The Blair County Drug Court has been helping people get a second chance at life since 2000. Its 98 percent success rate is the highest in the nation. Both state and county funded, drug court is an alternative that lessens jail time and provides treatment for drug offenders who want to be helped.
One of the ways they decided they wanted to "help" was to float a loan to pay for an abortion, thus making sure that at least one person never got so much as a first chance at life.
Blair County's President Judge Jolene Kopriva is one of the memebers on the 10-person committee. She told WJAC-TV it's not uncommon to give money to people in the program for eyeglasses, security deposits, even GED tests to help with their rehab.
Now a dead baby is on a par with eyeglasses, security deposits, or getting your GED.
Kopriva said when a woman asked for money to have an abortion, it was a first in the drug court's history.
Since abortion is a known risk factor for future drug abuse, it seems totally moronic, in addition to being immoral, to fork over the cash and justify it because the woman already has drug problems. Sure! Let's introduce another risk factor to make her drug problem worse!
Kopriva said, "The woman was in crisis. We were just lending her the money, but she was going to have to pay us back."
"We aren't guilty of murder for hire! We just lent him money to pay the hit man! He was going to pay us back!"
Not to mention that if the woman is in a crisis, the proper response is to offer her real help, not to capitulate to her despair.
The district attorney intervened before the women had an abortion. An anonymous donor paid the drug court back to prevent it from suffering consequences.
Did the DA intervene as well in demanding that they provide the woman with help with the pressures that made her think abortion was a solution? And the anonymous donor changed nothing. A court still forked over taxpayer money to pay for a child to be put to death, and his mother -- already in a drug rehab program -- to be subjected to something that will only increase the odds that she will fail in her bid to defeat her addiction. Does the fact that an anonymous donor, and not the woman, paid back the court make any real difference?
This is wrong on so many levels.
UPDATE: It's even worse than it originally seemed, per this article.
1. The woman was seeking an abortion because her parents had disowned her when she'd given birth to a child earlier. So instead of providing counseling and support to either heal the breach with her parents, or to develop the strength to withstand pressure from her parents, the drug court just decided to put the money where this woman's parents' mouths were. How is supporting her in caving in to pressure from her parents going to facilitate her learning to stand up to pressure to resume drug use? This is just so wrong.
2. The money wasn't taxpayer money -- it was money from fees the other defendants were contributing. Money that other recovering drug users had contributed was slated to be used, without their input, to pay for a child's death. This is just so wrong.
If -- and this is a big "if" -- people involved in this drug court have it in their heads that the best way to help a troubled mother is to kill her baby (it seems the burden of proof should be on them to prove that it will reduce her odds of relapse), the money should come only from people who agree that a dead baby is a good thing and who volunteer to cough up the dough to pay the hit man.