It's okay if they can't get parental consent. They can just go before a judge to get it. Or... maybe not so much....
QuoteA Nebraska teenager in foster care was denied access to an abortion, because the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled she wasn't mature enough to make that decision on her own, according to a court opinion published this month.
"It's a very unique case," the young woman's lawyer, Catherine Mahern, told ABCNews.com. "It's OK for her to relinquish her child for adoption. She doesn't need a court to determine the underlying psychological impact or emotional impact of giving up a child, which I think is significant."
The 16-year-old girl, who was not named in the court opinion, was 10 weeks pregnant last May when she first asked a judge for a document that would allow her to obtain an abortion without parental consent. She explained that she wasn't financially ready to have a baby, and that she couldn't "be the right mom that [she] would like to be right now."
That same month, the court terminated her biological parents' parental rights, citing abuse and neglect, and made her a ward of the state, according to the court document. Her father was convicted of third-degree assault after he broke her collarbone and shoulder blade in 2011, and her mother had a drug problem, according to the court document.
She was placed in a foster home sometime in February.
The young woman said she worried that her foster parents would not allow her to have an abortion because of their strong religious beliefs, and would resent her and then tell her biological siblings that she was a "bad person," the document said.
The judge then asked her if she understood that an abortion would kill the fetus, according to the court document. She said she did. He then asked her whether she would "rather do that than to risk problems with the foster care people." Again, she said yes.
But the court concluded that the young woman wasn't mature enough to make the abortion decision on her own because she was financially dependent on her foster parents and had never lived on her own or mentioned any work experience.
As a result judge ruled not to grant the waiver.
Mahern appealed the decision in July, but the appeal was shot down. The state Supreme Court judges released their opinion last week, again concluding that because the 16-year-old was still financially dependent on her foster parents, had not mentioned any work experience and had never lived on her own, she was not mature enough to make the decision to have an abortion.
To get a consent waiver from the court, the young woman had to prove abuse by her actual parents, but since they no longer had any parental rights over her when she asked the court for the waiver, the court wouldn't grant it.
"She is in a legal limbo, a quandary of the legislature's making," Judge William Connolly wrote in a dissenting opinion released last Friday.
Connolly pointed out that the state law conflicted with state policy. The young woman is a ward of the state, living in foster care, and the state's policy is not to give or withhold abortion consent to its wards, leaving the decision up to the woman. State law, however, law states that a pregnant woman younger than 18 needs written consent from a parent or guardian before she can obtain an abortion. A foster parent is separate from a legal guardian, and cannot give consent.
"The waiver doesn't apply to this young lady, because she doesn't have parents," Mahern said. "She's 16 years old. If she went in as a ward of the state and said, 'I want to terminate my pregnancy,' no provider would agree to do that."
Mahern said she couldn't say how the anonymous teenager was doing now or whether she got an abortion, because her client is a minor, but she said the young woman was not an isolated example.
This girl seems to be perfectly capable of making the choice on termination or not.
More importantly
religion is fucked up, film at 23.
There's always adoption.
Quote from: derspiess on October 10, 2013, 08:27:06 AM
There's always adoption.
Which is what she is doing it looks like.
Quote from: derspiess on October 10, 2013, 08:27:06 AM
There's always adoption.
I think by the time someone adopted her and got all that through the courts such that they would be her legal guardian, it would be too late to abort.
Quote from: derspiess on October 10, 2013, 08:27:06 AM
There's always adoption.
Countertroll: I'm not sure she should be given the opportunity not to have an abortion.
Quote from: Berkut on October 10, 2013, 08:34:47 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 10, 2013, 08:27:06 AM
There's always adoption.
I think by the time someone adopted her and got all that through the courts such that they would be her legal guardian, it would be too late to abort.
Har.
Quote from: derspiess on October 10, 2013, 08:27:06 AM
There's always adoption.
Adopting the mother or adopting the baby?
Quote from: Viking on October 10, 2013, 08:42:44 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 10, 2013, 08:27:06 AM
There's always adoption.
