You’re right; I misread the article.
Ed
I see your point, but this seems to me to me to be a case of Constitutional interpretation on a controversial political issue, not so much a case of giving someone a fair shot. Not that even then it would say anything much about Roberts, but it seems like it might bespeak an interpretation of “equal protection” that’s not necessarily Scalia’s third vote on the bench (Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist dissented in Romer, and of course, Roberts might have as well). I’d suggest the Senate try to get him to shine further light on this point.
As someone who was adpoted, I agree 100 percent. It is nobody’s business.
Hypothetical question here: A destitute teenage girl desires an abortion, and is trying to bypass a parental notification statute. She’s tried every other lawyer in town, and you’re the last one available. Would you toss aside your personal feelings on this issue and represent her?
The idea that Roberts’ work in this is incompatible with conservative thought is a sad misconception.
I think the idea that “outing” Roberts’ work in this is somehow going to cause outrage and a lack of support among Conservatives is also a sad misconception.
Where are the outraged conservatives upset that Roberts fought for gay rights?
It is possible to be conservative but socially progressive, to believe in civil rights and the dignity of individuals. In fact, if you are a conservative those two things are inextricably entwined, or they should be.
I fully recognize that there are social conservatives out there, and I abhor their intolerance.
All the conservatives I know and hang out with, and all the ones I know on this board are equally progressive socially.
Painting the right as socially intolerant is about as innacurate and intellectually lazy as painting all leftists as commies.
Hypothetical question here: Wouldn’t it be easier for her just to tell her parents? She can’t get her wisdom teeth pulled without them, she can’t get a prescription without them, but she can have a potentially life-threatening surgical procedure without their knowledge? Bah to that.
I’ve never heard of anyone getting disowned by their parents over a root canal.
Thanks to you (and SteveG1) for your thoughtful posts. I’m sorry to confess that I have too strong an emotional reaction, both to the investigation of Roberts’ family and to a couple of the assumptions being made, to be able calmly to respond. My flaw, not anyone else’s.
I shouldn’t have raised the issue.
Regards,
Shodan
I never understood the argument against parental consent.
The parents and/or the guardian are responsible for a girl until she reaches the age of 18 and is presumably able to take care of herself. Until that age we assume that she is not able to make decisions responsibly enough to have them be binding and that she needs help and guidance.
It would seem to me that if a girl has gotten pregnant and is seeking an abortion, that this is a major crisis in that child’s life, one which can severely impact her physical and emotional wellbeing. In fact, it could have consequences for the rest of her life.
It may indicate a self-destructive pattern of behavior.
For cases where a child no longer needs nor wants parental guidance, and where it may in fact be a detriment, we have something called an “emancipated child,” where a child has legally severed the ties of responsibility from her parents.
Failing a case where a child is emancipated, I don’t see how we can reasonably withhold this vital information and allow a child to make a decision as serious as this without the consent and guidance of those responsible for her.
If we do, then, in fact, we are making the state responsible for her. That’s a slippery slope that I don’t like at all.
Since his adulterous divorce & remarriage, Randall Terry is officially considered on the fringe of the RR- CR theonomist Gary North has even denounced him.
Heck, I want intelligent evangelical libertarian/Right Christians to be such a majority in this country that they fill every executive, legislative, judicial & bureaucratic office. I want a society in which the Creator is recognized in the public square, while Moses & the prophets & Jesus & the apostles are considered
founders of a new American heritage- and I still don’t want tax-supported churches or the legal enforcement of religious doctrine or regulation of private non-commercial consensual adult sexual behavior.
What if daddy is the one who knocked her up? Should she still have to receive his consent to an abortion?
I was already of the early hunch-opinion that Roberts was no more conservative than O’Connor, and would, if confirmed, probably turn out to be principled, a thinking justice more concerned with applying precedent than accomplishing a pet political agenda, and more likely than not a major disappointment to the folks who think they’re getting another Scalia or Thomas for the bench.
