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

reply to post by LurkingRelentlessly


Continued:

Fact: Of teenage women who become pregnant, about 35% choose to have an abortion rather than bear a child.
Teenagers with unplanned pregnancies face difficult choices. If a teen gives birth and keeps the baby, she will be much more likely than other young women to:

drop out of school;
receive inadequate prenatal care;
rely on public assistance to raise her child;
develop health problems; or
have her marriage end in divorce.
Children born to teenage mothers are more likely than children of older mothers to suffer significant disadvantages: medical, psychological, economic, and educational.

Fact: Judicial bypass substitutes the judge's values for the family's.
According to judicial bypass laws, a judge should decide whether the young woman is mature enough to make the decision to have an abortion, or whether it is in her best interests not to involve her parents. They do not address how this young woman will be able to make parental decisions for a child of her own if she is legally barred from making them for herself.

Restrictive laws give judges the power to say no to a teen's private decision to have an abortion. In response, she may feel forced to have a baby against her wishes; her parents may turn their backs on her or force her out of their home; or she might run away from home to face her pregnancy alone. Some teens may resort to a secret, unsafe, illegal, or self-induced abortion if her way to a confidential, legal abortion is blocked.

Any additional state laws restricting abortion (such as mandatory waiting periods between abortion counseling and abortion procedures) are doubly burdensome for teenage women who have fewer resources, less privacy, and less ability to meet all the requirements. All such restrictions to a woman's access to safe and legal abortion rob her of her ability to take control of her life.

Fact: Laws restricting teen access to abortion are coercive.
Laws in 46 states and the District of Columbia allow mothers who are under 18 to place their children for adoption without involving their parents, but many of those same states require parental notification or consent before these young women can obtain abortions. This sets up a standard that clearly favors one resolution over another, restricts the reproductive choices of young women, and forces some to bear children that they do not want to bear.

www.prochoice.org...

Well this poor girl was abused until she was 5 then taken away by the state and placed into foster care and now she is 16 and being forced to have a baby by her foster parents and the state. It would be an absolute miracle if she rebounds and has a semi normal life in fact if she winds up being another Casey Anthony it wouldn’t surprise me in the least.

What a mucked up state.

CB328
Where's the liberty and justice for this girl? This is very wrong- no child should be forced to bear children.

This just confirms to me that anti-abortion people want to force everyone to have kids they can't support so they'll be to poor to get and education and learn how they're being screwed.

Er.. forced to bear children? .. you telling me this girl was raped and that's why she's pregnant? I didn't read anything like that. This girl had Consensual Unprotected SEX and now she wants to fix the " problem".

I'd support the judges decision because it does show this girl is too immature. If she wasn't immature, she would have used protection.

