Court Declines to Review Abortion Law

[ginshun]

Link to story

[size=-1]he Supreme Court rejected an appeal Monday to reinstate a state law requiring girls under age 18 to get parental consent for abortions except under the most dire of medical emergencies.

Let me premise by saying that I do not think that abortion should be illegal, in most instances, and I am for the death penalty in murder cases.


So over the past month or so now, we have found that the Supreme Court has stated that a 17 year old does not posess the judgment skills to be responsible enough to face the death penalty, regardless of the situation of the crime, and yet a 17 year old is perfectly capable of deciding that they need an abortion, without even telling her parents.

Does this seem a little odd to anyone else? To me, the two decisions seem to totally contradict each other.

What do you guys think



[/size]

 

[RandomPhantom700]

It's the girl's life that will be permanently and dramatically altered through having a kid, so it should be the girl's decision. Also, it is her body that the fetus may or may not be occupying for up to nine months. If she doesn't want that happening to her body, who are we to force it upon her?

Requiring parental consent to abortion essentially is saying that parents have the right to force their children to give birth. This means, at the very least, the girl has 9 months of pregnancy, plus the wonderful experience of labor. At the most, the girl has all that, plus the next 18 years of raising this kid. All this for what? The parent's right to decide everything for their kid? Making sure the parents can punish their kid by not allowing the abortion?

Would you think allowing the parents to force their child to have a tatoo would be acceptable?

 

[ginshun]

Would you think allowing the parents to force their child to have a tatoo would be acceptable?

As far as I know, kids have to get parental consent to get a tatoo.

I guess getting a tatoo is a more serious issue than having an abortion.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

As far as I know, kids have to get parental consent to get a tatoo.

I guess getting a tatoo is a more serious issue than having an abortion.

I don't think it's about seriousness - no-one would say that abortion isn't a serious, serious issue. It's about control over one's own body, and one's own reproductive future.

I don't find anything strange about not executing a 17-year-old, but allowing a 17-year-old to decide whether or not they can be a parent. I would *hope* that the 17-year-old came from a loving home, where she could talk to her own parents about her decision, but that is not always the case, unfortunately. I know of one family in particular (friend) who let their daughter know in no uncertain terms that if she ever found herself pregnant (and abortion was NOT an option), she would be homeless.

One scenario.

 

[BrandiJo]

I would say that the body of a girl is her right and as long as she is mature enough for sex she is mature enough to make the choices that come along with sex. In my house i was always told that should i find myself prg the choice would be mine, abortion would be the last thing they would want but if i chose to go that route i would not be shamed for it.

 

[Kane]

We have to first keep in mind that in some countries in the world 16 or 17 is the age of adulthood, not 18. Since most cases of pregnancy of teens are between the age of 16-18, I think the girls should have the right to an abortion without parent's consenst. I still recomend she tell her parents too, but she should have the decision to get one even if her parents deny that she get one. Having a baby this young can ruin everything.

 

[ginshun]

So what if the girl isn't 17 then, what if she is 12? Is it OK for a 12 year old to get an abortion without even telling her parents? I don't know, but for some reason it just seems wrong to me. We as a society have pretty much agreed that parents are responsible for there kids until the age of 18. If you're under 18, you can't get a credit card, open a checking account, get your ears pierced, get a drivers licence, or any number of other things, without your parents OK. But wait, an abortion? Sure, no problem. In essence, you guys (and the Supreme Court) are saying that it should be up to the girl, because it is a more serious decision than all of these things. That just seems backwards to me.


And I don't know how you can logically agree with both of these, unless I suppose you believe that nobody ever deserves the death penalty.

It is about responsibility. To me, the supreme court is saying that someone under 18 is responsible for thier actions, and can be treated like an adult when it comes to abortion, but not when it comes to murder.

 

[rutherford]

From my point of view, the death penalty is the ultimate in the removal of rights. The decision in the abortion case is a right affirmed.

Therefore, I see them as fundamentally different.

In a perfect world, children would always tell their parents and get advice and support on issues of this magnitude.

 

[Kane]

I think in all cases the girl should tell her parents, no matter how old. It however should be child's decision to get the abortion or not.

Well actually a 12 year old is not the same as a 16 or 17 year old thinking and reasoning wise. So I think maybe kids under 14 parent's decision when they are that young. I don't like the whole "under 18" issue, because we can't say an 8 year old has the same reasoning as a 17 year old in any case. Issues like this should be divided into further age groups.

 

[MisterMike]

Link to story



Let me premise by saying that I do not think that abortion should be illegal, in most instances, and I am for the death penalty in murder cases.


So over the past month or so now, we have found that the Supreme Court has stated that a 17 year old does not posess the judgment skills to be responsible enough to face the death penalty, regardless of the situation of the crime, and yet a 17 year old is perfectly capable of deciding that they need an abortion, without even telling her parents.

Does this seem a little odd to anyone else? To me, the two decisions seem to totally contradict each other.

