I think that is exactly what that is, and in the case of good parents, it makes sense: if my 16 year old daughter were getting an abortion, I’d want to know in the same way I’d want to know if she was suddenly failing all her classes, or if she had canceror if she was being bullied at school. As a parent, I think i have some right to know thingsabout my child, to support them. A 16 year old can’t be trusted to always have good judgment about what to share.
But obviously, some parents are dangerous. So there needs to be a way to waive that.
Libel! The courts of Florida ruled that she had not proved she was mature enough to decide whether to terminate her pregnancy.
The trial court found, based on the nonadversarial presentation below, that Appellant had not established by clear and convincing evidence that she was sufficiently mature to decide whether to terminate her pregnancy.
My thought was, it’s difficult to prove anything in court without a lawyer. She declined a lawyer, and went to court with only a case worker and guardian ad litem child advocate manager.
More details from Judge Makar’s opinion,
The minor is almost seventeen years-old and parentless. She lives with a relative but has an appointed guardian. She is pursuing a GED with involvement in a program designed to assist young women who have experienced trauma in their lives by providing educational support and counseling. The minor experienced renewed trauma (the death of a friend) shortly before she decided to seek termination of her pregnancy.
[…]
I concur in affirmance of the factual findings of the trial court as well as her decision to deny the petition without prejudicing the minor from seeking relief from the trial court in coming days.
[…]
Reading between the lines, it appears that the trial court wanted to give the minor, who was under extra stress due to a friend’s death, additional time to express a keener understanding of the consequences of terminating a pregnancy. This makes some sense given that the minor, at least at one point, says she was open to having a child, but later changed her view after considering her inability to care for a child in her current station in life.
This isn’t an emancipated minor. She is in a program for girls who had experienced trauma and she had just experienced renewed trauma. She previously said she was open to having a child. State law directs judges to consider a minor’s emotional stability when determining if she is mature enough to obtain an abortion without parental consent. I can speculate, did the friend’s death make her emotionally unstable? Without a lawyer would she even know what kind of evidence is necessary to refute the suggestion? Would you need a letter from a psychologist?
The statewide abortion ban takes effect at fifteen weeks. She was ten weeks pregnant at the time of the trial court decision, and the appellate court is required to rule within a week of that. According to state law the trial court has to hear the case within 3 business days of a petition. So the window of opportunity wasn’t completely closed for her.
Medication induced abortion, however, was probably no longer an option as I don’t think they’ll do that after 11 or 12 weeks. I don’t know whether this was discussed in court or if she planned on having a medication induced abortion. My trust in the system is such that I wouldn’t rule it being completely overlooked.
The whole thing is evil. The idea that more emotional maturity is required for an abortion than for having a child is psychotic. There is no compromise with people who are this far gone. They must be defeated at the ballot box.
If the 'pubbies had their druthers, the better outcome would be that neither of them would be on public assistance because they’d cancel all public assistance programs. And that would include program that would “destroy the traditional family” such as making someone a ward of the state.
Oh, they’ll figure out a way to have her legally ineligible for any program whatsowever that would pull her, along with or even without her child, out of dire proverty. They’ll be tickled pink that she, along with or even without her child, will be yet another statistic on the “wrong side” of the balance sheet.
Well, that state law is idiotic. Having an abortion is just not that big of a deal. It happens almost a million times per year in the US.
And, as iiandyiiii notes, if the court could find that she’s not emotionally stable enough for a minor medical procedure, how will she be stable enough to raise a child?
While I agree with most here that the Florida law and these rulings are cruel, misogynist and borderline fascist, I feel compelled to point out that no one is forcing her to raise the child. Even if she’s forced to carry the baby to term, she can always give it up for adoption.
Of course, that’s another decision that requires maturity to make, but the state doesn’t seem to have any problem with that.
Yes, that major decision (raise a child?? Give a child up for adoption??) is something she can do herself. The minor decision of getting an abortion is one they take away from her.
The law is idiotic. I’m so tired of arguing all of these things on pro-life terms. “Even safe, legal, and rare” makes too much of an abortion. It’s not a big deal, especially early on, it’s safer than pregnancy, and it happens almost a million times a year. Almost 1 in 4 American women get one – that’s not rare. It’s more common for a woman to get an abortion than to be left-handed.
In this context, that is a distinction without a difference. The law clearly presumes that she is not mature enough unless she can prove otherwise.
No one thinks she is an emancipated minor. The whole entire point of this thread is to point out that the law here is utter bullshit. It makes no fucking sense for someone to be too young/immature/emotionally unstable/whatever to get an abortion, but not too ___ to have a child.
