Judge Orders Contraception

In response to “In the Norplant Case, Good Intentions Make Bad Law,” Opinion, March 3:

Attorney Helen Neuborne considers “irrational and unconstitutional” the sentence Visalia Judge Howard Broadman imposed on a 27-year-old pregnant single mother of four children.

The mother was guilty of having beaten the children until some carried scars and wounds. The judge’s sentence required the mother to be implanted with the temporary contraceptive Norplant, to undergo counseling and to attend parenting classes in exchange for three years probation.

Neuborne faults the decision for two main reasons:

First, she states that the sentence is “irrational” because it does nothing to protect the victims of abuse. That is true--in the most narrow sense. But consider: Would not the sentence buy time (a needed respite for a young mother, who already has four children)? Would not this time give the mother a better chance to profit from her counseling and to rebuild a wholesome relationship with her present children?

Secondly, Neuborne states that a person has a constitutional and fundamental right to procreate. I would not argue with the attorney on the “constitutionality” of any decision. However, her reason rests partly on a 1942 ruling of an Oklahoma statue.

This question arises: With improved methods of birth control and with increasing child abuse, is it now time to rethink what the laws should be?

RUTH TUCKER

Pacific Palisades