What do you guys think



[/size][/font]

I guess they are saying 17 year olds are protected from the death penalty but can kill their babies(who are under 17) without parental consent?

:idunno:

 

[rutherford]

Also, consider the actual case ruling:

At issue was whether the Idaho law was unduly burdensome on young mothers by limiting abortions without consent to “sudden and unexpected” instances of physical complications.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said yes, saying there was no reasonable explanation for the restriction. Other emergency medical procedures are allowed on minors without parental permission that do not fit the “sudden and unexpected” category, it said.

The court said the rest of the law could not be salvaged because the emergency provisions were too important.

. . .

Other states require parental consent for abortions in many situations, but Idaho's is considered more stringent than most.

And consider that the Supreme Court declined to hear the case without comment, and the last time they heard an abortion ruling the decision was 5/4.


Lets keep the strawmen to a minimum.

 

[rmcrobertson]

From what was quoted, it looks as though it was a technical decision--the law was badly-written, and would've prohibited hospitals and doctors from certain kinds of emergency treatments, even if the parents absolutely could not be reached. Incidentally, one suspects that the law would also require a girl who'd gotten pregnant by her dad or a close family member to go to those people for permission...

And thanks for the, "kill their babies," crack. You're more than entitled to your own religious beliefs, which is what such remarks are based on--but do try to keep it in mind that not everybody shares them.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

So what if the girl isn't 17 then, what if she is 12? Is it OK for a 12 year old to get an abortion without even telling her parents? I don't know, but for some reason it just seems wrong to me. We as a society have pretty much agreed that parents are responsible for there kids until the age of 18. If you're under 18, you can't get a credit card, open a checking account, get your ears pierced, get a drivers licence, or any number of other things, without your parents OK. But wait, an abortion? Sure, no problem. In essence, you guys (and the Supreme Court) are saying that it should be up to the girl, because it is a more serious decision than all of these things. That just seems backwards to me.

Sometimes families, guardians, parents do not react as one would wish in an ideal world. They may be more than happy to help their little girl open a checking account, learn how to drive, etc., but they may throw her out of the house, force her to continue a pregnancy, etc., if they learn that she has had sex (whether willingly or was raped). We must also keep in mind that in cases of incest, how would an abusive relative react to the situation? Would a young terrified girl feel in any way safe in going to her tormentor to ask permission for something?

 

[ginshun]

Sometimes families, guardians, parents do not react as one would wish in an ideal world. They may be more than happy to help their little girl open a checking account, learn how to drive, etc., but they may throw her out of the house, force her to continue a pregnancy, etc., if they learn that she has had sex (whether willingly or was raped). We must also keep in mind that in cases of incest, how would an abusive relative react to the situation? Would a young terrified girl feel in any way safe in going to her tormentor to ask permission for something?

Honestly, reagardless of how this decision is made, I don't think that anyone would expect a teen who was raped and got pregnent by her father to get his permission for an abortion. I would also be willing to bet that there are other laws in place for situations like this. That is also obviously a case where that father will not be here guardian for much longer, so I really don't think that situation applies here. At the very least it was not intended as part of the conversations scope when I started the thread.


And if I am reading your responce right, you think it should be fine for a 12 year old to get an abortion without telling her parents? Interesting. I honestly didn't think anyone would go along with that, but then again, it is painfully obvious that I am not much of a judge as to how others in this forum think.

Incidentally, when is it time to tell the parents? After her 5th abortion at age 15? Or is abortion a viable form of birth control in your opinion?


And just as an aside, agian I am not argueing against abortion. And really, I agree with Robert in that this was most likely a technical decision based on a poorly written law, but it still fun to discuss these things, even if they are a bit of a stretch from the original topic.

 

[Melissa426]

Why is abortion any different than any other medical/surgical procedure?

For instance, a D & C.
If a 16 y.o. was experiencing a miscarriage, a doctor might decide to do a D & C to remove the pregnancy tissue. BUt the doctor would have to have parental consent.

That same 16 y.o. has a viable pregnancy, wants a surgical termination, the Dr. does a D & C. Same exact procedure, same risks, same potential complications. But this time, no parental consent required. Why?

If the 2nd girl doesn't feel she can tell her parents, for whatever reason, what is she gonna do if after the procedure if she should have problems, eg. bleeding, infection, etc. Stay at home, tell no one, and die? If she drives herself to a local ER, first thing they do is get financial info. If she is on her parents' insurance, they will find out what her diagnosis is when the insurance claim is submitted.

I agree with those who posted above and hope that all young women could discuss this with a parent or guardian but I realize it's not always felt to be an acceptable option.

I am not asking this from a pro-choice/pro-life stance, but from a medical stance.

Peace,
Melissa

 

[MisterMike]

Sounds like there wasn't enough written in for frequent things like "daddy" knockin' up sis and emergency abortions while the parents are conveniently unavailable. All frequent stuff - just watch themid morning talk shows. Maybe since they are in re-write mode, they can add in another little ditty for the "oh crap' - 28 days and no period!" emergency too.

