Who Should Make The Decision About Abortion?

The debate about abortion never seems far from the public forum, and  with it, the same questions arise.

I don’t think I could abort my child. But then, at my age, I'll never be faced with that decision. (Neither will any man, though many are the most outspoken opponents of abortion.) And I've never been a woman pregnant after being raped, or a young girl, whose own relative is the father of her baby, or a woman whose life will be endangered by bearing a child.

Should the state have the right to force such women to deliver their babies against their will, regardless of their individual circumstances? The state has the right, even the duty, to protect its citizens from harm, especially those helpless ones who cannot defend themselves. We have laws against assault and murder. But is abortion murder?

To commit murder, one must take the life of another human being. Is a fetus a person? When does it become one? To whom should we look for the answer to that question? And on what evidence could such an answer be based? Does a fetus become a person only at birth? Or is it a human being from the moment of conception? If so, the "morning after pill" is an abortion as surely as any procedure performed at three months. It has been suggested that a fetus becomes a person at the point it becomes viable, able to survive on its own, away from its mother. And when is that? Viability may become a fact at different times in different individuals. And with the advances in medical science, viability comes ever earlier.

Even if a fetus is a person, pregnancy is a unique situation. The decision whether to have a baby or abort it is not analogous to the decision whether to pick up a gun and shoot another human being. More than one body, more than one life is inextricably intertwined in pregnancy. Both individuals are profoundly affected.

In no other situation does the law force one person to risk her own life to save that of another. A person is not required to dive in to save a baby being swept away by a river, nor to dash into the street to shove a child out of a car's path, nor to donate blood or organs without which a child will not survive. A question of morality may be involved, but the answer to that question should be a matter of conscience, not a matter of law. I believe that when pregnancy endangers the life of the mother, she should be permitted to choose abortion.

Some support allowing abortion if the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest. That makes no sense to me. If the right to have an abortion is to be denied in any situation where the mother's life is not in danger, it should be denied, whatever the facts may be surrounding conception. A baby conceived in such tragic circumstances is no more guilty of wrong-doing than any other child, and its life is worth no less. Is compassion for the mother sufficient justification for depriving an innocent child of life? If so, that should be true when any facts, such as  her young age, dire economic need or fragile mental health cause a pregnant woman extreme emotional pain. And who should make that subjective determination?

Does it matter when an abortion is performed? If a fetus becomes a person at the moment of conception, maybe not. Still, one thing of which I'm convinced is that if an abortion is to take place, the sooner the better. I believe once a baby could survive without its mother, to destroy it is to kill a human being. The state has a legitimate right to prohibit such an abortion, unless it is necessary to save the mother's life. Partial-birth abortion is the most ghastly form of hypocrisy I know. I believe it is murder to kill a child as it is being born, as surely as it is murder to kill the same child ten minutes after its birth.

But what if a fetus does not become a person until sometime in, say, the fifth or sixth month? What then? Then the only wrong in an early abortion is taking from that unique, irreplaceable group of cells the chance to become the boy or girl it might have been. It will never realize the potential at which it only hints. The fetus has lost the opportunity to become a human being. Perhaps that is the greatest loss of all.

And what about the father's rights concerning his child? Should he be permitted to require the mother to have an abortion? I think most would agree that he should not. Should his consent be necessary for the mother to have an abortion? He should certainly have input in the choice. But I believe, because it is her body alone which is affected, the final decision must be only hers.

I believe that whether abortion is right or wrong is not the question. Answers differ widely on that issue. I think the relevant question to be addressed is, "Should the right to deny or grant permission for an abortion be vested in the state, or should the mother alone have the power to make that decision?”

If we take the position that abortion is wrong, remember that we do not grant the state the right to enact laws enforcing every action we believe to be moral over those we consider immoral.

So many questions. So many opinions, and so little to confirm who is right and who is wrong. Until we can answer those questions with the same degree of consensus with which we oppose murder, I believe the decision regarding abortion prior to viability is not one which should be made by the state. It is a matter of conscience, one properly made by a woman looking into the depths of her own soul. It is a decision which should be between her and her God.

The Death Penalty

On his last day in office, Illinois Governor George Ryan commuted the sentences of 167 inmates on death row. He called the death penalty process in his state, “Arbitrary and capricious, and therefore immoral.”

Texas’ governor Rick Perry doesn’t have that power. (Hold up your hand if you think he would be likely to spare anyone the death penalty, even if he could.) Under our state constitution, amended in 1936, the most Perry can do is grant an inmate a one-time 30 day stay of execution. He has done that twice.