Adopting the mother or adopting the baby?
Evidently, it will be two for the price of one, if you act quickly ... :hmm:
Quote from: Malthus on October 10, 2013, 08:45:20 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 10, 2013, 08:42:44 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 10, 2013, 08:27:06 AM
There's always adoption.
Adopting the mother or adopting the baby?
Evidently, it will be two for the price of one, if you act quickly ... :hmm:
But not TOO quickly...
Quote from: Malthus on October 10, 2013, 08:45:20 AM
Evidently, it will be two for the price of one, if you act quickly ... :hmm:
See? You wouldn't have to wait around to see if you are ever going to be able to be a grandparent. That has to take the pressure off.
Is that true in every state? The parental consent for abortions, that is?
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 10, 2013, 08:56:34 AM
Is that true in every state? The parental consent for abortions, that is?
Nope. This issue varies a lot from state to state.
Never thought Nebraska would be an insane one.
:(
:lol:
Quote from: derspiess on October 10, 2013, 08:27:06 AM
There's always adoption.
Absolutely. That's always an option.
The problem here is the lack of options. She's made a choice that works best for her, and the law is refusing to allow her to excercise that choice.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 10, 2013, 09:00:45 AM
Never thought Nebraska would be an insane one.
:(
Nebraska suffers from apathy.
The extremists care and mobilize. The rest don't give a fuck.
Quote from: merithyn on October 10, 2013, 09:04:19 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 10, 2013, 08:27:06 AM
There's always adoption.
Absolutely. That's always an option.
The problem here is the lack of options. She's made a choice that works best for her, and the law is refusing to allow her to excercise that choice.
Indeed it does seem daft, from what I've read she seems to have an average or above average ability, for her age, to comprehend the ramification of the various choices she could make if allowed so.
Quote from: mongers on October 10, 2013, 09:10:46 AM
Indeed it does seem daft, from what I've read she seems to have an average or above average ability, for her age, to comprehend the ramification of the various choices she could make if allowed so.
Agreed. And to use the justification that she's never financially supported herself is ridiculous. That just basically says that any woman under the age of 18 cannot have an abortion.
Quote from: merithyn on October 10, 2013, 09:04:19 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 10, 2013, 08:27:06 AM
There's always adoption.
Absolutely. That's always an option.
The problem here is the lack of options. She's made a choice that works best for her, and the law is refusing to allow her to excercise that choice.
Yes. Imagine the reaction of those who argue that the girl shouldn't make the choice iif the court had insisted on an abortion when the girl wanted to have the baby and give it up for adoption. I strongly suspect that Spicey would not make the argument that "there's always abortion."
the young woman wasn't mature enough to make the abortion decision but she is mature enough to be a mother.
Interesting logic.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2013, 11:13:15 AM
the young woman wasn't mature enough to make the abortion decision but she is mature enough to be a mother.
Interesting logic.
Or to choose to give the child up for adoption, which is far more difficult, psychologically & physcially, on a woman.
Quote from: merithyn on October 10, 2013, 11:18:45 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2013, 11:13:15 AM
the young woman wasn't mature enough to make the abortion decision but she is mature enough to be a mother.
Interesting logic.
Or to choose to give the child up for adoption, which is far more difficult, psychologically & physcially, on a woman.
Agreed.
Is there a myth of parental consent? :unsure:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 10, 2013, 11:29:14 AM
Is there a myth of parental consent? :unsure:
I've forever heard that getting parental consent isn't difficult. If the parents are unavailable - or the woman fears being endangered - they can go before a judge to get permission. Basically, the judge's job was/is to make sure that the woman understands what she's asking for and is able to make a reasoned decision.
In this case, however, the girl appears to be articulate, capable, and well-aware of what her choices are, and yet the judge still denied her request for - in my opinion - spurious reasons. That, to me, belies the argument that it's not a big onus on women to require parental or judicial consent.
Quote from: merithyn on October 10, 2013, 11:18:45 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2013, 11:13:15 AM
the young woman wasn't mature enough to make the abortion decision but she is mature enough to be a mother.
