It’s not white-knighting if I’m presenting my own opinions. I agreed with the ruling in the OP, I think it was the right ruling for the judge to make. I disagreed with the ruling from the trial judge in the Guardian article, and that judge was, coincidentally, voted out of office.
The underlying statute is, I think, not so great. But also not terrible enough to warrant a label of fascism.
~Max
The principle of separation of powers implies that the legislature and the courts stand on equal footing. The courts will interpret the statutes with a measure of deference and respect to the legislature - in particular, they will assume that the legislature is not just writing fluff when it says “consider these factors”.
The law at hand basically tells the courts to consider a number of factors when determining if a girl is mature enough to decide whether to obtain an abortion:
The minor’s:
a. Age.
b. Overall intelligence.
c. Emotional development and stability.
d. Credibility and demeanor as a witness.
e. Ability to accept responsibility.
f. Ability to assess both the immediate and long-range consequences of the minor’s choices.
g. Ability to understand and explain the medical risks of terminating her pregnancy and to apply that understanding to her decision.
Whether there may be any undue influence by another on the minor’s decision to have an abortion.
Now, you are arguing that every single minor has sufficient emotional development and stability. You come to this conclusion a priori, because it takes some minimal emotional development and stability to actually give birth, without harming the mother’s mental health. And surely the law doesn’t prefer to harm the mother’s mental health? (I disagree with you on that. I say the law clearly does so. I am not willing to bend the laws to be moral.)
If what you argue is true, the legislature was pretty stupid to include emotional development and stability as a criteria. So the courts will, as a matter of principle, not interpret it that way. You may as well say any minor who is old enough to have a child is old enough to decide for herself to get an abortion. That argument will never fly in court.
It is implied, from the text of the statute itself, that it is possible for a minor to lack the requisite age or emotional development/stability.
~Max
Almost definitely. The appeals court must issue their decision within 7 days, or else the appeal is automatically granted.
~Max
A good judge will make whatever legal argument is necessary to do the right thing. That’s already how it works (at least, judges already do what they feel like as long as they believe they can wrap it up in sufficiently convincing legalese), so they might as well do the moral thing.
Be that as it may, my two cents is that I don’t think your argument is legal. In fact the judge didn’t use your argument, not even the dissenter.
~Max
Well, he didn’t say he was using it…
If I as a parent decide that my child in not emotionally mature enough to go through the rigors of pregnancy and giving birth, do I have the authority to make the decision that I believe is her best interest by forcing her to have an abortion even though she doesn’t want one? Should you as the state stand in my way?
You don’t seriously think the court is going to let this poor girl make the decision herself as to keep or give up the child she’s forced to carry to term, do you? And there’s no way the family’s going to have a say after their “absymal failure in preventing her from having sex and getting pregnant”.
@Max_S appears incapable of exercising his own moral judgment. He is the sort of person we must have laws for. Unfortunately, some of those laws aren’t very good.
ISTM that if she’s not mature enough to make the decision to abort, she’s not mature enough to make the decision to NOT abort.
As far as I can tell, no, you can’t. Which is weird, right? How is a minor not emotionally mature enough to choose an abortion, but still emotionally mature enough to choose to have a child?
@Max_S, thanks for laying out your arguments so clearly, but again, you miss the point of this Pit thread which is to express outrage at this. I definitely include the anti-choice Florida legislature in my outrage. And, judges definitely have the authority to allow these children to choose an abortion, and should, in most cases, do so (in my opinion). If someone is not ready for a kid, their parents shouldn’t be allowed to stand in their way.
Maybe, and it depends on which sense of “should”, respectively.
The Florida Constitution, article X, section 22, reads:
The Legislature shall not limit or deny the privacy right guaranteed to a minor under the United States Constitution as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court. Notwithstanding a minor’s right of privacy provided in Section 23 of Article I, the Legislature is authorized to require by general law for notification to a parent or guardian of a minor before the termination of the minor’s pregnancy. The Legislature shall provide exceptions to such requirement for notification and shall create a process for judicial waiver of the notification.
