NEWS: 13yr Old Denied Abortion By Florida Court.

Florida's State Court has granted an injunction to prevent a thirteen year old girl from having an abortion. The Court ruled on the basis that the teenager was too immature to make an informed decision. The girl, who is currently homeless and resides in a shelter, had pressed the judge to grant an abortion.



Surprised this one bypassed the ATSNN radars. I know how much ATS loves its abortion debates.

My opinion; The decision seems a little bizarre. If she's to immature to make that desicion, even though she wanted an abortion, then surely by the same count she's also too immature to bring up a child. She's a homeless 13yr old. It's not even 100% medically safe to give birth at age, never mind the fact she's not going to be able to provide for it.






Related News Links:
www.telegraph.co.uk
msnbc.msn.com
www.washingtonpost.com
www.miami.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
politics.abovetopsecret.com...



[edit on 30-4-2005 by RANT]

Thanks to you and the BBC for covering what the US National media won't. Maybe it will have to now.


I did find and post local news coverage from Florida of the case with the girl's heart breaking argument for control over her own body in her own words.

Has anyone noticed a lot of these controversial stories originate in Florida? Florida must have the most unique news in the entire country. There are even international news sites, Fark.com, in particular, that devote an entire section to Florida new stories. Isn't Jeb Bush still the governor there? Hmmm, interesting.

Yes, I noticed that Rant and put it under the related ATS discussions link. Unfortunatley it doesn't show the names of the threads for some reason.

This has been covered by the U.S. media, it was on The O'Reilly Factor in fact.

Actually Jamuhn issues like this and other "related issues" has been sprouting all over the nation in the last few months.

Is like some time of "revival" going on around the nation and certain Issues has been put up and push up in the courts, in the politics and in the good old media.

I see it as a testing going on to see how far some can go over the laws and right of the people.

Our country is changing and a war of wills has been wagged against the American people by minority groups.

Stay tune because is just the beginning.

See by the time the girl be 16 she will probably have a few more force pregnancies.

She still will be in the streets and is going to be a few more unwanted babies for the state to take care off.

She is not adoptable but her baby maybe, relgious groups will win one for the cause after all the girl is already ruin. Right?

The hypocrecy, I wonder if any of the so call samaritans will give her and her baby a home and family.

But.........no a chance nobody will touch her.





[edit on 30-4-2005 by marg6043]

www.google.com...

It's been all over the US media.

Hmm, Im not for abortion. But after reading this I second guessed myself.
Wow, that's a tough situation.

At the time of this post that google link gives the BBC article and dozens of Florida papers. Eh?

I'm sure it was on The O'Reily Factor to DJ77's point, as it was on left wing tabloid blog/talk as well.

I was going for the "mainstream" thing like regular CNN/FOX rotation? It'll get there. All we need are some angry priests or something and we'll have ourselves a regular media circus.

Poor girl.

Coming soon to a Florida court, a ruling that will require the girl to have her tubes tied.

The case is sad, yet it shows she had a poor home to start with or she would not have become homeless in the first place.

shots
Edit: I said that we didn't know her past, that was incorrect. Her parents signed away control of her in 2002 I believe, based on an article I just read. She came from a 'broken home' according to her attorney. My bad. Foot eaten.

My point though, regarding the case, the case is really disturbing for several reasons mentioned, but one that hasn't been touched on as well. The child will be sent to a state home, almost assuredly. Then, what we've got here is a case where the state has forced a child to have a child, and then taken control of the child once it's born.

That sets an ugly precedent. Imagine wartime..tons of homeless kids..some get knocked up..the government/state mandates they have the babies and all are promptly whisked away to state run orphanages..what happens to them then? Military? More abuse? A life of crime?

I think the ramifications could stretch way beyond this girl. What about a young girl whose parents have been deemed unfit by the state? Does the state get to force her into a pregnancy as well? This could turn into a baby factory to feed the machine of the state.

A far and away long shot, but it's something that can't be ignored. I was under the impression that the state had almost no funding for the care and maintenance of abandoned/abused children? Why are they adding to their caseload? Is this an attempt to once again force the abortion issue, or is there some other strategy here?

Could they start using the pregnancy itself as grounds for declaring the parents unfit, in some other case?

I really don't like where this is heading...