Interesting logic.
Or to choose to give the child up for adoption, which is far more difficult, psychologically & physcially, on a woman.
Then she shouldn't have had unprotected sex.
Quote from: derspiess on October 10, 2013, 11:42:29 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 10, 2013, 11:18:45 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2013, 11:13:15 AM
the young woman wasn't mature enough to make the abortion decision but she is mature enough to be a mother.
Interesting logic.
Or to choose to give the child up for adoption, which is far more difficult, psychologically & physcially, on a woman.
Then she shouldn't have had unprotected sex.
A bit like closing the door after the horse gets out, isn't it?
That is, of course, the preferred. However, mistakes happen.
Quote from: merithyn on October 10, 2013, 11:18:45 AM
Or to choose to give the child up for adoption, which is far more difficult, psychologically & physcially, on a woman.
Not as tough on the kid, though.
Quote from: Kleves on October 10, 2013, 11:44:55 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 10, 2013, 11:18:45 AM
Or to choose to give the child up for adoption, which is far more difficult, psychologically & physcially, on a woman.
Not as tough on the kid, though.
Given that most abortions are required to take place before it's actually a kid, I'm not sure that's applicable.
Quote from: derspiess on October 10, 2013, 11:42:29 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 10, 2013, 11:18:45 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 10, 2013, 11:13:15 AM
the young woman wasn't mature enough to make the abortion decision but she is mature enough to be a mother.
Interesting logic.
Or to choose to give the child up for adoption, which is far more difficult, psychologically & physcially, on a woman.
Then she shouldn't have had unprotected sex.
The we shouldnt provide medical treatment for people who gets injured - shouldnt have been doing whatever caused their injury or should have carried out the activity in a manner that was more safe. According to your logic we shoud also certainly not provide any medical treatment to anyone injury while carrying out a recreational or non work related action or activity.
Quote from: Kleves on October 10, 2013, 11:44:55 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 10, 2013, 11:18:45 AM
Or to choose to give the child up for adoption, which is far more difficult, psychologically & physcially, on a woman.
Not as tough on the kid, though.
Agreed trying to abort a kid would be wrong.
Some Christians are bad people. It's not news.
Quote from: merithyn on October 10, 2013, 11:43:20 AM
A bit like closing the door after the horse gets out, isn't it?
That is, of course, the preferred. However, mistakes happen.
You were supposed to react more strongly to that <_<
Quote from: derspiess on October 10, 2013, 01:58:07 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 10, 2013, 11:43:20 AM
A bit like closing the door after the horse gets out, isn't it?
That is, of course, the preferred. However, mistakes happen.
You were supposed to react more strongly to that <_<
No. Not about this. There is no positive in any of this. I understand your stance - and agree that it's not what anyone wants. I'm pro-choice, but I'm not pro-abortion. It's a very sad circumstance for everyone.
Quote from: merithyn on October 10, 2013, 09:05:01 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 10, 2013, 09:00:45 AM
Never thought Nebraska would be an insane one.
:(
Nebraska suffers from apathy.
The extremists care and mobilize. The rest don't give a fuck.
I don't see anything that indicates that there's a problem here with Nebraskan law. The problem here appears to be that the judge is either an idiot, or has an axe to grind.
I don't mind parental consent for this, in general. I also think sex ed and free contraceptives should be the base line too. Whore pills and consequences for those who do not learn.
Man, I was reading today that Cali enacted a new law where 1)nurse practicioners can perform abortions and 2)half of California counties have no abortion providers.
Should I: go back to school?
Ummm...What does the father think? He's not even mentioned.
If the father was another teen he doesn't think, by definition.
Quote from: Grey Fox on October 10, 2013, 09:00:45 AM
Never thought Nebraska would be an insane one.
:(
Dude, it's part of the New Confederacy. The Great Plains states have been going the way of the Deep South for quite some time.
Plus, Nebraska football sucks.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 10, 2013, 07:33:32 PM
Ummm...What does the father think? He's not even mentioned.
