Nebraska court rules 16-year-old girl not mature enough for abortion

I have a feeling this case will become ammo for pro choice proponents in repealing the laws requiring parental blessing on the issue.

The article has hinted to the possibility that she could have crossed state lines where parental consent is not needed and had the procedure.

If it was her adoptive parents then I could see where their opinion should be considered but they are only her foster parrents.

reply to post by American-philosopher

I am not sure but I do know from firsthand experience that judges do start off with a specific perspective in mind as my wife has clerked for a ninth circuit judge many years ago. She had persuaded him to change that perspective by introducing critical thought and cases of precedence and so forth.

Now, was the judge thinking ahead for the girl, maybe, but he, then is making assumptions that the law can not recognize. There is no telling if she would have felt that way any more than knowing she wouldn't have the birth and then suffer postpartum disorder and go shoot up her fellow classmates. It is all speculation.

When I met my wife as a teenager, she had a best friend who had gotten herself pregnant. She dropped out of school, had the baby and did her GED diploma thing. She struggled financially to keep the baby and her boyfriend somehow wound up incarcerated for 2 years.

Somehow, she made it through with little to no help from her family who had kicked her out when it all happened. My wife and I helped her through part of it by being there and supplying some basic food, clothing for them. Other friends and her local minister helped in ways too. She made it and now has 3 more children and a decent job, 2 kids through college and two that chose other paths. It worked out for her and we have seen her at her lowest and her happiest times so far. Maybe the judge knows best but besides his yay or nay, he will not be a part of this girls life and I doubt he will follow up on this baby he forced her to carry 20 years from now.

That leads me to question what stake does the court have in this if she does or does not? IF the parents could not sway her why does the court need to step in?

reply to post by Grimpachi

I just looked up the age of consent laws for NE. 17 both partners MUST BE OVER. So, some boy out there even if he was younger and seduced, is technically a sex offender if found and convicted. No Romeo and Juliet laws. Ouch! I grew up in that state so I guess I'm lucky I didn't end up on a registry for the rest of my life.


So I guess it would do her no good since the state thinks you must be 17 to have the knowledge, you would have to be that old to have the knowledge to end the pregnancy as well.

American-philosopher
reply to post by evc1shop

 

Do you not think that maybe the judge was thinking about long term for the mother that maybe when she grows up a little more she will very much regret the decision of having an abortion. One that she can't take back. As opposed to having the baby and then giving it up for adoptioon if she feels she can;t take care of it or doesnt want it.

This girl may not want to be with the person that is the father of her mistake. This pregnancy could then yield a fatherless child which we seem to have a lot of in the USA. This girl has decided that her mistake may keep her back in life and she is not ready for the parental responsibilities.

Why does everyone think that adoption is the best way out in a case where there is an unwanted pregnancy?
Why can't people that want to adopt focus on the kids that are already born and unwanted, I'm sure there are already quite a few. Why add to that stockpile when we seem to always hear that we are overpopulating as it is?

I sometimes see adoption as a catch-22 because even though the child may not want to keep the baby, it costs a lot of money for someone to adopt one. This makes adoptable babies a commodity for the richer folks that can pay the fees involved on securing an unwanted baby. There is no charity in giving a baby away, for all we know the child or the child's insurer or the hospital will be stuck with the bill for delivering the baby, too.

The girl in this situation has asked for a chance to carry on without her baby, why can't they just let her before she seeks alternate means of terminating this?

reply to post by Grimpachi


It seems to me only "fair" that if the state can force a woman, or girl, to bear childern they do not want. The state should be financially responsible for that child until the become an adult at 21 yeras of age.

If these politicians are so concerned about the childern they should be more than happy to be sure they are not only born but raised with a good standard of living.

You know good schools , nice clothes, plenty of good food, warm housing. Oh wait, I forgot, I'm talking about Republicans, aren't I ?

Sad that two lives may be ruined because of this..

Three lives, don't forget someone got her pregnant. Probably her foster parents' lives will be severely impacted as well, so that's 4 people having their lives altered against their will by small government, "liberty" loving terrorists I mean conservatives.

thesaneone
She is old enough to know better.

I'm sick of all these stories coming out on how people refuse to accept responsibilities for their actions.

If she's old enough to know better, then she's old enough to make the decision to abort! Why should this girl, a ward of the state, be deprived the same rights that any other women who is "old enough to know better" has access to?

reply to post by Grimpachi


Yeah, it went to the State Supreme Court, but it will, if not this girl, some other girl in the same position, due to the precedent that this case set, go to SCOTUS.