From a technical and legal standpoint I do not believe the judge should have used the words " kill the baby inside her" because legally it's not a human life until after 24 weeks or so.

~~~~~~~~~~

From the Opening Post:

The girl, who had to go to the courts because of Nebraska's parental consent laws after her foster parents refused to allow her abortion because they held strong religious beliefs. In a secular country such as the United States, how are we allowing religious convictions of one person to influence the decisions of another?

Easy. they are the GIRLS, legal guardians. They have the last say about her welfare.

the article is dead wrong and lying to people. It says.

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.

This again for emphasis, GIRL.. I should say, Little Girl... had no such federally protected right to an abortion:

The current judicial interpretation of the U.S. Constitution regarding abortion in the United States, following the Supreme Court of the United States's 1973 landmark decision in Roe v. Wade, and subsequent companion decisions, is that abortion is legal but may be restricted by the states to varying degrees. States have passed laws to restrict late term abortions, require parental notification for minors, and mandate the disclosure of abortion risk information to patients prior to the procedure

en.wikipedia.org... - Abortion in the United States

See that: ---> require parental notification for minors

It's sad with such an important issue such as human life a website would cheapen life to such low levels as to make killing seem like having an ice cream Sunday from Mc Donalds.

reply to post by Grimpachi


foster parents?

wow.

i retract my previous position.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix

Er.. forced to bear children? .. you telling me this girl was raped and that's why she's pregnant? I didn't read anything like that. This girl had Consensual Unprotected SEX and now she wants to fix the " problem".
.................

they are the GIRLS, legal guardians. They have the last say about her welfare.

This girl was not of the age of consent, therefore, there was NO consensual sex. Not that that should matter!

Where were her legal guardians when she was having sex? Did they know that she was sexually active? If not, why not? Did they counsel her as to birth control and safe sex? Were these foster parents in denial of her sexual maturation or where they aligned with their pro-life religious stance and belief that birth control is a sin?

Top 10 Teen Pregnancy Myths

Pregnancy Myth #1: She can’t get pregnant the first time we have sex.
Pregnancy Myth #2: She can’t get pregnant if he pulls out
Pregnancy Myth #3: She can’t get pregnant if she doesn’t orgasm.
Pregnancy Myth #4: She can’t get pregnant if she douches after sex.
Pregnancy Myth #5: She can’t get pregnant if she’s on her period.
Pregnancy Myth #6: Guys can use plastic wrap or plastic bags if they don’t have a condom.
Pregnancy Myth #7: She can’t get pregnant if she/me is drunk or on drugs.
Pregnancy Myth #8: She can’t get pregnant if she is on birth control.
Pregnancy Myth #9: Certain sex positions prevent pregnancy.
Pregnancy Myth #10: Everyone is doing it!
www.mygirlfriendspregnant.com...

If her foster parents failed to make sure their foster daughter was aware of all there sexual choices, birth control etc. then THEY ARE THE IMMATURE ONES!

This again for emphasis, GIRL.. I should say, Little Girl... had no such federally protected right to an abortion:

Wrong! This girls age does not preclude her right to not be pregnant. In this case the foster parents and the judge used their position to enforce their wown religious pro-life beliefs on this girl. They simply used the excuse that they didn't think she was mature enough to decide to "kill her baby". In other words, they disagreed with her choice and labeled it an immature choice. But she had been through counseling sessions and told the judge that she understood the consequences. They just ignored her wishes and claimed she was too young to make the "wrong" choice. But not to immature to bear aa child and become that child's legal guardian.

Hypocrisy at it's best!

reply to post by windword


age of consent is 16 in that state.

age of adulthood (abortion) is 19.

perhaps you should pull your facts somewhere other than your own imagination and "prochoice.org"


you use the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" as if they are football teams. i wouldnt be surprised if you have a jersey.

reply to post by LurkingRelentlessly

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.

www.age-of-consent.info...

OOOOPS! Where do you pull your facts from?

here

sexetc.org...

under "sources" it lists:

4.State Laws on Age Requirements and Sex. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. October 2011.

has the law changed in the last 2 years? or are they incorrect?

reply to post by LurkingRelentlessly


I think your link is old and the law has been updated. My link shows the age of consent in the year 2013. Your link shows info from 2010, but mentions nothing in regards to 2013.

Here's another citation:

If I am 19, and my girlfriend/boyfriend is only 16, is it a crime for us to have sex?

Yes. It is illegal to have any sexual contact with anyone
under 17, even if that person “consents” and you are at
least 19 years old. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-805

www.ned.uscourts.gov... (Pg 28)

perhaps not. this says otherwise

aspe.hhs.gov...

A. Statutory Rape—Criminal Offenses Individuals less than 16 years of age cannot consent to sexual acts with someone who is at least 19 years of age

reply to post by LurkingRelentlessly


Again, an old website!

Prepared by:
Asaph Glosser, Karen Gardiner, and Mike Fishman
The Lewin Group

December 15, 2004

aspe.hhs.gov... Main Page

your says 2011 right in the link and the name of the pdf file.

anyway. i cant find anything on 2013. in either case:

Wrong! This girls age does not preclude her right to not be pregnant.

