 - 17:35
 

Children first

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.

Submitted by KDQ on Tue, 09/23/2008 - 21:26
 

Children As Well

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

Submitted by Sara Gunderson on Wed, 09/24/2008 - 08:21
 

Eugenics, redux

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

Submitted by Yvette Perry on Wed, 09/24/2008 - 07:27
 

Not completely focused on gender

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.

Submitted by Nordette on Wed, 09/24/2008 - 13:35
 

A Power, Not Just Gender, Disparity

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

Submitted by Yvette Perry on Thu, 09/25/2008 - 07:00
 

It was a time out, not a permanent order

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.

Submitted by Nordette on Thu, 09/25/2008 - 16:35
 

State-Enforced "Time Outs"

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

Submitted by Yvette Perry on Thu, 09/25/2008 - 17:24
 

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

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.

Submitted by Nordette on Thu, 09/25/2008 - 19:58
 

Thanks, Nordette, for

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

Submitted by Yvette Perry on Fri, 09/26/2008 - 05:57
 

Just heard of a local case here in Canada

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

Submitted by Crunchy Carpets on Wed, 09/24/2008 - 09:12
 

Just Thinking

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

Submitted by Simply_B on Wed, 09/24/2008 - 09:49
 

That line is way too fuzzy

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.

Submitted by Nordette on Wed, 09/24/2008 - 13:43
 

Another View

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

Submitted by Simply_B on Thu, 10/02/2008 - 08:04
BlogHer

© Copyright 2008 BlogHer | Terms of Service