 

[loki09789]

So what if the girl isn't 17 then, what if she is 12? Is it OK for a 12 year old to get an abortion without even telling her parents? I don't know, but for some reason it just seems wrong to me. We as a society have pretty much agreed that parents are responsible for there kids until the age of 18. If you're under 18, you can't get a credit card, open a checking account, get your ears pierced, get a drivers licence, or any number of other things, without your parents OK. But wait, an abortion? .

I agree with you on this one. If my son brings friends over and they break into the liquor cabinet, get drunk and drive/get into an accident while I am not home, I can still expect to get charged for negligence as well as facing civil charges/sueing by the other children's parents.

A child under the legal age of adulthood is the ward of a parent or guardian. Getting an abortion is a medical procedure that should be approved just like any other procedure. OF COURSE it carries more moral weight than other procedures so I hope that people don't take that idea out of context.

What if the girl were raped/abused/molested/subject to incest, and isn't required to have parental consent? Baby gone, but the crime/criminal is still unreported too. Parental reporting opens communication, supports family and protects the right of the parents.

Maybe, just MAYBE, if a girl knows that getting pregnant and trying to get it aborted means a call to Mom and Dad, she will be more careful or even abstain.....thin hope but hope none the less.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

As far as I know, kids have to get parental consent to get a tatoo.

I guess getting a tatoo is a more serious issue than having an abortion.

I didn't ask whether an underage girl should have to get parental consent before getting a tattoo, I asked whether parents of an underage girl should be able to force the girl to get a tattoo.

What I'm trying to get at is that, in both situations, the parents are imposing on the daughter in something that should be hers to decide, only in the instance of forcing a pregnancy via not allowing an abortion, the infringment is a lot more drastic.

Think about it, girl gets pregnant, for whatever reason, and doesn't want to have a baby. Afraid of giving birth, worried about her health during pregnancy(well, scratch that one), has plans for her future that spending 18 years raising a kid would conflict with, whatever her reason, doesn't matter for our purposes. The girl doesn't want the baby. However, by requiring parental consent, the parents are allowed to force on her a permanent change that she rejects.

It's her decision, her life, her body involved. If you require parental consent to an abortion, you're allowing the parents to basically force her to get a tatoo, a really big one that could ruin her life (and spits up a lot.) For what? What interest of the parents is so fundamental that it trumps a 17-year-old's right to decide what to do with her body and with the next 20 years (at least) of her life?

 

[rmcrobertson]

Gee, maybe I think that parents should have a clue about what's going on with their kids, and have established enough trust that they don't need to have an intrusive government pry into their lives at the behest of a gang of self-appointed moral guardians who miss no opportunity to shove their fundamentalist values down everybody else's throats.

And maybe I suspect that the reasons stupid laws like this get passed has a lot to do with moral posturing on the parts of legislators who are also busily attacking programs for contraception, Head Start, and all the others that actually do some good.

 

[loki09789]

I didn't ask whether an underage girl should have to get parental consent before getting a tattoo, I asked whether parents of an underage girl should be able to force the girl to get a tattoo.

What I'm trying to get at is that, in both situations, the parents are imposing on the daughter in something that should be hers to decide, only in the instance of forcing a pregnancy via not allowing an abortion, the infringment is a lot more drastic.

Think about it, girl gets pregnant, for whatever reason, and doesn't want to have a baby. Afraid of giving birth, worried about her health during pregnancy(well, scratch that one), has plans for her future that spending 18 years raising a kid would conflict with, whatever her reason, doesn't matter for our purposes. The girl doesn't want the baby. However, by requiring parental consent, the parents are allowed to force on her a permanent change that she rejects.

It's her decision, her life, her body involved. If you require parental consent to an abortion, you're allowing the parents to basically force her to get a tatoo, a really big one that could ruin her life (and spits up a lot.) For what? What interest of the parents is so fundamental that it trumps a 17-year-old's right to decide what to do with her body and with the next 20 years (at least) of her life?

Giving the baby up for adoption is a viable option....

The Parents have the trump because they are full legal/decision making citizens and a minor is not.

It is a MINOR thing in comparison, but I have told my son that if he wants to keep his long hair, he better keep it groomed and clean just like any girl would do that cared about it...I have taken him to get that hair cut twice because he wasn't doing his part. Call me an ogre if you want but my job as parent is to keep him healthy, safe and teach him responsibility and character. What that means in action will change as he gets older but I am still responsible for him as a parent until he is 18 legally.

Of course, I'm 35 and my mother still tries to tell me what to do....

If you think that the civil courts/malpractice insurance is outrageous now, imagine what will happen if someone has a 12 year daughter that gets a revolving door abortion and ends up with complications and the parents only find out after the fact because she collapses at home.

A parent can try to 'force a child to get a tatoo' sure. But the facility has the right to refuse service if they don't want to do it. A medical facility can refuse to provide that service (abortion/birth/pre-natal care what ever the case may be) if the don't agree with it, but that would go against the basic foundation of the medical profession.