Texas is the nation’s number one death penalty state, with 289 executions since 1982 and 452 inmates currently on death row. Some Texans are actually proud of that distinction.

Why do people support the death penalty?

Proponents say it is a deterrent. I’ve seen no evidence that is true. Many capital crimes are committed on impulse or under the influence drugs or of strong emotions. Criminals don’t take time to consider the possible consequences. Even if they do have time to think about the outcome of their actions and are free of the influence of drugs or alcohol, criminals rarely believe they will be caught, certainly not that they will be convicted and sent to prison, and never that they will face execution. Capital punishment is not a deterrent.

Proponents say it gives justice to the victims and their families. I wonder. I can’t imagine the grief and anger such families must feel, but I’ve never seen any action based on hatred and a desire for revenge that brought real peace. Nothing can undo the wrong that was done or take away the pain of the loss of a loved one. Isn’t studying the killer and perhaps learning how to prevent future crimes a better way to bring some meaning to the tragedy?

Proponents say it costs too much to keep murderers alive, rather than execute them. Yes, it costs more, but is that a valid reason for this country to take a life? If saving money is the rationale for capital punishment, does it not reduce the state to the same level as that of the killer it executes?

Proponents fear that a killer may be released to kill again one day. But life without possibility of parole would solve that concern.

I believe the death penalty is wrong. Here’s why.

Criminal defendants don’t get an even chance to be spared the death penalty.

Start with the money available to pay for a lawyer. A wealthy defendant is less likely to receive the death penalty than one who is poor. A defendant who has a good lawyer is far less likely to be executed than one who does not.

A woman is far, far less likely to receive the death penalty than a man.

A Caucasian is far less likely to be executed than a member of another race.

An attractive, charming defendant is far less likely to be executed than an unattractive one. (Ask any criminal lawyer if that is not true.)

Any attorney will tell you that the quality of juries differs widely from one case to the next. The defendant’s chance of being spared the death penalty may depend on the turn of the jury wheel.

We have established the best criminal justice system in the world, but defendants still don’t have a level playing field, and that is not fair. That is not just, and justice is what we claim our system is all about. If we cannot provide it, to demand that a defendant pay with his life is immoral. And we are nothing if not a good and decent and moral people. Doing the right thing is not always easy, but to protect the essence of what we are as a nation, we must make that choice.

If a defendant is sentenced to death, what if he is later discovered to have been innocent? That has happened. If he has been executed, it is too late to undo what has been done. Does the fact that it happens rarely, so far as we know, make it any less tragic for all involved? Does the fact that it happens rarely make it an acceptable cost of keeping the death penalty?

The death penalty is wrong. Only the people, speaking through their legislators, have the power to change it. That isn’t likely to happen any time soon, but those of us who believe it should be abolished must keep raising our voices. Perhaps one day, people will listen.

Should Gays Be Allowed to Adopt Children?

In a perfect world, the question would never arise, because children would be reared by their birth parents, who would also be perfect. No such world exists. Some children need adoptive parents and some people who want children can not have them.

That being the case, children should be adopted by their relatives, all else being equal. They would be more easily integrated into the family and would have blood ties to support the new relationship.

Children should be adopted by younger people, all else being equal. The young have a greater supply of the energy required to parent children and they have a better chance of being around when their child hits college.

Children should be adopted by people of the same race as the child, all else being equal. The child will be spared the rejection he is likely to feel from some in both races. He will avoid his own questions of identity, if his skin is a different color than his parents’.

Children should be adopted by two parents, all else being equal. Parenting is a tough job, and life is easier for all involved if it is shared.

Children should be adopted by a straight couple, all else being equal. The child will benefit from the role model of both a man and a woman and will escape the taunting he may have to endure from others if his parents are the same sex.

The problem with “all else being equal” is that it never is. That is why,  as a judge, I sometimes granted adoptions to non-relatives and older people and racially diverse people and single parents and gays. In individual cases, the best interest of the children demanded it. And that is all that really matters.

Above all, a child needs to be wanted and loved. A child needs to have parents who are committed to him, parents he can look up to. He needs parents who will take care of him and make him their priority. If those parents happen to be gay, so be it.

Spare Me the Lawyer Jokes

I have to admit up front that I am biased in favor of lawyers, because I am one. Many of my friends are, too. That said, I’m sick of hearing people knock attorneys.

In the first place, attributing the same qualities to every individual within any group is an unmistakable mark of ignorance. Not all blacks or Jews or Arabs or gays or politicians are identical to one another. Neither are all attorneys. I am offended by derogatory remarks or mean-spirited jokes about lawyers, just as others are when statements put down everyone in their particular groups. If I were a black, Hispanic or gay and others made statements about blacks, Hispanics or gays comparable to those they make in my presence about lawyers, they would expect a strong negative reaction, not only from me, but from others present.

