A Debate Over Priscilla Owen’s Nomination Is Good Politics for Republicans
The nomination of Priscilla Owen gives Republicans an excellent chance to show voters what Democrats consider “outside the mainstream.” Democrats oppose Owen because she opined that a minor should have consulted her parents before getting an abortion. The minor had not claimed that her parents would abuse her if she told them beforehand. She just didn’t want them to know until afterwards.
I believe mainstream America wants their daughters to talk to them before making such a momentous decision.
I also believe that mainstream America prefers adoption to abortion. The majority opinion, from which Owen dissented, sanctioned the idea that abortion is preferable to adoption. The majority argued that adoption would be emotionally difficult for this minor, because she would become attached to the baby once it was born. This is not a mainstream position.
Here are the details:
Democrats filibustering Owen’s nomination point to this dissent by Owen in a case applying Texas’ judicial bypass law. (For further discussion, see this post.) The Jane Doe in this case was a minor who wanted to obtain an abortion without telling her parents. She did not claim that telling her parents would lead to physical, sexual, or emotional abuse. She didn’t even claim that telling them wouldn’t be in her best interest. She just said that she was sufficiently mature and well-informed to make the decision herself, without input from her parents.
The trial judge disagreed, specifically finding that Doe was not sufficiently well-informed regarding the potential consequences of her decision, and the available alternatives. The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial judge. And Justice Owen agreed as well.
This, in Democrats’ eyes, is her crime.
Understand clearly that Justice Owen did not rule that Doe was not entitled to an abortion. She simply believed that, under Texas law, Doe’s parents should be consulted beforehand. Justice Owen wrote that the trial judge who had heard Doe testify was in the best position to judge whether she was sufficiently mature and well-informed to make this decision without her parents’ input.
Owen argued that the trial judge had evidence justifying his conclusion that the minor was not sufficently mature to make this decision on her own. The record certainly seems to support this. Doe didn’t want to tell her parents in large part because she was afraid her parents would cut off her money supply:
Doe is a senior in high school and still lives at home. Her parents provide for substantially all her needs. They recently purchased a new vehicle for her use now and when she goes to college in the fall. Although some of Doe’s earnings from a part-time job help to defray the cost of insurance, Doe’s parents are paying for this vehicle. Doe also contemplates that her parents will pay for her college education. When asked why she did not want to tell either of her parents that she was pregnant and intended to have an abortion, Doe testified that it would upset them because they do not “believe in abortion.” A pregnant minor’s desire not to upset her parents is not a basis for concluding as a matter of law that she is mature. See In re T.P., 475 N.E.2d 312, 315 (Ind. 1985). But the more telling testimony is that Doe said that she feared that her parents would no longer provide financial assistance to her if they knew that she had an abortion. She testified that she intended to tell them some day that she had an abortion “when she was ready.” A reasonable inference from this testimony is that after Doe’s parents have paid most of her living, transportation, and education expenses over the next few years, she will tell them the truth, when there will be fewer consequences to face.
(All emphasis in this post is mine.)
Doe simply wanted to use an abortion as an immature way to avoid facing up to the consequences of her decision to have sex. And she didn’t want her parents to know, because they might stop paying for her expenses. A judge said she wasn’t sufficiently mature and well-informed to make this decision without talking to her parents first. Justice Owen agreed.
I think that mainstream Americans would also agree.
Justice Owen also noted the trial court’s finding (upheld by the Court of Appeals) that Doe had not been adequately advised about the alternative of adoption:
Doe did not, or was not able to, explain what she understood might be involved in an adoption. She expressed concern that if her child were placed for adoption, she would not be able to determine if it was placed in a loving home and given adequate care. Doe was clearly uninformed about the screening required before a child is placed in the home of prospective parents or the continued supervision after the child is placed. Similarly, she did not exhibit any understanding about open adoption, even though a witness from Planned Parenthood whom Doe had never met or talked to testified at the hearing that open adoption was an option.
Incredibly, the majority had been unswayed by this argument, ruling that the benefits of adoption were “immaterial.” The majority accepted the theory that adoption was not a realistic alternative for Doe, because Doe might get attached to the baby and want to keep it. Here is the appalling language of the majority opinion:
[E]ven though there may be generally recognized benefits to an alternative, those benefits must be considered in light of the minor’s particular situation. According to Doe’s testimony, adoption was not a realistic option for her because she would grow emotionally attached to the child after birth and would be unwilling to give the child up. Doe’s testimony shows that she does not perceive any benefits to carrying a baby to term in her current situation. The undeniable benefits of adoption the court of appeals identified are thus, to Doe, immaterial.