This is the standard argument that’s always brought up in cases of parental consent. But it’s an easy one to get around - just modify the law so that it says that parents must be notified and give consent, but in extreme circumstances an arbitration judge can listen to the case and overrule the parents if necessary. This could apply to situations where the girl was raped, or where her life is in danger, or whatever.
A case where the father was responsible for the pregnancy of his daughter doesn’t even really bear on parental consent. In this case the father has committed a crime, raped his daughter, and betrayed his responsibilities as a father.
He should go to jail. The daughter requires emancipation or another guardian which still needs to be involved in the process and grant consent.
On the several fronts:
The Times inquiry is legitimately founded, IMO, and the presumption that they are engaged in a liberal media smear is just that: a presumption. When I first saw the children in question, I too was moved to ponder: two healthy white children of apparently the most desireable age? The odds are slim. On the other hand, any adoption agency would have to find the Roberts just about as ideal an adoptive couple as might be imagined. As well, they might have only been the beneficiaries of a polite prejudicial favoritism, the sort of thing that falls naturally to the privileged and well-connected. That they might prefer children whose very presence does not shout “adopted!” to the casual onlooker is too human a motive to merit any real condemnation. I might prefer otherwise, but cannot judge them harshly for so normal a failing.
As to the “gay rights” stuff: well, its marginal good news, at the very least, he didn’t refuse his help in a worthy cause. Problem is, if problem it be, we know just about nothing about what Mr. Roberts really thinks, and he shows no sign that he might be inclined to advise us. Clearly, Mr. Roberts wants those robes, and is willing to play a coy game of footsie to get them. Just as clearly, we have every right to know just what sort of person we are giving them to. Even more clearly, we aren’t going to.
Which leaves us only with the presumption that, if nothing else, Mr. Roberts is ambitious. There are many people who think ambition is, in and of itself, valuable and worthy. I am not one of those.
So I end where I began, as one often does when one is right all along. We already knew we were getting someone conservative, we should be grateful Cotton Mather is dead.
Or, perhaps, on the left.
I think that if a girl has gotten pregnant and doesn’t want to tell her parents, there’s likely a damned good reason why she’s withholding the information. It may be difficult to “prove” that your parents are going to flip out and beat the crap out of you to a skeptical judge who is already hostile to the notion of reproductive freedom.
It may be easy to get around, Sam, but not with the argument you have presented. In fact, with all due respect your argument seems so outlandish that I’m not sure where to begin composing a rebuttal. Just so that I can be sure I’m understanding you correctly, are you arguing that a 13 year old girl who has been raped and impregnated by her own father actually has to acquire his official permission before she can get an abortion? In other words, are you seriously suggesting that before she can get an abortion, she actually has to notify her father that she is carrying his child and then, only if he refuses, can she go to a Judge?
What do you think her father’s reaction to this request might be? Push her down the stairs, maybe? Suffocate her with a pillow? Far better, surely, to allow her to circumvent the risk of imminent physical harm engendered by such perilous legal requirements and have the abortion directly.
Laws allowing minors to acquire abortions without parental consent aren’t merely the result of academic liberal sociological posturing. They’re the result of necessity, of case after case of innocent children being beaten, disowned, even killed by callous and brutal parents some of whom were actually directly responsible for the pregnancies in the first place. We cannot allow the passing of laws which require children to put themselves in harms way before they can obtain otherwise legal procedures, no matter how controversial said procedures might actually be.
Hmm. Before throwing around “outlandish” with regard to his response to the incest hypothetical, we ought perhaps to consider what percentage of abortions are, in fact, related to incest. If the percentage is as vanishingly low as serious people know it to be, then perhaps it was not the response, but the initial hypothetical, that is “outlandish” as a meaningful or generaliz-able justification for the policy in support of which it was offered.
And by the time she goes through all the hoops to get herself before a judge, she’s getting closer to the time when she can no longer obtain an abortion.