Not all soldiers rape women in villages they conquer, though some do. Not all husbands cheat on their wives, though some do. Not all priests molest children, though some do. Not all lawyers are greedy or crooked, though some are. It is appalling when people judge the many by the behavior of the few.

To make jokes and remarks which insult lawyers in the presence of a lawyer is a shocking display of rudeness. No one who does should expect me to smile and remain silent.

Why Do People Hate Lawyers?

For several reasons, I think.

Part of the responsibility belongs to the media. You aren’t likely to learn on TV or read in the paper about the thousands of cases where lawyers serve their clients well and make a positive difference in their lives. The attorneys whose unsavory actions you do read about are usually big bucks individuals who represent large corporations or headliners handling the cases of high profile criminal defendants. Sometimes their behavior is an embarrassment to most members of their profession. But they are a tiny fraction of practicing lawyers. Most of the attorneys I know are ordinary people, who chose their profession because they wanted do something worthwhile with their lives. They saw themselves as helping people. They go about their work each day, with varying degrees of ability, but the great majority of them do their best, and they care. The media is far more interested in the bad behavior of the few than the positive actions of the many. The former is news. The latter is not.

Another reason for their poor image is that attorneys make no effort to advertise the good that they do. You won’t hear about the cases lawyers accept for no fee, because they feel compassion for people who need them. Every attorney I know accepts some such cases. Businesses who contribute to charity make sure their generosity is widely known. It’s good advertising. But you are unlikely to hear about the attorneys who dig into their own pockets to buy gifts at Christmas for needy children. You’ll never know about the grief many attorneys feel when they lose a case they feel should have been won, or the sleepless nights they spend, worrying how to best represent a client, or the joy of winning a case they strongly believe in. Attorneys themselves won’t tell you. Their legal training imposes the belief that self-promotion by lawyers is unseemly and unprofessional.

Another reason lawyers have such a bad image is that people who seek their help are in trouble. They are about to lose their children or their property or their freedom. As a result, attorneys are associated, even more than dentists, with unpleasantness. Typically, clients in such situations are convinced that the only fair decision regarding every issue involved would be a total victory for them. Any other result must be the attorney’s fault. But usually, the facts call for a decision that lands somewhere in the middle. And the client, not the lawyer, created the facts. Emotions are running wild. Clients want their lawyer to take away the pain they feel and make everything all right again. When all the attorney can do is protect their legal rights, they feel betrayed.

There is an almost subliminal belief by some clients that lawyers should not profit from the pain of others. Especially, lawyers should not be paid when they don’t win everything clients think they deserve. (Inexplicably, the same people seem to have no problem with teachers being paid when a child doesn’t learn well, or a doctor being paid if a patient doesn’t make a full recovery, or a football player being paid when his fumble costs his team the game.) A significant number of clients disappear without paying for their attorneys' services.

Many people feel that lawyers make too much money. I believe that lawyers have a right to be well paid for the work they do. It is a long, difficult and expensive road one must travel to become an attorney. And in the end, the only thing a lawyer has to sell is legal knowledge and experience. The chance to utilize those skills is limited by the amount of time available to offer them. Large expenses are involved in maintaining a law firm. Office space and utilities, secretarial staff, malpractice insurance, office furniture and supplies, continuing legal education and professional memberships are only a few of the items which come off the top before an attorney earns a dime. The truth is that the vast majority of lawyers I know earn no better than a comfortable living. Some do not even achieve that.

Another problem people have with attorneys is that they are advocates, and the truth is those people only believe in the adversarial system when the outcome of the case is the one they wanted. I’ve often been asked, “How can you represent someone who is guilty?”  The answer is that, with all of its flaws, I believe in our justice system and would defend it with my life. Under that system, even the most reprehensible among us has the right to be defended by an attorney.

No, our system isn’t perfect, but show me a better one. Should we make the accused prove his innocence, as is the case in some societies? And how does he do that? How does one prove a negative? In some societies, they cut off the hands of a thief or stone a woman for committing adultery, (but not her male partner, of course). Is that desirable in our country?  Every citizen here has rights guaranteed by our Constitution and our laws. Someone must protect them, and that would be lawyers.

You can’t just grant rights to some, but not others. Who would decide which individuals the law should protect and which it should not? Abraham Lincoln said that you don’t judge a society by how it treats the greatest of its citizens, but by how it treats the least.