the right to "not be pregnant" via abortion is age 19.

consent to have sex is not consent to have a self-decided abortion. one can have sex without having an abortion.

reply to post by LurkingRelentlessly


Right. That's probably when the law was updated, 2011. But my first link says this:

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.

For this girl's court case, a 16 year old is not able to legally give sexual consent.

The Nebraska law says that this girl was not able to give consent to sexual activity because, by law, she's not mature enough. But, this judge has determined that she's not mature enough to understand the implications of "killing her baby"! So, she is being required, by law to stay pregnant, against her personal wishes and has no access to self determined medical care. Conversely, she has the legal right to give the child up for adoption without the permission of the state or her foster parents. What are the emotional implications of that? Is she mature enough to understand how painful that will be to her for the rest of her life? Nope!

Her body is NOT her own, but belongs to the state until she's 19, and she's being forced to bear a child that she doesn't want, simply because of her age. This is akin to child abuse and slavery. It's wrong, wrong, wrong!

This judge is NOT looking out for the best interest of this child, but the best interest in his personal pro-life / forced birth religious agenda!

reply to post by LurkingRelentlessly

consent to have sex is not consent to have a self-decided abortion. one can have sex without having an abortion.

Abortion is LEGAL! It is a personal and valid choice for any woman, no matter her age!

As the Supreme Court candidly states, we need abortion so that we can continue our contraceptive lifestyles. It is not because contraceptives are ineffective that a million and half women a year seek abortions as back-ups to failed contraceptives. The "intimate relationships" facilitated by contraceptives are what make abortions "necessary".
..................
Contraception enables those who are not prepared to care for babies, to engage in sexual intercourse; when they become pregnant, they resent the unborn child for intruding itself upon their lives and they turn to the solution of abortion. www.goodmorals.org...

reply to post by windword


her body is not the states it is her legal guardian's.

why on earth would the courts rule that shes old enough to kill an unborn child if shes not even old enough to consent to sex?

typically, the right to appeal to the courts is for rape cases in which the parent/guardian still rejects the abortion decision, not because the child simply did not like the decision of their parent/guardian.

im now a bit confused on your position...

do you feel the law should be changed? or do you feel the courts made an irresponsible decision?

you do know that the decision of the parent/guardian influences the decision of the ruling correct? they rule on law, and we have already established what the law says.

how should the courts have ruled in your opinion, and based on what grounds? remember youve already admitted that at her age her body is not her own.

i apologize if i seem argumentative. for the record i acknowledge the age difference is problematic, and do not agree with it personally. but at the same time im somewhat of a states-rights activist.

This judge is NOT looking out for the best interest of this child, but the best interest in his personal pro-life / forced birth religious agenda!

could it be they were looking out for the best interest of the law? i dont understand why you simplify it to those two options.

Abortion is LEGAL! It is a personal and valid choice for any woman, no matter her age!

only with parental consent (in nebraska). forgive me but it seems now that we are going in circles...

reply to post by LurkingRelentlessly

her body is not the states it is her legal guardian's.

She's a ward of the state, and the state can up and move her from her current foster family at any time for any or no reason.

why on earth would the courts rule that shes old enough to kill an unborn child if shes not even old enough to consent to sex?

First of all, her first request for an abortion was at 2 weeks gestation. That's not a child. Abortion is NOT murder and it doesn't kill children.

Secondly, why on earth would someone forces her into the position of being a mother and all the responsibility and maturity that parenthood requires, if she's not old enough to have consented to the sex in the first place?

typically, the right to appeal to the courts is for rape cases in which the parent/guardian still rejects the abortion decision, not because the child simply did not like the decision of their parent/guardian.

We're not talking about a parental decision to take away a cell phone or extracurricular activities, we're talking about a life altering event of having an unwanted baby at age 16!

im now a bit confused on your position...

do you feel the law should be changed? or do you feel the courts made an irresponsible decision?

Absolutely! The law should be changed and the court made an irresponsible and cruel decision.

you do know that the decision of the parent/guardian influences the decision of the ruling correct? they rule on law, and we have already established what the law says.

The judge didn't rule on the "the law" he ruled on his opinion that this girl wasn't mature enough to understand the implication of "killing her baby", a biased, unsubstantiated opinion that is not medically sound.

how should the courts have ruled in your opinion, and based on what grounds? remember youve already admitted that at her age her body is not her own.

By Nebraska law, her body is not her own. The courts should never have been involved and the girls own choice should have been the only consideration. Other people's religious bias have no place in her decision to NOT be pregnant.

