|
There is nothing that is 100% effective as birth control; the only safe way to assure compliance with the order is to refrain from sex. I'd be very curious as to whether the Wisconsin Supreme Court looked at those issues and how they dealt with them.
There was an era in American history when some states did sterilize convicted felons and the mentally retarded; at the time "eugenics" was hailed as progressive; it fell into disfavor, to such an extent that the Nazi program of eugenics, which they got from us here in the US, is considered an atrocity and forms part of the plot line in "Judgment at Nuremberg" without so much as a nod at the US roots of this practice. This judge would be all at home in the Reich.
By the way, so much for the religious beliefs of Catholic, Mormons, and Orthodox Jews about birth control. So much for the zone of sexual privacy that some see emerging from the birth control cases, the miscegenation cases, and Lawrence v. Texas, the consensual sodomy case.
If this man is married, his wife has a legally recognized right to sex. If she is a member of a religious group that teaches birth control to be gravely immoral, this judge has just inflicted punishment on her, too.
This is a strange ruling by a strange judge and it's my hope that it goes no further.
__________________
Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice. . . Restraint in the pursuit of Justice is no virtue.
Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964
|