For our system to work, everyone must fulfill his own particular responsibility. As a lawyer defending an accused, it is not my function to determine his guilt or innocence. It is my job to require the state’s attorney to do his job by proving the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It is the judge’s role to see that the law is upheld and the defendant receives a fair trial. The jury plays the key role of listening to the evidence and making the judgment of guilt or innocence.

Did I like the clients I represented in criminal cases? Hardly ever. Did I think they committed the act of which they stood accused? Sometimes. But guilt or innocence is a legal judgment I had no right to make. That right is reserved to judges and juries. Under our system, do the guilty sometimes go free? Yes. But under other systems, the innocent are far more likely to be condemned. And I think that is worse.

Attorneys do have a favorable image in the eyes of those for whom they have won custody of their children, and those whose homes they have rescued from the auction block and those who enjoy freedom because their attorneys defended their innocence. And in the end, it is the image in their eyes that really matters to most of us.

DISCRIMINATION

Discrimination used to be a positive word. To be discriminating meant one chose wisely and tastefully. No more. Today, discrimination is a negative word. Racism is one of its ugliest forms.

Am I a racist? No. I wish to God that Colin Powell was still part of the Bush administration, where he provided a voice of sanity. I would vote for him for president today. And Condoleeza Rice is a gem. We are lucky to have her as Secretary of State. And I will go to see any movie starring Queen Latifah. I have black friends. But I am sick of those who would lay a guilt trip on me because my ancestors brought blacks’ ancestors here from Africa as slaves. No doubt about it, for one human being to enslave another is despicable. Some blacks have sought reparations from today’s whites for that slavery. But I didn’t have any part in it. If a black man’s ancestor murdered a white and escaped, should the black man’s descendant be required to serve his sentence? Furthermore, would the descendants of slaves really prefer that their predecessors had never been taken from Africa, leaving them to be born and raised there themselves?

When, simply because he is black, a person is denied a right or privilege that would be granted to him if he were white, racism exists, and it is a terrible thing.

If a church closes its doors to blacks, that is beyond comprehension to me. When I was a child, blacks were required to use different rest rooms, waiting rooms and water fountains than whites. And they could not even sit down to a meal at the same lunch counter as whites. That was outrageous.

On the other hand, if, simply because he is black, a person is granted a right or privilege that would be denied to him if he were white, racism also exists and it is just as evil.

Whether it consists of a boost upward or a shove backward, racism manifests itself in unequal treatment based upon the color of one’s skin.

To achieve equality, minorities must accept the same risk of failure everyone else faces, and deal with it if it comes, rather than blaming their lack of success on discrimination against them. If minorities insist upon special treatment, they are either proclaiming that they are not quite as capable as those who don’t require an extra break to succeed, not in fact equal to them, or they are bidding for an unfair advantage. One would think they would consider the offer of such special treatment an insult.

Blacks want equality. Yet they divide themselves from the rest of us by such things as Miss Black America pageants and Black History Month. Can you imagine the outcry if whites held a “Miss White America” pageant or announced White History Month or solicited money for a White College Fund?

Hyphenation also sets minorities apart. In my opinion, one is either an American, whether by birth or naturalization, or one is not. To be an American means one’s loyalties are undivided. How many African-Americans have ever been to Africa or speak any of the languages spoken there or for that matter can even name ten nations on that continent. As far as I’m concerned they need to choose one or the other. Citizens with split loyalties weaken our country at the very time it needs its greatest strength.

In the past, people have come here from other countries and have been assimilated into this culture. They learned to speak English, and while they brought with them the rich heritage of their countries of origin, they stirred it into our melting pot and became a part of the great strong people called simply Americans..

If a white youngster and a black youngster are competing for the same spot in a college, the one with the higher score should be granted entrance. Colleges should stop worrying about achieving “diversity” and start concentrating on achieving excellence, which minorities are as capable of attaining as anyone else and I don’t think they need coddling to do so.

Undoubtedly, slavery of their ancestors altered the heritage, and therefore, the lives, of descendents of slaves. So how can we make up for slavery and its legacy? We can not change the past. We can only make sure that today everyone is treated the same, regardless of race. More than that we can not do, without perpetuating the same evil of discrimination, with a different target.

The sad truth is, life isn’t fair and there is no way to make it so. One person may have a healthy body, while another struggles with life-long illness. One person’s parents may be loving and supportive, while another’s are insensitive, even abusive. Everyone must deal with his own set of problems and blessings. One person’s great-great-grandparents may have been slaves, while another’s ancestors came over on the Mayflower. Both are lucky to be living in this country today. The bottom line is, opportunities abound for everyone, and it’s up to the individual, whatever his or her race, to create a life from those opportunities.