could it be they were looking out for the best interest of the law? i dont understand why you simplify it to those two options.

What law? The law that says, in Nebraska, a 16 year old must have permission to have an abortion but not to put that child up for adoption? Anyone old enough to get pregnant is old enough to know whether or not they want to be pregnant. It's really that simple.

reply to post by windword

 

What law? The law that says, in Nebraska, a 16 year old must have permission to have an abortion but not to put that child up for adoption? Anyone old enough to get pregnant is old enough to know whether or not they want to be pregnant. It's really that simple.

Windword, your last few posts really reflect my very similar thoughts. I'm not going to re-post all of them again but the last one here really hits the nail on the head. If she can just give the baby away, why couldn't she have gotten rid of the then undeveloped fetus?

reply to post by windword

She's a ward of the state, and the state can up and move her from her current foster family at any time for any or no reason.

how is this relevant? the law says the parent/legal guardian has first say in the matter, and the state recognizes this. they upheld the law. this is not a special circumstance such as rape that requires contest from the courts. the circumstances are clear, and thus so is the law.

First of all, her first request for an abortion was at 2 weeks gestation. That's not a child. Abortion is NOT murder and it doesn't kill children.

oh God.... if i throw in the word "potential" does it change my point in the slightest? no.

Secondly, why on earth would someone forces her into the position of being a mother and all the responsibility and maturity that parenthood requires, if she's not old enough to have consented to the sex in the first place?

nobody forced her into that position she willingly (and irresponsibly i might add) put herself into that position. As far as i know the courts did not order her to have sex, and it was not a spontaneous event. She had every opportunity to weigh out the potential outcomes of her situation before she put herself in the position. Clearly, she did not cover all bases before considering the potential outcome of becoming pregnant or she would have obtained consent for abortion pre-sexual conduct, or she just negated or overlooked state law alltogether. Or perhaps she just underestimated the nature of conception. in any case her she moved forward irresponsibly, or she would not be in the position to begin with.

We're not talking about a parental decision to take away a cell phone or extracurricular activities, we're talking about a life altering event of having an unwanted baby at age 16!

were talking about a life altering event that she evidently felt she was responsible enough to deal with whatever the outcome be. which is why she moved forward with her actions of sexual conduct. if she did not then she made an irresponsible decision, which would also play a role in the outcome of the future court decision.

Another thing the courts must consider is her own potential health risks from the procedure. Perhaps this is the part they ruled she was not old enough to make the decision on. She can die from an abortion procedure. the risk factor no matter how small, must be considered in the ruling. this factor is exponentiated in her case being (as you stated) a "ward of the state".

Absolutely! The law should be changed and the court made an irresponsible and cruel decision.

changing the law was my first suggestion, which you (and others) rejected on page 6. the court followed the law of the land, how is this irresponsible from their role? "cruel" is your opinion. i would say it is unfortunate yet completely just.

if this were a criminal case she would be tried as an adult.im not equating what she did to a crime (although that arguement could be made as well), im simply applying the same logical result in taking responsibility for ones own actions. ignoring or overlooking the law, to have sexual relations, and then hoping the law will not apply for your case after an unwanted outcome is irresponsible no matter how you slice it.

The judge didn't rule on the "the law" he ruled on his opinion that this girl wasn't mature enough to understand the implication of "killing her baby", a biased, unsubstantiated opinion that is not medically sound.

again, had he thrown in the word "potential" would you be satisfied? it would still apply whether he said it to your liking or not. in Either case, his point was that she has never previously had an abortion and does not fully understand what it entails entirely. i would lean more towards the risks to her own health, although im sure there were many factors. for that reason alone it is medically sound. minors typically cannot make medical decisions for themselves,not just on abortion but everything else as well. (except maybe the hpv vaccine thing in CA....but thats another discussion altogether)

had they ruled that she could have the abortion, and she died as a result of the procedure, who would get the blame? the state of course. the legal guardian would be suing for a very large sum, and would win.

By Nebraska law, her body is not her own. The courts should never have been involved and the girls own choice should have been the only consideration. Other people's religious bias have no place in her decision to NOT be pregnant.

this is contradicting. if you acknowledge that her body is not her own then why should her choice be the only consideration? SHES the one that CHOSE to appeal to the courts. nobody even mentioned religion. the only time she had the decision to NOT be pregnant was PRE-sexual conduct. and she irresponsibly WAIVED that oppurtunity. had she taken ANY time whatsoever to think this through before she followed through she would have come to this logical conclusion. why then should her choice be considered when shes already proven that she makes irresponsible choices?

