Brian Dickerson of the Free Press has written a couple of articles (first, second) about an interesting case, pitting Lapeer County Circuit Judge Michael Higgins against the Constitution. Higgins has entered an order requiring that a woman who is addicted to drugs and is seeking to regain custody of her children use birth control and submit "proof" that she is complying. (Dickerson's column does not specify what would constitute "proof", but I suspect that the woman's certification to the Court would be sufficient.)
The judge entered this order on his own initiative, not at the request of the prosecutor or the Family Independence Agency, and thus no state or county officer is defending his position, which is now before the Court of Appeals.
Dickerson considers this to be a difficult policy issue. To my eye it is quite straightforward. This is not even a legislative act; it is the ruling of one lone judge, who undoubtedly knows that he will be reversed on appeal, but who also knows the political value of publicity. But there are a host of other issues where the issue could be much starker. Should women who are HIV-positive be required by the courts to practice birth control? How about women who are carriers of the hemophilia gene?
7:42:03 AM 
|