With this language, the Texas Supreme Court legitimized the reprehensible notion that abortion may be superior to adoption because it is emotionally easier on the mother. In essence, Doe had told the trial judge: “If I had the baby, I might get attached to it and want to keep it. Better to kill it.” Out of sight, out of mind.
I could be wrong, but I don’t think mainstream America thinks this is a good reason for a 17-year-old child to have an abortion.
What about the idea that the parents could raise the baby? Well, Doe apparently never considered that possibility — because she didn’t talk to her parents about it. Owen explains that the evidence in the case demonstrated that
Doe did not consider whether her parents would help her raise the child or raise it themselves if she decided to carry her baby to term. Similarly, Doe expressed concern about her ability to provide financial support for her child, but she did not indicate that she had considered whether her parents would support her and her child if she decided to have it.
The public has a right to know just how radical Democrats can be when they are bowing and scraping to the wild-eyed ideologues of the abortion lobby. So don’t shy away from this battle, Republicans. It’s an important one.
[…] bortion cases I have discussed on this blog over the past couple of days (in this post and this post): Finally, Aron claims […]
Patterico's Pontifications » John Cornyn Defends Priscilla Owen (0c6a63) — 5/13/2005 @ 2:36 am[…] non-binding resolution of support for a solid candidate like Priscilla Owen, who has been smeared by Democrats beholden to […]
Patterico's Pontifications » Republicans to Employ “Conventional Warfare Option"? (0c6a63) — 5/14/2005 @ 10:20 pmI love this site and would like you to see mine!
Righty (0d6dac) — 5/12/2005 @ 7:21 amPatterico, I agree with your sentiments on this. I would go further. That even embryos in the freezer occasioned from fertility treatment at fertility clinics, or hospitals, numbering about 1/3 of 400,000 embryos, deserve special respect. Bush had authorized $ 1 million for organizations which facilitate or have programs for embryo adoption, so that these excess embryos can be adopted by other couples seeking to have children. In CA, Nightlight Christian Adoptions has an embryo adoption program called “Snowflakes Frozen Embryo Adoption Program”.
Debates have arisen as to whether these embryos can be used for stem cell research, where after taking the stem cells, the embryos are thrown away.
At the moment, there is the general idea that it is the couple who produced or created the embryos who get to decide what to do with the excess embryos, throw them away, donate them for stem cell research, or donate them to other couples who seek to have children, or just leave them in the freezer till it is no longer viable by 5 years.
If we take the cue from Roe v Wade, then, the right to abort, so freely from a practical point of view [ subject the limitations as outlined by law], where the issue is more, whether the parents of minor should be informed first before abortion, then, the embryos have no independent right to live but are properties of the adult to do as they deem fit.
If Roe v Wade is reversed, then, IF ever the issue is the foetus has an independent right to live, then, the question would be at what stage does the foetus have such right? When the heart beat can be detected at 6 weeks? When the brain is formed? IF ever the determination is as early as successful implantation, then the issue would revert to the excess embryos in the freezers, numbering 1/3 of 400,000 whether the couples have a duty to the embryos to donate them to other couples?
Since Roe v Wade exists still today, the right to deal with the embryos as they deem fit would be absolute. However there seems a momentary singular tangential view taken that embryos are people and thus wrongful death suits for wrongful destruction of embryos, need not be dismissed. In February 2005, Judge Lawrence from Illinois, deemed embryos “people” under the Illinois Wrongful Death Act 1980 and thus declined to dismiss the wrongful death suit against the fertility clinic [ brought by the couple Alison Miller and Todd Parrish] whose employee negligently destroyed the couple’s embryos meant for storage and freezing.
On what basis can one say that embryos are people and thus destroyed embryos are deceased people, where wrongful death suits can sustain? Apart from saying its there in the state statute, or the interpretation of it as taken by Judge Lawrence, it would be on the assumption that with fertilization within the womb or in the test tubes as in fertility clinics, there is a person because the “soul” has entered the fertilized embryo. The soul is an entity that science cannot admit, for it cannot be measured physically.