Will the results be equal? Of course not. Unfortunately, I won’t ever be as beautiful as Charlise Theron, or as rich as Donald Trump or as talented as Eudora Welty. And some people have hurt my feelings and some people have not given me what I felt was my due. But so what? Like everyone else, minorities have the choice of complaining about life’s unfairness and the unequal way they have been treated or getting over it and getting on with the business of living.

WHAT IS IT LIKE TO BE A JUDGE?

I was judge of the 313^th judicial district Court in Houston, Texas. Especially now that I am retired, people ask me what it was like to be a judge.

It was overwhelming, especially at first, when I realized that I would have to decide who got custody of children. I would have to decide whether to return a child to parents who were accused of abusing that child. I would have to decide whether it was in a child’s best interest  to terminate forever his parent’s rights to him. I would have to decide whether a child committed anything from assault to robbery to murder, and if he did, what to do with him. Should he be tried as a juvenile or an adult? In some instances I had the power to send a child to a juvenile correctional facility and then to adult prison for up to forty years.

There were laws and rules to guide me, but there was a great deal of discretion, too. Once I absorbed the reality and extent of the role I had assumed, I wondered how any human being could be so arrogant as to believe she had the wisdom to make decisions that would so profoundly affect the lives of others. Then it occurred to me that I didn’t have to do it alone. Each morning, I asked God to let me know the right thing to do and to help me to do it. I hope I got the message, but I’m sure sometimes I was a little hard of hearing.

I worried a lot over some cases. There were nights I didn’t sleep, but in the end, I could only do my best.

When I was a little girl, my folks gave me a slender blue book called “A Child’s Book of Prayers. One I liked in particular, and it often helped me through those tough days. I still whisper it sometimes. It says,

“There are hard things I must do today, dear God, hard things.

Help me to do them well and bravely as I can. Let me not give up if things go wrong, but gladly try another way. Dear God, help me to do the hard things well.”

In some way that prayer has always comforted me.

The cases that came before me were often heartbreaking. It’s hard to believe the sick, horrendous things some people do to their children. And children who commit awful crimes themselves, even murder, sometimes haunted me for a long time.

Being a judge was strange, at times. People stood when I walked into the courtroom and didn’t sit until I gave them permission. Odd feeling. Occasionally I would become absorbed in papers on my desk and forget to invite them to be seated, until someone gently reminded me. I always felt like a fool when that happened.

Friendships changed. Not because my friends or I wanted it that way, but it was inherent in the job. Friends who had called me Ramona for 20 years insisted on calling me Judge. I couldn’t socialize with them in the same way. Some of them had cases that came before my court, and a wall existed that had not been there before. In my experience, being a judge can be a very lonely business.

Occasionally, being a judge can be frightening. When you are hearing cases where you may have to terminate people’s rights to their children or send their children away to be incarcerated for years, emotions are very raw. The situation can become volatile, and even violent quickly. Judges are made aware of such risks in seminars. Many judges carry guns. I did not, but I had a bailiff who walked me to my car after court more than once.

One memorable day my courtroom was filled with police when I arrived. A case on my docket requested termination of parental rights, and the father had called to say he’d kill me if I took away his rights to his children. He had been a demolitions expert in the military. The police asked if I wanted to reset the case. I said no, because I would have to hear it sooner or later, and if I refused to hear it, any defendant who wanted to continue his case could make a similar threat. So I heard all of the other cases first and got people out of the courtroom. I called other judges in the courthouse in case they wanted to clear their dockets and get out of the building. When the man arrived, the police talked to him, and they kept a close eye on him throughout the hearing. I terminated his parental rights and he went on his way without incident. Later I asked the police what they said to him. They wouldn’t tell me, but they said they just made it plain to him that he was not going to hurt me.

Often I had to remind myself that the cases that came before me did not represent the vast majority of people, who are good, decent parents, who love their kids and treat them well, and kids who don’t rob or assault or kill. I especially enjoyed rime with family and friends, when I could relish the love and friendship and normal behavior that was so different than what I had seen all day in cases I was deciding..

A judge is supposed to maintain a dignified manner in the courtroom. Sometimes that was not easy. Occasionally, it was almost impossible not to break into laughter. Other times it was hard to stay awake. And focusing on the case when I was upset or feeling ill took determination at times. Judges are as human as anyone else.

But I got to grant adoptions, which I loved. And there was great satisfaction in believing that I made life better in some way for many children.

I dearly loved and admired the judge who was my predecessor. I asked him on the day he swore me in as his successor, what the single greatest piece of advice he could give me would be, and I always followed his answer. He said, “Go to the bathroom before you go out to hear cases.”