[edit on 1-5-2005 by WyrdeOne]

Always more crap coming out of Florida. :shk:
Is it not interesting that:
This 13 yo old girl can not legally enter into a binding contract.
She can not legally get a job or gain employment.
She can not legally get a driver's license, let alone a learner's permit.
She can not buy alcholic beverages or cigarettes.
She can not be charged as an adult for committing many type crimes, thus making her exempt/immune to a number of punishments that would otherwise be given.
She can not legally make her own medical decisions, not counting an abortion.
She can not legally get her ears pierced without parental consent.
I believe in Florida, that it is even against the law to even have sex with a 13 yo child/minor.

And yet, according to her own non-adult words and that of other state and national organizations, she make the "adult" decision to have an abortion.
Sad state of affairs....no?

Undoubtedly, she will have the abortion.

Is it medically safe for her to have an abortion?
Is she fit to be a parent at 13?
Should we force the unborn child to be a ward of the state if born?
As a ward of the state, who will decide for the 13-year-old?

I think this case could have implications. It could open up the way for "court-mandated" abortions. Maybe those already happen, I don't know.

And we sit and watch as our constitution is being torn apart.

Jamuhn
It's safer for her to have an abortion than for her to carry the baby to term. That's my understanding anyway. She's just entering the second trimester, in case that matters to anyone.

krt
Anyway, what is your specific constitutional gripe? Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily disagree with that statement in general, but how does it apply to this case?

as posted by Wryde One
It's safer for her to have an abortion than for her to carry the baby to term. That's my understanding anyway.

You have every right to believe this, I'm certainly not contesting it, but there is two sides to every story. I'm merely presenting the other side of that 'coin'.

Planned Parenthood and all the other abortion clinics tell women that abortions are safer than childbirth. This is far from the truth. The consequences of an abortion are staggering. All of the evidence points to the fact that interfering with mother nature may be tantamount to signing one’s own death warrant. I have tried to put the following in simple terms, so that the average lay person as well as those in the medical profession can understand.

Abortion Vs Childbirth




seekerof

Okay...I got through the first paragraph, and I felt compelled to reply.

Abortion increases the risk of breast cancer?

No. That's mis-stating the facts. The truth is..

A full term pregnancy before menopause decreases the risk of breast cancer.

There is a difference, and a rather meaningful one at that.

I'm going to go on and read some more to see if they talk about young girls at risk during pregnancy, but just by the first page of that link, I'm thinking an agenda is over-ruling their sense of fairness in representing the facts.

Additional information:

In the second half of pregnancy, the estrogen levels RECEDE under the influence of such hormones as human placental lactogen. The immature cells, then grow and differentiate rapidly into mature, specialized milk producing tissue. Once specialization has occurred, the cells are less likely to turn cancerous.

When the pregnancy is terminated by an induced abortion, these young growing cells (known as undifferentiated cells), and having undergone drastic changes are now in LIMBO. They are no longer normal breast cells, nor are they capable of producing milk.

I think there is more than one way to skin a cat. These cells can be targetted for removal, or induced to produce milk, or perhaps even regressed. The medical community is probably working on something to this effect, and if they're not, they ought to have their heads examined.

By this logic, a misscarriage would also increase the risk of breast cancer. So would sunbathing. So would drinking alcohol. Any number of things that are accepted in our society cause cancer. This alone isn't enough of a reason to jeapordize the girl's life. Cancer can be treated. Death can't.

Anyway, I'm still reading...

The page goes on to say that women who have an abortion die three times more often than those women who carry their babies to term, this statistic is a limited sampling of Finnish women, and includes (in addition to the normal, immediate deaths from blood loss, etc.)..

cancers, suicides, homicides and accidents.

The site also claims women who have one or more abortions are five times more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol. That wouldn't surprise me, but how many of those instances are indicative of lifestyle choices and environmental factors having nothing to do with the abortion? Could it be abortion is just another sign of a rocky life, along with drug and alcohol abuse? Although I must say, I've known two women who had chronic abortions, and they were both heavily dependant on drugs, alcohol, and sex. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Not sure this statistic is relevant to the girl's case, but it very well could be.

Reardon believes that abortion providers are collaborating with population control zealots to conceal the risks of abortion in order to advance their own financial and social engineering agendas. "If they were really pro-choice, they would want women to know about abortion's true risks," he said. "Instead, they are offering women a bundle of half-truths and complete fabrications."