If there is a soul, would the soul enter at fertilization between the sperm and egg or on implantation of the embryo after a few days in the test tubes, or later? Or does the soul enter the embryo slowly, bit by bit than all at once? All these questions would aid towards determining our “social” sense of “person” even if “legal” person is on birth, whether in natural course of full term gestation or premature birth after 20 -22 weeks, when the fetus can survive outside the womb?
If the soul enters all at once, then the 400,000 embryos currently stored in fertility clinics and hospitals are 400,000 persons.
Why are there 400,000 embryos? Women produce 1 egg monthly but with numerous fertility hormone injections, they can produce multiple eggs between 10-20 eggs that month, which are extracted under some form of anesthesia, and then fertilized with the husband’s sperms, thus producing 10-20 embryos. As the treatment is expensive ranging $ 15,000 -25,000 depending on whether there is donor egg or other special techniques, one would try to produce as many eggs and embryos as possible, so that, the couple can maximize their chance of pregnancy. Each implantation, without anesthesia, is between 1-3 embryos so that if successful, there could be between one child to triplets. If not successful, then the next 1-3 embryos are implanted. If need be all are used and further fertility round is needed which means another payment of $$$ . If successful earlier, then is EXCESS embryos, as the couple have the child they want or enough children. There are thus 400,000 embryos in clinics with 1/3 of these 400,000 considered unwanted for pregnancy of the original couple, with 2/3 of them still ear marked for use. Embryos can last 5 years unlike sperms that can last more than 20 years in the freezer, while eggs cannot be stored at all.
It is this 1/3 of 400,000 that is the subject of Congress granting $ 1 million in grants to organizations to deal with adoption of these excess embryos.
Just my two cent’s for these 1/3 of 400,000 embryos or persons as Judge Lawrence calls them 🙂
Yi-Ling (9ff2fa) — 5/12/2005 @ 8:26 amI am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that appeals courts can rarely challenge or even revisit the findings of facts in lower courts. So, if the original judge found that, based on the evidence, the girl was not sufficiently mature to make the decision on her own, then I am not sure that the appeals court can even revisit this conclusion — instead, if they overrule, it must be because of some error in procedure or interpretation of the law.
By the way, law for minors is a totally separate category than for adults. There are many many things we can make decisions on as adults that we never ever allow minors to do. Take drinking alcoholic beverages, which one could argue is more constitutionally protected (via the 21st ammendment) than abortion, and we dont allow minors to indulge. For god sakes, many states require parental permision before a minor can go to a tanning salon.
Coyote (22a512) — 5/12/2005 @ 9:13 amThis isn’t about abortion, really. It’s about whether Judge Owen is so far divorced from the mainstream that she is unqualified to be a Federal appeals judge. Reasonable people disagree on abortion, and most are of several minds about it.
What is clear from this summary is that not only is Judge Owen’s decision smack dab in the middle-case position of ambiguity that 60% of the population subscribes to, but that it is her critics that are on the fringe.
It is a bit sad that the public tug-of-war between the free-secret-abortions-everywhere crowd and the no-abortions-ever-for-any-reason group colors so much of our political life when the vast middle is so completely tired of the battle.
When those taking extreme positions complain that a judge who takes a popular middle ground is “outside the mainstream”, one can only roll one’s eyes and wonder what color the sky is in their world.
Kevin Murphy (6a7945) — 5/12/2005 @ 9:20 amLots of info and analysis on Justice Owen…
…over at Patterico’s Pontifications here and here.
From the first link above:
The Unalienable Right (7a057a) — 5/12/2005 @ 10:24 amThe most important post you will read all year about Priscilla Owen is here, at Power Line. The post debunks the most commonly repeated canard about Owen: that Alberto…
As a personal anecdote, when I was seventeen years and 9 months old, my lung collapsed. I wasn’t in an accident of any kind, and waited an entire day after first feeling the symptoms (difficulty breathing) before going to the doctor’s office (alone).
When I had my x-ray performed, and the doctor realized how serious my condition was (I could have died within the day if nothing was done), I was checked into an emergency room. Thing was, because I was still a minor, the doctor wouldn’t perform the surgery without my parent’s written consent.
This, to me is what is so asinine about the NOW/NARAL position on parental consent. I could not even have an emergency life saving procedure done until my parents okayed it, and if my parents had been crackpot nutjobs I would in all likeliehood be buried in a cemetary right now. And yet, NOW and NARAL believe an exception should be made solely in the case of an entirely ELECTIVE operation. There is no logical basis for this position.