That rarely seems to factor into abortion debates.
There was a case in Michigan, I believe, where a father tried to sue to have his parental rights/obligations terminated because the woman he knocked up would not get an abortion or give the child up for adoption.
Didn't work, obviously, but honestly I don't think there's a very good ethical basis for refusing prospective fathers but affording prospective mothers an ejector seat.
Meri: disagrees.
I also disagree with that.
I'm not sure I disagree. I'm not comfortable with it, but Ide actually has a point for once :P
Quote from: Ideologue on October 10, 2013, 11:39:26 PM
There was a case in Michigan, I believe, where a father tried to sue to have his parental rights/obligations terminated because the woman he knocked up would not get an abortion or give the child up for adoption.
Didn't work, obviously, but honestly I don't think there's a very good ethical basis for refusing prospective fathers but affording prospective mothers an ejector seat.
Meri: disagrees.
Clearly you don't know me well at all.
I have long advocated that men should be allowed to sign off on pregnancies in the first 12 weeks, just as a woman could have an abortion in that time period. If they didn't, then they would be required to pay for the pregnancy to term, and see the child at least once before being allowed to sign off to give up parental rights.
At that moment, however, he can't see the child again until he/she is 18 years old. There can be no relationship between himself and the mother. No contact with the child at all in that time period.
I want to also add that I have a major issue with the idea that mothers can give babies up for adoption without giving first rights to the fathers. I know that this is changing, but in many areas, the father is still all but ignored when the mother gives the child up for adoption. I find that appalling.
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2013, 08:11:59 AM
I want to also add that I have a major issue with the idea that mothers can give babies up for adoption without giving first rights to the fathers. I know that this is changing, but in many areas, the father is still all but ignored when the mother gives the child up for adoption. I find that appalling.
I have to say if one of my boys got a girl pregnant and she was giving the baby up for adoption I would want our family to have first dibs. Seems rather odd if we would not.
Quote from: Valmy on October 11, 2013, 08:17:36 AM
I have to say if one of my boys got a girl pregnant and she was giving the baby up for adoption I would want our family to have first dibs. Seems rather odd if we would not.
Same here. But in some states (and some jurisdictions within other states) the courts don't always do that. Most do anymore, I think, but it's not uncommon for the father to lose their rights for various reasons, usually to do with not paying for anything during the course of the pregnancy.
Quote from: Valmy on October 11, 2013, 08:17:36 AM
I have to say if one of my boys got a girl pregnant and she was giving the baby up for adoption I would want our family to have first dibs.
derspiess would want first dibs.
Quote from: derspiess on October 11, 2013, 08:07:06 AM
I'm not sure I disagree. I'm not comfortable with it, but Ide actually has a point for once :P
I do because we already have a large enough problem with fathers abandoning their children. No need to allow them for an easy out to the "mess" they helped to make.
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2013, 08:34:48 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 11, 2013, 08:07:06 AM
I'm not sure I disagree. I'm not comfortable with it, but Ide actually has a point for once :P
I do because we already have a large enough problem with fathers abandoning their children. No need to allow them for an easy out to the "mess" they helped to make.
Well, this would have to be done legally and with purpose. If not, then the father would be just as legally responsible for the child as the mother who chooses not to abort or give up the child for adoption.
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2013, 08:10:24 AMClearly you don't know me well at all.
:D
I was actually messing around, I thought I recalled you saying something to the effect.
QuoteAt that moment, however, he can't see the child again until he/she is 18 years old. There can be no relationship between himself and the mother. No contact with the child at all in that time period.
Not sure I agree with this part, however; it seems largely to make the choice irrevocable (as an abortion or adoption is), even though the situations are different. (Should a wife who has an abortion no longer be able to have a relationship with her husband?)
Of course, in the natural course of things most relationships where this happened would end on their own; and if a father were going to maintain a relationship with the mom, and thus the child, I'd see no harm in a court being able to evaluate that relationship and levy support, etc.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 11, 2013, 08:41:54 AM
Not sure I agree with this part, however; it seems largely to make the choice irrevocable (as an abortion or adoption is), even though the situations are different. (Should a wife who has an abortion no longer be able to have a relationship with her husband?)