I seriously doubt she has the money for a lawyer, and this isn’t a criminal trial, so one wouldn’t be provided for her. If one would be needed for her to get an abortion, that’s anotehr fucked up thing. But, as you quote, it was supposed to be a “non-adversarial” decision—not the typical lawyers duking it out, but both sides purportedly working for what is best for the litigant.
And the fact that the judge had to consider something doesn’t obligate them to rule in any particular way. They could see the obvious issue here, that whatever “maturity” is required to get an abortion, it must apply even more so to having a child.
I’ll note that “reading between the lines” is the same thing as making an excuse for someone. If the issue was that the judge wanted to give the minor a bit of extra time to figure out if she really wanted an abortion, then that’s something to actually say in the ruling. Time is of the essence here.
No, it seems much more likely that the goal was to prevent an abortion. They found a way to do it. Her guardian—the State—didn’t want her to have an abortion, and the court was able to find a way to legally justify it.
It makes plenty of sense to say a girl is too emotionally unstable or otherwise mentally immature to make a medical decision (abortion) without parental consent, but not too physically immature to have a child. This is not a contradiction.
If you read the article, or even this thread, you would know that a lawyer is provided free of charge. The girl in this case declined the lawyer. It’s possible that asking for a lawyer would have pushed back the hearing a couple days but I would expect to see something in the opinion if that was the case.
It does not follow.
Raising a child, maybe. Having a child, no.
The trial court ruling is sealed, as are all transcripts and court filings other than the legal conclusions from the appeals court. But one of the judges on the appeals court wrote, of the trial judge’s order,
The order was “without prejudice,” the trial court stating that it “may re-evaluate its decision” in a renewed hearing for the minor to “adequately articulate her request.”
This is what “try again” looks like in legalese. Petition dismissed “without prejudice”, the court “may re-evaluate its decision” when petitioner can “adequately articulate her request”. There’s some leeway in explaining things to pro se petitioners, especially minors, but this is what it looks like on paper when it gets to the appeals court.
Yes, it is, because having a child is a decision, too. (Or, at least, it’s supposed to be.) The court is saying she’s too emotionally unstable or otherwise mentally immature to make a decision about whether to terminate her pregnancy or carry the fetus to term. Unfortunately, the default if she’s not allowed to make that decision is that she carries the fetus to term. So in effect, they’re saying she’s not capable of deciding to have the baby, either – but that’s what’s going to happen.
Let’s say you make some investments. Then weeks before the returns are due, your friend dies. You get wasted. In a haze you call up your stockbroker and tell him to pull everything. Some of the instruments aren’t mature so you would have some losses if you liquidate now, but others would sell well right now. You’re slurring your words over the phone. The stockbroker says you’re in no condition to make the decision and says to call him tomorrow morning when you’re sober.
I fail to see any contradiction in either the stockbroker or the pregnancy situation.
Those circumstances are uncomparable. Further, there’s no “not making a decision” for pregnancy. The government isn’t taking away her ability to make a decision, it’s making the decision for her. The government is forcing her to have a baby, and using an immoral justification (not sure if there’s any moral justification for forcing someone to have a baby, but this justification is profoundly immoral).
If someone is “too emotionally unstable or otherwise mentally immature to make a medical decision”, then that applies as much to having a baby as to having an abortion. Both are medical decisions.
Why did you switch from mentally immature to physically immature? If she’s too mentally immature to make a minor medical decision like having an abortion, she’s definitely and without question too mentally immature to make a giant life-changing decision like keeping or giving up a baby.
Was she drunk when she asked to get an abortion? If not, then I fail to see how your analogy suffices.
A somewhat better one would be that you and your friend decide to buy a house. Weeks before the closing date, your friend dies, and you don’t want to buy the house on your own anymore.
So, you call in the morning, when you are sober, does your stockbroker still think that his judgement is superior to yours?
No, I think the point is that it should be. After all, it’s their body.
That’s the thing. Plenty of parents punish their teenage children after discovering they’ve had sex. People disagree about the moral question, but it’s widely recognized as something parents have the legal right to do.
In this case a court-appointed guardian declined to provide consent for the girl to have an abortion. Does that person think teenagers have a moral right to have sex? Does that person think 16 year olds out of wedlock should be having sex - “deciding” to become pregnant? Probably not.
If the government wants to override the desires of an individual, minor or not, regarding a medical decision, it better have very good scientific evidence as to why this is necessary.
They had none. Not a single shred. No evidence that deciding this girl should have a child would be a better medical decision for her than her preference to abort. That’s outrageous and highly immoral.