Mark my words, this will go before the Supreme Court of the land, and the "forced birthers" won't like the outcome. This will backfire on them, because, it's clearly a violation of this girls rights. SCOTUS will strike down the parental requirement. What the "forced birthers" want to put before SCOTUS is a determination that "life begins at conception" or "fetal pain equals viability", or some such ridiculous claim.

reply to post by Grimpachi

A 16-year-old Nebraskan girl who had to petition the Nebraska Supreme Court for her federally protected right to an abortion was denied when the judge ruled she was not mature enough to have an abortion. Oddly enough, they believe she is mature enough to be a mother.

This is the part that stuck out to me.

It seems somewhat paradoxical and completely lacking in common sense.

wuforde
reply to post by CB328

 

No one forced her to have sex. Children are a consequence when having sex. Take the religious part away from it and since she is not 18 she shouldn't be able to make the choice, since she is not an adult legally. Not having money shouldn't matter b/c she can give it up for adoption.

So you say she is not an adult legally, yet she was supposed to make an adult choice about having sex and why is she suddenly responsible for that?

You don't know the circumstances surrounding the sex that resulted in this pregnancy, she was 15 or 16 when it happened and people have been known to exploit vulnerable children, it's called statutory rape or child abuse!

reply to post by DrHammondStoat


Good points!

What is the 2013 Age of Consent in Nebraska?
The Nebraska legal Age of Consent for sexual contact is 17 years old. There are a total of nine states that have a legal age of consent of 17.

Technically, since she wasn't the age of consent, she was raped. This judge is forcing an undisputed rape victim to give birth to her rapist's child. Will they prosecute the boy/man? Will they make him pay child support? Will he petition for parental rights and visitation?

This is just the beginning of the kind of horror that the pro-life, forced birth society is looking to enforce on ALL women.

reply to post by DrHammondStoat


Stop right there no rape happened here, just a typical dumb teen not thinking.
Can't get knocked up if you keep your pants on.

wuforde
reply to post by CB328

 

No one forced her to have sex. Children are a consequence when having sex. Take the religious part away from it and since she is not 18 she shouldn't be able to make the choice, since she is not an adult legally. Not having money shouldn't matter b/c she can give it up for adoption.

So you are for forcing a teenager to have a baby that may wind up just like her in the care of foster family who do not care about individual rights?

It always seems that the same people that preach about government staying out of people's lives are generally the same people who are more than happy to dictate to women about their bodies.

Forcing someone to have a child seems like something you would hear about coming from the middle east not the US.

I have known people who grew up in foster care and there is no way that temporary guardians should be able to dictate such a life altering event based on THEIR FAITH to a teenager. Foster parents are not like adoptive or biological parents. Some kids have had dozens of them throughout their lives.

Grimpachi

wuforde
reply to post by CB328

 

So you are for forcing a teenager to have a baby that may wind up just like her in the care of foster family who do not care about individual rights?

What about individual responsibility?

reply to post by thesaneone


Since when did responsibility mean carrying to term?

reply to post by Grimpachi


Responsibility also means to keep your legs closed until you are old enough to understand the consequences of your actions.

windword
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

Forced birthers everywhere are rejoicing. This is a case that may make it the Supreme Court of the United States. I, for one, hope it does. This is pitiful and outrageous!

As I understand, the girl was 2 weeks pregnant when she first asked for an abortion. Now, she's a 4 months!

Watch, the state will take her baby from her too. Welcome to the "New World where women are biological slaves.

I have no idea what a 'birther' is, so as for them 'forced birthers' rejoicing, idk. I'll keep an eye out for this new term.

I'm pretty sure that at least one person is happy about the outcome of this ruling, though.

Just think....think really hard.

# 66

reply to post by thesaneone


That seems to be the line people use to try an justify forcing their beliefs on others.

This girl decided what was best for her retained a lawyer and took it to court. I am sure it would have been much easier for her to have just crossed the state line where the parental consent law isn't in place which I am sure a good many other teens do.

No I will say that girl is plenty responsible for her actions her real mistake was believing that church and state were actually separate like they are supposed to be.

This case is nothing more than holly rollers dictating their religious beliefs onto others. Like I said this case will be part of what undoes the parental consent law in the end.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Sorry no belief system here but nice try.

This is about responsibility and thinking before acting.

reply to post by thesaneone


Then I will ask you again. When did responsibility mean carrying to term?

reply to post by Grimpachi


I just gave you my answer scroll up and read.

Asking me the same question over again when you know my answer can only mean that you have no argument left other then your for ending a living being.