And we saw how the legislature took that and enacted 390.01114. As far as I know the federal government does not abridge parental authority to force medical treatments on their children against their wishes, except in the cases of female genital mutilation or controlled substances.
Look at Fla. stat. 390.0111(3):
A termination of pregnancy may not be performed or induced except with the voluntary and informed written consent of the pregnant woman or, in the case of a mental incompetent, the voluntary and informed written consent of her court-appointed guardian.
Back to your questions. Is this something the parents have authority to do? Maybe. Is the minor child a “mental incompetent”? If so, her consent is not required. If not, her consent is required. This is something you would have to determine on a case by case basis under the so called “mature minor” doctrine, essentially the court asks if the minor is mature enough to decide for herself. Really it’s the same thing that goes into judicial bypass, as enshrined in 390.01114.
For another example of mature minor, see the case of Cassandra C. in Colorado, age 17, forced to undergo chemotherapy against her (and her mother’s) wishes. (The state actually took custody of the child to force her to undergo treatment.)
The situation you describe is unlikely to generate case law because it is highly immoral if not illegal, and the abortion clinic would simply refuse to perform the abortion. Forcing a woman to have an abortion against her will is particularly unethical in the medical profession, far far moreso than refusing to provide an abortion. What happens instead is that the girl provides consent under duress (unknkown to the abortion provider) - the parents will threaten to make her life miserable, cut off all ties, to throw her out the minute it is legal to do so, and similar psychological or potentially physical abuse.
Is this something where the state should step in? I said it depends. For one thing, the state certainly has a compelling interest in protecting the unborn child. People can disagree as to whether all unborn children deserve protection, but I think we can all agree to protect those that are wanted by the mother. This same interest justifies the homicide law, 782.09. But that law doesn’t apply to anything in chapter 390, and my read of 390 as written sometimes gives parents the authority to force an abortion. We could, and should, change the law. But until it is changed, we have to look elsewhere to justify the state stepping in.
Elsewhere means child abuse laws, which is chapter 827 in the Florida Statutes. It is a third degree felony to knowingly or willfully abuse a child without causing great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement. Abuse is defined to include any intentional act that could reasonably be expected to result in physical or mental injury. I would think forced abortion can be reasonably expected to cause mental injury, at least. If the child is permanently disfigured or disabled, for example if a side effect of surgery is permanent infertility, it becomes a first degree felony.
And of course, if the minor’s parent is the natural father of her unborn child, that would be incest (3rd degree felony) and rape (2nd degree felony).
The problem is that until someone tips off the state, there’s no basis for the state to get involved. As I wrote above the minor probably isn’t being dragged into the clinic kicking and screaming murder. And we don’t have state officials interviewing every minor who seeks an abortion - I’m thinking that wouldn’t be a good idea. There are mandatory reporting laws under Chapter 39 which cover anybody who knows of or reasonably suspects abuse, even the people in the clinic. But obviously, that doesn’t catch every case. So overall, should the state stand in your way? I say it depends. If the state knows you are forcing a girl to obtain an abortion against her will, it should step in.
~Max
No. Just no. Do you not have any idea how wrong the idea of “rewiring” the brain to make women love their offspring is?
Women are not Stepford Wives who suddenly change overnight, if the mother didn’t want the child before being forced into giving birth, she isn’t going to want it later. Why do you think Child Protective Services exists? The magic of birth really isn’t a thing, humans don’t run on instinct like dogs do.
I could be wrong, and I didn’t say rewired overnight, but let me show you a piece I read in The Atlantic years ago,
Even before a woman gives birth, pregnancy tinkers with the very structure of her brain, several neurologists told me. After centuries of observing behavioral changes in new mothers, scientists are only recently beginning to definitively link the way a woman acts with what’s happening in her prefrontal cortex, midbrain, parietal lobes, and elsewhere. Gray matter becomes more concentrated. Activity increases in regions that control empathy, anxiety, and social interaction. On the most basic level, these changes, prompted by a flood of hormones during pregnancy and in the postpartum period, help attract a new mother to her baby. In other words, those maternal feelings of overwhelming love, fierce protectiveness, and constant worry begin with reactions in the brain.