This is certainly true (not sure about the first sentence, but abortion is a business, cutthroat as all the rest I imagine), and applies very acutely to the subject under discussion. Does this girl really understand the ramifications of her decision to abort her baby? Or is it just a quick cleansing of a bad mistake? I think this should be discussed more. Is she taking the easy way out, or making a well informed decision?

Finally, the greatest immediate, physical risks of abortion:

I’ll just mention the most serious of these -- hemorrhage, infection, ruptured uterus...

These are the things I was concerned about for the girl if she carried the baby to term. It appears they are risks regardless, but I am inclined to believe the risk will be greater if she delivers the baby, due to her age, and the fact that this is her first delivery. I may be mistaken, but I think she's at a greater immediate, physical risk from pregnancy than from abortion.

The psychological/emotional repurcussions are another matter entirely. Both sides tout statistics, and they're both incredibly biased. The abortion doctors are seeing green, and the religious folks are seeing red. Neither side is seeing straight in my opinion.

How the hell is anybody supposed to get a straight answer when everybody is concerned about advancing their agenda at the cost of human lives? The pro-lifers care in an ephemeral, "highly prinicpled, rigid doctrine" sort of way, and the abortion doctors care in a "medically feasible, cash and carry" sort of way.

I guess, in closing, there is no way for this girl to make a truly informed decision. Nobody cares enough about her, or anyone else for that matter, to tell her the unadulterated truth.



[edit on 1-5-2005 by WyrdeOne]

[edit on 1-5-2005 by WyrdeOne]

[edit on 1-5-2005 by WyrdeOne]

[edit on 1-5-2005 by WyrdeOne]

Your having difference with what was linked is certainly your right and one I am not contesting.
As mentioned and subliminally indicated [by me] is that I would certainly be leary of making 'blanket statements', such as "It's safer for her to have an abortion than for her to carry the baby to term."

Again, I was not arguing/debating with you, but simply trying to give the other side of the perspective [obviously, more could have been given] on the 'blanket statement' given.

In this case, what you mention may be true simply because of her age.




seekerof

[edit on 1-5-2005 by Seekerof]

"It's safer for her to have an abortion than for her to carry the baby to term."

Point well taken. I'll shut up now.

The link provided an excellent counter-point though, unfortunately the author fails to source 90% of his claims, so it's a little suspect in terms of accuracy. But, some very real, and very important issues were raised. Hopefully there will be some discussion on those key points.

(Maybe I'll even manage to withhold my blanket statements) hehe

Sorry.

According to Florida State Law, unless the abortion is deemed necessary by a qualified physician, then notification must be given, in writing, to the legal guardian of the minor within 48 hours prior to the abortion, in this case, that would be the state assigned case worker. Nowhere in this law does it state that consent must be given by the legal guardian, only that they must be informed.

Given this, the minor involved in this case is completely within her right to have an abortion under the provisions set forth in Florida State Law. There is no court case here (or there shouldn't be one).

As far as her mental capacity to make such a decision, her simple desire for an abortion states that she realizes that she is not going to be able to support her child. Not knowing the circumstances surrounding her conception, I can't speak on her decisions made then. She could have made a bad decision. She could have been raped. There's any number of possible circumstances in which she could have been impregnanted.

I don't think it's necessarily the abortion itself that's on trial. I think certain political interest groups are working to make a statement regarding underage pregnancy in this nation, and only using the abortion side of the issue to sensationalize the case. I think that the possible political outcomes of this case were rather well outlined in the previous replies from WyrdeOne, and all are quite scary. This is more a trial of ethics and less a trial of law.

When it comes down to it, the final decision is going to be made on this question: Is it more ethical to allow a 13 year old girl to have an abortion when she knows she will be unable to provide for the child, or to force the same 13 year old girl to carry a pregnancy to term before snatching the child from her and placing it in the care of the state?

I say let her have the abortion, and spare her the media circus.

[edit on 1-5-2005 by obsidian468]

Health Risks of Early Pregnancy

Complications of childbirth and unsafe abortion are among the main causes of death for women under age 20, . . .

This would seem to imply that with a safe abortion [under clean sterile conditions & safe-proven techniques] her chances of survival would be greater than attempting to have a child at her young age.

Having a child at her age risks the 13 year old's life. Her pelvis is almost certainly too small to accomodate the head of prospective infant. C-sections can not be done in all cases.
.