Sean P (256007) — 5/12/2005 @ 11:04 amSean P., are you claiming your doctor was legally prohibited from performing a emergency life saving procedure without your parent’s consent? I find this hard to believe and suspect your doctor had other reasons (like wanting to get paid) for his stance.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 5/12/2005 @ 11:37 amJames,
Sean’s point was that it could be done–reason immaterial.
The hypocrisy of this situation is entirely political.
Paul Deignan (17b779) — 5/12/2005 @ 11:55 amPaul Deignan, what hypocrisy? As far as I know, a doctor can refuse to perform an abortion on a minor unless she has her parent’s permission.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 5/12/2005 @ 12:18 pmAs far as I know, a doctor can refuse to perform an abortion on a minor unless she has her parent’s permission.
What does that have to do with anything?
Gerald A (bdfba2) — 5/12/2005 @ 3:21 pmGerald A., that is analogous to Sean P’s doctor refusing to operate on him without his parent’s permission.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 5/12/2005 @ 3:46 pmLots of info and analysis on Justice Owen…
…over at Patterico’s Pontifications here and here.
From the first link above:
The Unalienable Right (7a057a) — 5/12/2005 @ 4:03 pmThe most important post you will read all year about Priscilla Owen is here, at Power Line. The post debunks the most commonly repeated canard about Owen: that Alberto…
It’s also good evidence of her immaturity.
Teri (afca91) — 5/12/2005 @ 8:11 pmOn the issue of parental notice in Texas, just comparing with other states’ statutory provisions on this point alone :-): no requirement, OR requirement of parental notice, OR requirement of parental consent:-
Texas- notification to 1 parent
Alabama-consent of 1 parent
Yi-Ling (2db1f2) — 5/12/2005 @ 8:34 pmCalifornia- consent of 1 parent
Delaware- notification to 1 parent
Florida- notification to 1 parent
Kansas- notification to 1 parent
Massachusetts- consent of 1 parent
New York- no mention – so no “such” restriction as in other states
Oregon- no mention – so no “such” restriction as in other states
Wyoming- no mention – so no “such” restriction as in other states
In Texas, parental notice means :
“A young woman may not obtain an abortion until at least 48 hours after actual notice has been delivered, in person or by telephone, by the attending physician to one parent, unless the parent waives notice by a affidavit. If actual notice is not possible after a reasonable effort, 48 hours constructive notice by certified mail must be given. If notice is delivered by certified mail, the 48-hour period begins to run at the time of mailing.”
In each state which requires parental notice, they prescribe their own statutory meaning of “parental notice” 🙂
In Delaware : “A young woman may not obtain an abortion until 24 hours actual notice has been given by the physician, an agent of the physician, or a medically authorized person to one parent.”
In Florida: “young woman may not obtain an abortion until at least 48 hours after actual notice is given in person or by telephone by the attending physician to one parent. If actual notice is not possible after a reasonable effort has been made, 48 hours constructive notice by certified mail must be given. If notice is given by certified mail, the 48-hour period begins to run at the time of the mailing. Parental notice is not required if it is waived in writing by the person entitled to notice. The young woman may waive notice if she is or has been married, if she has had the disability of non-age removed by a court, or if she has a minor dependent child.”
In Kansas: “A young woman under age 18 may not obtain an abortion until actual notice has been given by the attending physician to one parent unless the person entitled to notice provides written, notarized waiver of notice.”
The above are quoted from link suggested by Sean P. in his Post No. 6.
Yi-Ling (2db1f2) — 5/12/2005 @ 8:45 pmSo, in Texas, she must give notice to one of her parents , failing which
“Maturity” is hard to define as what we would do when in our teens we might not do when in our twenties, and what we might do when in our twenties, we might not do when in our thirties, and what we might do when in our thirties we might not want to do when in our forties.
It is mature to go aim for college for a better material life, and if that means putting off child raising, that is one form of maturity for a youth. It is even more mature, no doubt, to respect the birth process in case of unwanted pregnancies and give birth, whether to put the baby for adoption or care for the child or seek parent’s help to care for the child.
Those [hers in the case] might be mature thoughts for a youth but maybe not for an older adult , like her parents, or younger ones with a spiritual bend.