Mapping the maternal brain is also, many scientists believe, the key to understanding why so many new mothers experience serious anxiety and depression. An estimated one in six women suffers from postpartum depression, and many more develop behaviors like compulsively washing hands and obsessively checking whether the baby is breathing. […]
~Max
I understand that some women have floods of hormones and just lovelovelove their new babies.
I also think that most of the women in that study were volunteers who wanted to be pregnant and have babies. I seriously doubt that any women who did not want to be pregnant would have allowed themselves to be in such a study.
This is not what happens with all women and it is offensive to me that you think all women are cut from the same fabric.
I guess that’s worth looking into. I didn’t bother to do a deep dive since it seemed well written, I trust the publication, and it makes sense to me. I’ll get back to you.
It would be great if you had something to back your assertion up, assuming you are asserting that not all women’s brains are flooded with hormones during pregnancy and rewired to encourage attachment. But if you don’t, that’s ok too.
~Max
Well, @Max_S has turned this thread into The Max_S Show, so it was fun reading it before he came in and started kissing the ass of the Florida legislature. But since he’s just our latest in a long line of people who make any thread about them, my enjoyment is over. I’ll show myself out.
The particular study actually cited in that article concerned 22 women who had already given birth. They were looking at brain scans of the mothers when shown pictures of babies faces, including their own babies.
It does not say whether or not the women wanted to be pregnant in the first place, but it does say only 7 were known to be primaparus (and 1 of unknown parity status), all women were aged 25-35, and they were recruited straight from a maternity ward in Hamilton, Ontario.
The women were administered a few tests: the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale, the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-Trait Version, and the Parenting Stress Index- Short Form. It’s possible that the questions on these forms may be able to tell researchers whether any of the women didn’t want to be pregnant, but those results aren’t published - only the relationships between the brain scans and the final scores, especially the ones associated with postpartum maternal anxiety and depression.
Of note, the background section presents as fact that
“Over the course of pregnancy and throughout the postpartum period, changes in levels of certain hormones likely influence the function of key brain regions to increase the likelihood that a mother is attracted to her baby, is attentive and sensitive to her baby’s needs, learns from her experiences, and behaves appropriately. While women are born with the neuroanatomy to support mothering, there are a number of proximal and distal factors that can influence or interact with the development or functioning of maternal brain systems and the expression and quality of maternal behavior. These factors include early experience, stress, and genetic background (Barrett & Fleming, 2011).”
And in the conclusion,
“Interestingly, a recent study by Gamer, Zurowski, and Büchel (2010) found that the administration of oxytocin, a neuropeptide important in attachment and bonding, enhanced the response of the lateral amygdala to happy adult facial expressions (Gamer et al., 2010). Not surprisingly, the region of the amygdala more responsive to own positive infant faces in our group of mothers was restricted to the basolateral region.”
The important takeaway from the study is that the greater amygdala lights up when the mothers in the study saw pictures of their own babies. Even if all of the subjects wanted their pregancies that wouldn’t detract from The Atlantic article’s reliance on that study.
Barrett, J., & Fleming, A. S. (2011). Annual research review:
All mothers are not created equal: Neural and psychobiological
perspectives on mothering and the importance of
individual differences. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 52(4), 368–397. doi:
10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02306.x[…]
Gamer, M., Zurowski, B., & Büchel, C. (2010).
Different amygdala subregions mediate valencerelated
and attentional effects of oxytocin in humans.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of
the United States of America, 107(20), 9400–9405. doi:
10.1073/pnas.1000985107
Going back to The Atlantic article, “several neurologists told” Ms. LaFrance that “Even before a woman gives birth, pregnancy tinkers with the very structure of her brain.” This is reported as established fact.
One brain researcher in particular, Ruth Feldman, claims 1) that maternal oxytocin is responsible for maternal-infant bonding across all mammalian species, and 2) that maternal oxytocin levels surge during human pregnancy. No study is cited for these claims, just her expert opinion.
The article also makes a third claim, without a citation so far as I can tell, 3) that the greater amygdala has a high concentration of receptors for hormones like oxytocin. To some extent this is supported by the way the above study cites Gamer et al.
