someone give this judge a gold medal

Breeder who abused child ordered not to have any more children. idiots scream, UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Bah.

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/09/12/0912salazar.html

"Laycock, a former professor and associate dean for research at the University of Texas School of Law, said in an e-mail that the courts have recognized a fundamental right of people to make their own decisions about becoming parents.

"The state rarely tries to stop people from becoming parents, so there has not been much occasion to litigate that," he said. "But undoubtedly there is a constitutional right to have children ... and I doubt that one conviction for injury to a child is enough to forfeit that right.""

But of course laws for molesters, like the sex offenders registration and so on are OK. Do the molesters not lose a significant portion of their constitutional rights for sex crimes? Why isn't every goddamned breeder with a neglect or abuse case with CPS not ordered to not have any more kids, that's what I would like to know.

The "right" to have brats trumps everything.

Reminds me of an episode of Law & Order where a woman keeps having kids (and in one case, adopting one) so she can kill them and get enormous sympathy afterwards. Her husband sorta knows what she is doing but fails to try to stop her. The ADA tries to cut a deal with her which includes having her tubes tied and that draws outrage from her, her lawyer, and the judge. It is only when her hubby learned that she is a few months preggy (again) that his threat to testify against her forces her to take a deal. She will have her baby in jail but won't be able to harm it for many years, by then, "the kid will be able to defend itself" as the DA says in the show's final scene.