However, in absence of clear reason, trial court findings should not be overturned, even though I find it IFFY as to whether she is mature to decide on abortion, as she did express clear ideas about how to go about providing for her future with college education.
If we imagine lying on our death-beds, we might make certain decisions that we otherwise would not make. This spiritual exercise is used by some religious, to determine what to do in difficult decisions.
This case, boils down to whether society should allow youth to make decisions according to their age of maturity, or the maturity as appropriate for their age, or whether we should impose our “wisdom” on them, by requiring them to conform to our notions of mature action of adoption over abortion.
Yi-Ling (2db1f2) — 5/12/2005 @ 9:04 pmThis goes to the root issue, at what point do we confer legal personhood on the developing embryo and fetus. Baby connotes personhood. Pro choice consider the issue is legal personhood at birth, while pro life consider conception or 14 days after conception, for the personhood in becoming to arise. In a society with a theistic backdrop, the notion of “soul” enters this discourse. It is as if the entry of the ‘soul” makes the bundle complete and just waiting to develop further and be born. Atheists if they reject “soul” would then look at the entity as it is, whether a person as we see babies or toddlers and if not, there is no killing of such entity.
I take an extreme position personally that even if impregnated from a rape, I would carry the fetus to full term and raise the child as our own, issues of criminal charge against the rapist aside. For his crime, he should be dealt with under the law, but the child came to me, and it is for me and my husband to decide what to do. Being spiritually inclined, we would keep the child, no matter what color the child is and love the child as our own, even though I am ethnically Chinese and my husband ethnically Caucasoid with Italian, English, Irish, Scottish, French, Dutch roots. No Dafyyd, I do not know Carol Herman who does seem to have a German type family name.
Now I turn to Jane Doe case. She is concerned about being on the bullet train to material success with a college education. It seems sensible in a society where college education is a passport to a good life. We are responsible for the conditions in society that impel a youth to think she should not miss out on timely early college education, even if that means aborting the fetus. We are responsible for the sexual tintillations that arouse their sexual curiosity as well as passions, by the media, the rules we set on dating. Yet we expect the youth to hark good advice to keep away from sex till marriage, less she be impregnated through slips in contraceptives or non use of contraceptives in sudden heat of passion.
So Jane Doe is faulted for not having known of pre adoption screening or open adoption where she can know who the adoptee parents are and visit her child given to them. But she knows of that at the hearing, and she still proceeds with her intent to abort. This is just knowledge or counseling knowledge that she could have either known from her own prior research or from some counselor or her parents or the judge or friends of the court.
Step outside the box, and ponder where we should draw the line:
Focus on prevention of pregnancies
(1) forbid free intermingling between the sexes – that prevents meeting and thus friendship and thus love and then lovemaking and thus unwanted untimely pregnancies
(2) remove all tintillating arousing suggestive materials on media internet posters magazines – censorship – that prevents ideas developing of lovemaking as expression of youthful passion for recreational purposes than reproductive purpose
Focus on carrying to term of pregnancies
(3) prohibit abortion – that is currently out with Roe v Wade
(4) allow abortion but for minors’ abortion , impose parental consent
(5) allow abortion but for minors’ abortion, dispense with parental consent but impose parental notification by doctor
(6) allow abortion but for minors’ abortion, neither require parental consent nor parental notification by doctor
The line has shifted from (1) over long stretch of time to either (4) or (5) or (6) from state to state as each state legislature thinks fit for their state.
Underlying theme of (1) to (6) is whose view of morality should prevail?
Society or individual?
Society means ? Common morality of simple majority of society ?
If we think that it is better for adoption than abortion, because its either (1) to (6) or any of them or any other reason/s:
(a) our spiritual sentiments there is life that has the potential to be born a baby and attain legal personhood on birth
(b) our “spiritual” type sentiments that the female youth who has sex should assume the spiritual responsibility of carrying any unwanted pregnancies to full term for adoption, if she does not want to care for the child herself
(c) our economic sentiments that increased births would help balance percentages of the young, working and aged , so that there is enough to provide for the support of ageing segment using social security
(d) our economic sentiments that bigger population is good for the economy where some EU countries face zero population growth
(e) our economic sentiments than increase the numbers of costly international adoption from Eastern Europe and China and elsewhere, the focus should be on adoption of unwanted impregnancies and adoption of excess embryos sitting and freezing in fertility clinics or being destroyed by fertility clinic on instruction of patient
(f) our “penal” type sentiments that the female youth who has sex should assume the maternal responsibility of carrying any unwanted pregnancies to full term for adoption, if she does not want to care for the child herself
So on the last frontier of (5) [allow abortion but for minors’ abortion, dispense with parental consent but impose parental notification by doctor ] the battle is being waged heatedly as to what absence of parental notification with presence of judicial bypass means? Judicial bypass has to pass muster with morality of 50.01% of the population?