Wikipedia documents the relationship between birthing and oxytocin and maternal bonding as fact. You can’t get much closer to proven causality than this:
Uterine contraction: important for cervical dilation before birth, oxytocin causes contractions during the second and third stages of labor.[63]
[…]
Female rats given oxytocin antagonists after giving birth do not exhibit typical maternal behavior [85]. By contrast, virgin female sheep show maternal behavior toward foreign lambs upon cerebrospinal fluid infusion of oxytocin, which they would not do otherwise [86]. Oxytocin is involved in the initiation of human maternal behavior, not its maintenance; for example, it is higher in mothers after they interact with unfamiliar children rather than their own [87].
[…]
References (click to show/hide)
[63] MacGill M. “What is oxytocin, and what does it do?”. Medical News Today. Heath Line Media. Retrieved March 29, 2017.
[85] van Leengoed E, Kerker E, Swanson HH (February 1987). “Inhibition of post-partum maternal behaviour in the rat by injecting an oxytocin antagonist into the cerebral ventricles”. The Journal of Endocrinology. 112 (2): 275–282. doi:10.1677/joe.0.1120275. PMID 3819639.
[86] Kendrick KM (December 2004). “The neurobiology of social bonds”. Journal of Neuroendocrinology. British Society for Neuroendocrinology. 16 (12): 1007–1008. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2826.2004.01262.x. PMID 15667456. S2CID 21635457. Archived from the original on 2009-04-29. Retrieved 2009-04-13.
[87] Bick J, Dozier M (January 2010). “Mothers’ and Children’s Concentrations of Oxytocin Following Close, Physical Interactions with Biological and Non-biological Children”. Developmental Psychobiology. 52 (1): 100–107.
And from a different Wikipedia page,
production of oxytocin increases with growth of fetus.[2]
[…]
"Reference (click to show/hide)
Nomura S, Ito T, Yamamoto E, Sumigama S, Iwase A, Okada M, Shibata K, Ando H, Ino K, Kikkawa F, Mizutani S (2005). “Gene regulation and physiological function of placental leucine aminopeptidase/oxytocinase during pregnancy”. Biochim. Biophys. Acta. 1751 (1): 19–25. doi:10.1016/j.bbapap.2005.04.006. PMID 15894523.
This last study, linking oxytocin production with the growth of the fetus, is the one I would be most interested in ruling out a sample bias of only women who want to be pregnant. But reading the paper, it is a review article and not an experiment itself. It is a comprehensive review of how oxytocin is regulated during pregnancy, down to genetic sequences responsible for the regulatory enzyme. Some of these underlying studies are based on cloned complementary DNA sequences from placental cell libraries. The mechanism for regulating oxytocin in the fetal-placental-maternal unit seems to be well understood. What a particular woman ‘wants’ is irrelevant at this low level.
In short all of the premises from The Atlantic article seem to be well supported. At this point I shift the burden of proof back to you.
~Max
Even if “all women’s brain are flooded with hormones during pregnancy,” human beings are complex machines and no one has ever shown that hormones of any sort are a single overriding factor in human behavior. It’s not like putting gasoline in a car to make it run (and even gasoline alone doesn’t guarantee the car will run). So using this to justify this Procrustean ruling is specious at best.
Edit in response to your post re: the study:
An interesting study, but one small part of it invalidates your premise:
all women were aged 25-35,
This girl is 16.
Because the experiments necessary to prove that directly would usually be wildly unethical. No ethics panel is going to approve messing with a human mother’s ability to care for her children.
(Aside: Complex machines are made of simple parts - some of which are like putting gasoline in a car to make it run. Hormones are a form of messaging and they have physiological function. For example if you give a pregnant woman the right dosage of oxytocin hormones she will go into labor. This hormone causes uterine contractions. It’s been used to induce labor since 1927.)
If you’re suggesting that the amygdala region of the brain changes dramatically in function between ages 16 and 25-35, such that it is less sensitive to raging hormones during teenage years, I would need evidence from you.
~Max