June 1, 2009
Judge arranges sterilization as part of Charleston woman's probation
Advertiser

CHARLESTON, W.Va. -- A Charleston woman agreed in Kanawha Circuit Court Monday to a judge's suggestion that she have her fallopian tubes tied as part of her probation.

Jessica Michelle Butterworth, 21, pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute marijuana on March 23. At her sentencing hearing, Judge L.D. Egnor suspended a one- to five-year prison sentence in favor of five years of probation.

Egnor, a retired Cabell County Circuit judge who has been hearing cases while Judge Paul Zakaib Jr. recovers from an illness, said he had made arrangements for Butterworth to have the sterilizing procedure free of charge.

"[Butterworth] recognizes the need to make changes in her life in order to provide for herself and her family," Egnor's order reads. "After inquiring of the defendant, the Court further recognizes [her] desire to have a tubal ligation and has located a provider who will do it free of costs, with arrangements to be made in the next 30 days."

Defense attorney Michael Payne said his client, who has three children and is not married, was enthusiastic about the idea when the judge brought it up.

"As the procedure was something that my client had expressed interest in in both the past and present, as well as the fact that Judge Egnor was not ordering her to get the procedure done as a condition of probation, I did not feel that my client's rights were being violated," Payne said.

During the hearing, Kanawha County assistant prosecutor Jennifer Meadows said that as part of the plea deal, the state recommended probation for Butterworth, with no additional terms or conditions.

"The state is not part of that recommendation [involving the medical procedure]," she said.

Steven Lubet, a law professor at Northwestern University who specializes in legal ethics, said the judge overstepped his bounds.

"Discussing sterilization with a defendant is coercive," he said. "It interferes with a fundamental right, the right to procreate, the right to bodily integrity."

Although the judge was likely acting out of sincere concern for the well-being of Butterworth and her children, he was "absolutely wrong" to include tubal ligation, even as a suggestion, he said.

Report a violation or offensive comment.
[X] Close
to report abuse.
Posted By: jes (11:17am 06-08-2009)
Report Abuse


It's amazing when any politician promises "change". Because none can really deliver.

Posted By: smarbap (5:22pm 06-05-2009)
Report Abuse


Mountaineer18631,

There was indeed a time when all liberals would proudly proclaim, "I may not agree with you, but I will die defending your right to voice your opinion."

As today's Democrat Party illustrates, such liberalism has now been replaced by Marxist-Leninists, such as Dear Leader Obama, who will do everything in his power to suppress opposing viewpoints. Equally horrifying is that the mainstream media is following Obama's example.

It is indeed amazing the evil that materializes when Democrats promise "Change".

Posted By: Mountaineer18631 (5:43pm 06-04-2009)
Report Abuse


whether or not you would find at least a little bit miffed? To me, its OK either way, as that is your individual viewpoint. Myself personally, I find it totally anathema to remove comments that should not be inoffensive to anyone. Freedom of speech? Freedom of press? I really do understand the difference, and understand the point you are trying to make. I understand that point, and will defend YOUR right to make that point.

Posted By: Mountaineer18631 (5:37pm 06-04-2009)
Report Abuse


Sodbuster, I have no intent into having an argument with you. I have read many of your postings in the past, and can honestly say that very seldom do I disagree with you. That being said, let me say that I do NOT confuse the difference between freedom of speech and freedom of press. Anyone with a modicum of common sense understands that a newspaper, or a rag of a newspaper can and will censor comments they deem inappropriate for their viewership. That is their inherent right to do so. To legitimize their validity? Censureship does not further that goal. Certainly there should be limits as to what a poster can make. That is an entirely different argument. I will note that there was absolutely nothing that should cause offense with any one of any political, religious or any other myriad of possible infractions that one could imagine to have occurred. I would simply ask you that if you posted a relatively innocuous opinion, and inexplicably your posting disappeared 15 minutes later,

Advertisement - Your ad here
Advertisement - Your ad here
MC CORMICK JEWELERS
A name you have know and trusted for over 60 years for honesty, quality and fair prices. The own...
Advertisement - Your ad here