So those in society who think far and long term would lean to adoption to abortion, and look for long terms of gain of society and the pregnant female minor, and thus their views of morality , read “ their maturity” is the “pregnant minor’s desired maturity” should prevail. [“She must secure a court order finding by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) she is mature and sufficiently well informed to make her own decision; (2) parental notice is not in her best interests; or (3) parental notice may lead to physical, sexual, or emotional abuse of the minor.” ]
I pause to ask you to ponder why different states require different things from this errant pregnant minor- (i) no requirement of parental notice or consent or (ii) requirement of parental notice but not parental consent or (iii) requirement of parental consent .
Is this difference a reflection of legislative intent? It has to be.
So there are different legislative intents on handling errant pregnant minor as to whether she can make that decision to abort on her own and whether there needs be enquiry into the issue whether is “mature and sufficiently well informed to make her own decision”.
Seen in this light, what is meant by the legislative “mature” ? That she should have the maturity of more responsible and far sighted adults? No. It has to be her maturity as determined for people of her age. Are they responsible for making a good life for themselves where they can take care of themselves? Yes, that is all even if it means she will make a decision that we find unpalatable, which is abort than adopt. We give our youths this decision, to do it right or wrong and live the consequences of their choice. If we want to take away from our youths this choice, we simply do as some as states do, impose parental consent and not just parental notification. So if mommy or daddy says no, that’s it, for you errant pregnant lass. Mommy and daddy will take care of the consequences and help you take care of the consequences as a family.
I would like Jane Doe to get her parent’s consent and if they want to keep the fetus, then Jane Doe should toe the line, but I respect what her Texas state deliberated and required, and on further examination, I do think she is “mature and sufficiently well informed to make her own decision” even though she does not have the maturity of say 50.01% of the populace and even though I do sincerely think it is probable one day when she is much much older she may regret her choice then. But we live and are free to make mistakes and have take responsibility for them whether we like it or not, and UNLESS the law as passed by legislatures says that morality or sexual morality is prescribed as this and that, then she is free to exercise her own understanding of her brand of morality, so long as she stays within the boundaries of the law on pain of being penalized for going out of the boundaries of the law.
Just my two cents , Patterico to your fine piece and your sequel.
Yi-Ling (86234c) — 5/12/2005 @ 11:13 pmJust The Facts I
Joust The Facts (af7df9) — 5/13/2005 @ 4:18 amA couple of pieces worth reading. Patterico discusses what’s got liberals’ undies in a bunch over Appeals Court nominee Priscilla Owen.
Now it’s been decided by the state legislatures and one needs to see which state says what.
I like that idea, but unfortunately the real situation, the legal situation, is, where minors need no parental consent or where doctor doing the surgery is not required to notify minor’s parent, then, it’s the preference of the minor that counts.
One should get down to the actual phraseology and statutory provision and see if the court can allow minor to abort, if she satisfies one limb than all the limbs. If statutory construction is that its enough that “she was sufficiently mature and well-informed to make the decision herself” then its enough.
Could it be that, unless there is a decision to adopt, anything less, that goes for abortion, even if it means schooling can continue un-interrupted and progress to college is smooth, is not matured?
Take 1 step back and if Jane Doe is 18 years and 1 day old, when she sought abortion, she would not be subject to this rule of parental notice in Texas. She is still unmarried, she is still schooling and planning to go to college and thus she opts to abort. What’s the difference with the real Jane Doe who is 17 at the time? Just a fee months maybe. [ I raise this example because the 18 yr 1 day old Jane Doe would be considered matured making the decision to defer raising child until she finished college and is ready to settle down to family life. ]
Why does a few months make such a difference? Because we have this idea that children are infants and not capable of giving consent. They have no legal capacity. Okay, if we follow that, why was abortion exempt from the general notion of infancy?
