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.
Christine,
ReplyDeleteThis is a real live situation of choice. The women (a drug addict or not) wants to have an abortion - there is no evidence of coersion anywhere. She doesn't have the money but still that doesn't out her off. She puts herself in the embaressing position of having to ask someone - who obviously asked her what the money is for (cause if they didn't, or they did and she lied - then there wouldn't be any issue here). That someone must have asked are you sure? and then gone to as someone who had the authority who said yes (after having spoken with her too) - if thats her wish, we will lend her the money. She shouldn't have to have a child she doesn't want because she doesn't have the money for an abortion. Thats a lot of people and time involved to make sure its what she wanted.
The fact that you want her to have had the baby and raised it or givn it up for adoption is your choice not hers - and thats a little unfair?
Lil, if she's wanting to get cash for abortion, that means either one of two things is happening:
ReplyDelete1. She's so desperate that she sees killing her baby as the only way out.
or
2. She just plain prefers a dead baby to a live one.
If it's Situation 1, the only responsible thing for us to do -- especially since she's already vulnerable and in an intensive program -- is to address her real problems, which are NOT between her legs. They're in her circumstances.
If it's Situation 2, she's not entitled to the least bit of sympathy from us, much less any help in achieviving the desired end of a dead baby.
Once the woman is pregnant, THE BABY ALREADY EXISTS. I don't care what sort of legal bull states that it's okay to kill it; up until 1972 it was on the books in Missouri that the Mormons were to be exterminated. Just because somebody codifies something or hands down a court decision doesn't mean that we have a moral obligation to go along with it. In fact, we often have a responsibility to oppose evil laws or court decisions.
This is one such case.
Fine, then what do we do with this baby, Christina?
ReplyDeleteAre you going to look after it? Do you expect someone else to look after it - which is hard as its quite hard to get an addicts baby adopted now that more information is available on the harm that can be done in utero, or are you going to leave it to have a horrible life with its addict mother?
I don't wnat to look after it, I don't expect anyone to look after it and I would not allow her to keep it if she was still addicted - so to me - as horrendous as I believe it is - I can't see a more humane way to deal with it?
Please enlighten me?
If they're doing a good job with the mother's rehab she'll be fine to take care of her baby. If they're not, or if the mother isn't ready yet, there are plenty of adoptive families waiting.
ReplyDeleteAnd we don't KILL children just because their moms might not be up to caring for them.
"there are plenty of adoptive families waiting."
ReplyDeletePlease send them here to the UK Christine, my friend is a social worker and she really struggles to find adoptive parents for children of addicts - so much so that they end up in a series of foster homes and eventually make up the adult prison population - if they live that long.
The drugs courts were doing their job by lending her the money - otherwise she would have had to work on the streets as a prostitute to get it - and might have picked up something else as well. Also we don't know how many times she has been in rehab - it normally takes more then once and noone can do a good job of trying to get someone off drugs or alcohol - it has to come from within.
I think you're caring more about being right then about the quality of life of the child - surely thats not Christian?
And we don't KILL children just because their moms might not be up to caring for them.
ReplyDeleteNo - we leave them for their moms or their mom's boyfriends to KILL them - but as you know death to me is not the worst thing thatcould happen!
My sister adopted an HIV-positive junkie's baby, and would adopt another in a heartbeat if the opportunity arose.
ReplyDeleteWhy are you so eager to find excuses for a child's death?