Of course, in the natural course of things most relationships where this happened would end on their own; and if a father were going to maintain a relationship with the mom, and thus the child, I'd see no harm in a court being able to evaluate that relationship and levy support, etc.
You can't have it both ways. If it's the same as an abortion/adoption, then he has zero contact with the child. Period.
If that means that he signs off his parental rights when his wife is 10 weeks pregnant, then yes, that means that he's leaving his wife for the next 18+ years.
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2013, 08:39:29 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2013, 08:34:48 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 11, 2013, 08:07:06 AM
I'm not sure I disagree. I'm not comfortable with it, but Ide actually has a point for once :P
I do because we already have a large enough problem with fathers abandoning their children. No need to allow them for an easy out to the "mess" they helped to make.
Well, this would have to be done legally and with purpose. If not, then the father would be just as legally responsible for the child as the mother who chooses not to abort or give up the child for adoption.
Sure there is that hassle but seems like it'd be worth it if you aren't trying to raise a kid. Probably less hassle then being on the hook for child support.
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2013, 08:53:50 AM
Sure there is that hassle but seems like it'd be worth it if you aren't trying to raise a kid. Probably less hassle then being on the hook for child support.
Of course, but I don't think that it's anymore fair to saddle a man with a child he doesn't want than to saddle a woman with one. There are differences, of course, like the bulk of the care falling on the mother 90% of the time anyway, which gives me pause on giving the guy an "easy" out.
But ultimately, it's still about choices. If we're going to give women the right to choose whether or not they're parents, we should be prepared to do the same for men.
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2013, 08:57:37 AM
But ultimately, it's still about choices. If we're going to give women the right to choose whether or not they're parents, we should be prepared to do the same for men.
I don't think so. I think we need to factor in what is good for society. Making it easier for men to abandon their future children doesn't strike me as a positive.
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2013, 09:04:30 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2013, 08:57:37 AM
But ultimately, it's still about choices. If we're going to give women the right to choose whether or not they're parents, we should be prepared to do the same for men.
I don't think so. I think we need to factor in what is good for society. Making it easier for men to abandon their future children doesn't strike me as a positive.
That's a fair take on it, though I disagree that it takes precedence over personal choices. I'm not sure we'll change one another's minds on this, so I'll say that I respect your opinion and leave it at that.
:hug:
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2013, 09:10:06 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2013, 09:04:30 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2013, 08:57:37 AM
But ultimately, it's still about choices. If we're going to give women the right to choose whether or not they're parents, we should be prepared to do the same for men.
I don't think so. I think we need to factor in what is good for society. Making it easier for men to abandon their future children doesn't strike me as a positive.
That's a fair take on it, though I disagree that it takes precedence over personal choices. I'm not sure we'll change one another's minds on this, so I'll say that I respect your opinion and leave it at that.
:hug:
What a libertarian. :P
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2013, 09:13:54 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2013, 09:10:06 AM
Quote from: garbon on October 11, 2013, 09:04:30 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 11, 2013, 08:57:37 AM
But ultimately, it's still about choices. If we're going to give women the right to choose whether or not they're parents, we should be prepared to do the same for men.
I don't think so. I think we need to factor in what is good for society. Making it easier for men to abandon their future children doesn't strike me as a positive.
That's a fair take on it, though I disagree that it takes precedence over personal choices. I'm not sure we'll change one another's minds on this, so I'll say that I respect your opinion and leave it at that.
:hug:
What a libertarian. :P
I was gonna call you a commie. :D
I've always wondered if we'll eventually reach a technological level where we can just take away people's ability to procreate, then give it back whenever they have
decided to have a kid.
Of course, this isn't fully in tune with the reality of reproduction, which is a lot more often "I'll risk it because I don't care, oh, I'm/she's pregnant, well OK" than you'd think. Wish I still had that article/study on hand.