So first (1) is there a general legal incapacity for minors? (2) If yes, is abortion within the general incapacity? (3) If is abortion within the general incapacity, without parental intervention, why was abortion excluded from such general incapacity?
I am just trying to retrace the steps backwards to see, where the river split into two tributaries, if it did…
Yi-Ling (ba1381) — 5/13/2005 @ 6:28 amIf maturity requires opting for adoption than abortion, then it presupposes that the minor or even adult would respect the birth process and always carry a pregnancy to full term. In an ideal world, where there are no pressing pull in opposite direction, it is a honorable thing to do, a spiritual thing to do, a charitable thing to do, to carry to full term and give up the child for adoption, whether open adoption or otherwise.
Always carrying a pregnancy to full term would mean adopting a spiritual view that “soul” has entered the fetus and the fetus is just waiting to develop like a toddler waits to develop to a grown up man or woman.
What then do we do with those who think there is no soul?
What’s the best way, if there was no Roe v Wade? Each state legislature decide whether abortion is lawful and on what basis or terms?
Yi-Ling (ba1381) — 5/13/2005 @ 6:37 amSuch judicial inroads to legislative acts is the root problem. “it must also provide an alternative procedure to procure authorization if parental consent is denied or the minor does not want to seek it” is an affront to parenthood and responsibilities of parenthood. It is also an affront to separation of powers.
I would object to this “In the Minnesota case, the Court held 5 to 4 that a state requirement for notice to be given to both parents prior to a minor’s having an abortion was unconstitutional unless the state legislature provided for an alternative hearing in court, i. e., a judicial bypass procedure.”
What makes it unconstitutional?
If it is unconstitutional to require notification to both parents, it is also unconstitutional per se to require judicial bypass, for it means substituting one set of “authority” to give the green light for abortion, over another set of authority.
What gives the court to right to say, what “guideline” they impose is “constitutional” but the guideline that the state legislature of parents impose is unconstitutional? None except judicial activism as to what set of morality should govern the day. The morality of the parents or the state or the minor.
Sorry, it makes no sense for the parents to fund finance support the child and the child goes and make a decision that the child thinks right and still continue to receive family financing. Parents have the right to say, if you want, to do, that, do it on your own steam and there will be no more financing for you. Judges take away the right when they strike down state statutes where both parents notification is needed, and judges make law and take the place of legislatures when they insist you can have both parents notification but there must be judicial bypass.
Yi-Ling (ba1381) — 5/13/2005 @ 7:10 amTEXAS FAMILY CODE, CHAPTER 33. NOTICE OF ABORTION
§ 33.001. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter: (i) The court shall determine by a preponderance of the evidence whether the minor is mature and sufficiently well informed to make the decision to have an abortion performed without notification to either of her parents or a managing conservator or guardian, whether notification would not be in the best interest of the minor, or whether notification may lead to physical, sexual, or emotional abuse of the minor. If the court finds that the minor is mature and sufficiently well informed, that notification would not be in the minor’s best interest, or that notification may lead to physical, sexual, or emotional abuse of the minor, the court shall enter an order authorizing the minor to consent to the performance of the abortion without notification to either of her parents or a managing conservator or guardian and shall execute the required forms. http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/fa.toc.htm
The word “or” appears to be designed to be read DISJUNCTIVELY and thus, proof of any ONE of the THREE exceptions would legislatively suffice for the judicial bypass to come to play. This disjunctive reading was contended by Jane Doe and addressed by the justices and I do not see where it is argued that, it is a conjunctive reading, which is that ALL three limbs need to come to play, for judicial bypass to come in.
Disjunctive reading : whether the minor is mature and sufficiently well informed to make the decision to have an abortion performed without notification to either of her parents or a managing conservator or guardian, [OR] whether notification would not be in the best interest of the minor, or [OR] whether notification may lead to physical, sexual, or emotional abuse of the minor.
Conjunctive reading: whether the minor is mature and sufficiently well informed to make the decision to have an abortion performed without notification to either of her parents or a managing conservator or guardian, [AND ] whether notification would not be in the best interest of the minor, or [AND ] whether notification may lead to physical, sexual, or emotional abuse of the minor.
A conjunctive reading would defeat legislative intent if the notification would lead to physical, sexual, or emotional abuse of the minor, even IF the minor is mature and sufficiently well informed to make the decision to have an abortion performed.
Yi-Ling (e9a26f) — 5/13/2005 @ 8:40 pm