Posted on 05/01/2005 7:21:19 AM PDT by madprof98
America's division over abortion deepened further yesterday after a Florida court prevented a 13-year-old girl in a care home from terminating her pregnancy. The girl, known as LG, has made it clear she wants an abortion to which she would appear legally entitled, but has had her wishes blocked by state officials who argue she lacks the maturity to make a decision.
The case pits civil liberties groups against the religious right in clear echoes of the case of Terri Schiavo, the brain-damaged woman whose feeding tube was removed only after a ferocious legal battle.
LG is known to be more than 13 weeks pregnant, meaning that anti-abortion groups know how long they need to force a delay before a termination becomes difficult.
James Green, of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), said: 'This child has made a clear choice; she has expressed it to the judge. There is no indication she is incompetent. We believe this is wrong as a matter of constitutional law and as a matter of good guardianship.'
The girl was due to have an abortion next Tuesday until Florida's Department of Children and Families, the agency responsible for her care, obtained an injunction.
LG has run away from state homes on several occasions, at one point going missing for more than a month, during which time it is understood she became pregnant.
The judge who granted the injunction is furious that the DCF didn't even alert the police that the girl was missing.
Judge Ronald Alvarez said: 'To say I am angry is an understatement.'
LG was taken away from her parents four years ago. Although psychologists have already agreed that the girl does not have any mental problems, the court has ordered another evaluation.
A spokesman for Florida Right to Life said: 'There is a rush to abort. To get rid of the evidence. Who impregnated her? You do not consent to sex at the age of 13.'
The Bush administration, which owes much of its electoral support to religious groups that find abortion abhorrent, described the situation as 'tragic' but believes Florida officials are acting in the girl's best interests. Lawyers acting on the girl's behalf have filed an appeal to let the abortion proceed.
Richard Wexler of the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform said: 'I hope they move very, very quickly because every day is another day of emotional torment for this child and every day the pregnancy continues, it becomes more dangerous.'
Abortion is probably the most politically explosive issue in America. This week alone there were at least two separate rows over the display of anti-abortion messages, with each side accusing the other of hate speech.
On Tuesday, a teenage girl wearing a T-shirt that featured a picture of a foetus' head above the words 'abortion kills kids' was sent home from her school in Tennessee.
The American Life League gave away 15,000 of the T-shirts to be worn last Tuesday, supposedly National Pro-Life day.
Pro-life organisations say they encourage children to get actively involved in the issue because they are "survivors of the abortion holocaust".
Meanwhile, the ACLU sued the state of Ohio for issuing car licence plates reading 'choose life'. It claims this is discrimination because there are no pro-choice plates.
The courts have more power than the normal parent. The courts have powers to take away parental rights for instance. It may not be right, but the power of the courts has always been greater than the pwower of normal parents. In fact, many parents petition the courts on behalf of their children to intervene and take control because the courts can do things the parents cannot.
It is consistant that the courts are not subject to the same laws as the parents.
Ping to self for later pingout.
Abortion is obviously murder and wrong. The only reason we question it or ponder what to do about it is because some retarded DimocRAT raped a child or the DimocRAT-parents-to-not-be were not being responsible. This is a waste of time for the thought process for all responsible adults. We could be using our hard-earned time and brain cells building bigger plasma screen tvs or important things like that... but NO, we've got some stupid, irresponsible and/or dangerous people screwing it up for the rest of us.
I don't think statistics support your position.
In general, true. But this case is not about parental rights, because when it comes to obtaining an abortion, the parents HAVE NO RIGHTS. The Florida Supreme Court rule in the case I cited is that the MINOR has the right to choose an abortion, and CANNOT be required to obtain court or parental permission to exercise that right.
So, the court gave a apprantly unqualified right to pregnant female minors. Now, if it wants to, the Florida Supreme Court can condition the right that it gave to pregnant female minors. It can say that pregant female minors living at home have that right, but pregnant female minors under state control do not have that right. I'm curious how they justify giving some, but not all pregnant minors the right to obtain an abortion, unfettered with the chore of first obtaining permission.
Adoption is so wonderful! But I know from experience many are very opposed to it. I worked as a child advocate and these folks would keep a child with an axe murderer just b/c she was the "natural" mother.
I just have a problem with SOME in the pro-life movement who thinks it ends with the child's birth. The whole picture needs to be examined. What do you do with a welfare mother who keeps popping out kids? She's not going to stop having sex, you can't sterilize her. It infuriates me.
The case cited was in regards to parental rights, not court rights.
Neither. Did you read it? It is about the rights of the pregnant minor.
The case struck down the law that required a doctor to provide parental notification. The case says that an abortion cannot be conditioned on parental permission, court permission, or parental notification.
It is about her right to privacy. As a ward of the state, she has no privacy as to medical matters. All matters become subject to state oversight and therefore there are no issues of privacy at stake.
At page 7 of the SCOFLA opinion, it cites the trial courts reasoning (the trial court's holding was upheld), and notes that requring permission from ANY other, including parents guardians, and sundry court personnel, is an impermissible violation.
Based on privacy, goes the opinion, the girl has an absolute right to an abortion, "without government interference" (page 3).
I see your argument, that a person under state control has no medical privacy rights. Maybe the court will use that rationale. But it flies in the face of a right that heretofor operates "without government interference."
"13 is NOT the age of majority in ANY state"
But the aclu has a vested interest in making 13 the age of majority in all states since they are defending NAMBLA and that would give children access to pedophiles in a legal way.
The problem is also that many are against "giving away babies" so they whole cycle gets repeated. Poor education, poor opportunities, unwanted pregnancy.
Pages 37-41 provide the heart of the Florida Supreme Court decision.
What's interesting here is that the courts set themselves up as agnostic, unwilling to be the decision maker. The FLorida Supreme Court decision is that a minor can't be forced to seek court permission. So. L.G's case (the present case) pits the will of the DCF against the will of L.G. It isn't about "the will of the court," except inasmuch as the Florida Supreme Court has ruled that pregnant minors have a right to obtain an abortion without first obtaining parental or court consent.
So, the question might be phrased as "Does the DCF have more power against the pregnant minor's rights than another guardian would have?" And I add, if so, why?
I think the starting point is different. In the instant case the issue was whether the state had a compelling interest to override the child's right to privacy. If yes, it could intervene and require parental notification. If no, it could not intervene.
In the current case, the court already has a compelling interest as the child, as well as the unborn child, is a ward of the state. The hurdle of having an interest in the affairs of the child has already been met. Once met, the state has to determine the best interests of the child. Weighing the benefits of aborting the child against the risk of pregnancy is one that would be up to the court to determine on the facts and circumstances of each case.
I wish more girls were hearing that!
My mom simply told me she'd kill me. That sometimes works, too.
Anybody else see the contradictory nature of this statement?
No, I'm a pragmatist. As long as we're going to be activist, by all means let's take advantage of it when we can.
Corrrection: Believing WHITE Christians.
She's a 13 year old kid from a crapped up home. That's all she's ever known is bad choices. She's probably never seen anybody ever make a GOOD choice, just do whatever makes them feel better right at the moment. I know that's why I started drinking when I was 13 and drugs by 14. Sex too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.