What law? The law that says, in Nebraska, a 16 year old must have permission to have an abortion but not to put that child up for adoption? Anyone old enough to get pregnant is old enough to know whether or not they want to be pregnant. It's really that simple.

what law? the one that says the decision first and foremost goes to the parent/legal guardian. the one they upheld in the end, this is actually common practice in any appeals court, on any level.

anybody old enough to know whether or not they want to be pregnant, is by default responsible enough consider all outcomes. this includes law. otherwise they dont really know they just think they know. this is not the case with her as she waited until AFTER the fact to learn all possible outcomes.

if she knew there were a possible chance she would be stuck with an unwanted child, she would have made a different decision from the get go. that would have been the responsible thing to do. its really that simple.

she felt she was adult enough to have sex...yet she did not consider the worst possible outcome...clearly she did not completely understand what it fully entailed. this probably was just one of many things the ruling was based on. Medical risk being another.

You also have constantly refered to the courts ruling as "biased", yet had they ruled the opposite it would still be just as biased. the purpose of the court appeal option is to not put her in a position of consequence had the pregnancy been no fault of her own (rape). In this instance her position is her own fault based on her own choice to put herself in that position, therefore the only way the courts can rule unbiasedly is to kick it back to the decision of the legal guardian per state-statute.

reply to post by LurkingRelentlessly

nobody even mentioned religion

Religion was mentioned in the article and in the OP and religion IS playing a key role in this court case.

The girl, who had to go to the courts because of Nebraska's parental consent laws after her foster parents refused to allow her abortion because they held strong religious beliefs.

The judge, Peter Bataillon, was biased.

“We showed them that abortion is the killing of another human being,” said defense lawyer Peter Bataillon

Bataillon was President of the Metro [Omaha] Area Right to Life organization.

Given this judge's history and pro-life stance, there was no way that he would allow this young women, or an other any other women, if he had the power, access to an abortion. The judge was biased and should have recused himself.

if this were a criminal case she would be tried as an adult.im not equating what she did to a crime (although that arguement could be made as well),

Sex is natural and healthy. It's unnatural and unrealistic to forbid raging hormone driven teenagers from having sex until they're 17. Everyone knows that they will. This girls foster parents should have taken their heads out of the sand and counseled this girl on sex education and birth control methods. It was their responsibility.

Sex is not a crime. Sex is not immoral or wrong. However, if it was, and she was tried as an adult for having sex without permission from an adult, then she would be held to adult standards and laws. As an adult, she would have access to an abortion, even from jail.

nobody forced her into that position she willingly (and irresponsibly i might add) put herself into that position.

What did this 16 year old young women know of sex and sex education?

Nebraska
Schools are not required by law to provide any sex education. www.teen-aid.org...

NEBRASKA

Abstinence Education in Nebraska

Nebraska Sexuality Education Law and Policy

Nebraska law does not require sexuality education; indeed, it explicitly states that this is a matter of local control. Nebraska does not limit or prescribe what can be taught in such classes nor does it recommend a specific curriculum.

However, in its Nebraska Health Education Frameworks, the Nebraska Department of Education does recommend that schools emphasize an abstinence approach, including telling students that “sexual activity outside of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects.” www.abstinenceworks.org...

Teaching abstinence doesn't work! Did the state and this girl's foster parents take responsibility and make sure she was properly educated?

Another thing the courts must consider is her own potential health risks from the procedure. Perhaps this is the part they ruled she was not old enough to make the decision on. She can die from an abortion procedure. the risk factor no matter how small, must be considered in the ruling. this factor is exponentiated in her case being (as you stated) a "ward of the state".

First trimester abortions, which is what this young women was seeking, are safer than giving birth. The most responsible thing to have done was to give this young woman an abortion.

The risk of death associated with a full-term pregnancy and delivery is 8.8 deaths per 100,000, while the risk of death linked to legal abortion is 0.6 deaths per 100,000 women, according to the study. That means a woman carrying a baby to term is 14 times more likely to die than a woman who chooses to have a legal abortion, the study finds.

Aborti on Safer for Women Than Childbirth, Study Claims

had they ruled that she could have the abortion, and she died as a result of the procedure, who would get the blame?

What if she dies in child birth?

why then should her choice be considered when shes already proven that she makes irresponsible choices?

A good reason to give her an abortion, as she's obviously too irresponsible to make choices, as a parent, for another human being, her child.

Either case, his point was that she has never previously had an abortion and does not fully understand what it entails entirely.

This logic makes no sense. She, also, has not previously had a child or been a mother, and can't fully understand what parenthood entails entirely. How can she be expected to care for another human being if the judge, who is forcing her to be a mother, doesn't think she can understand what it entails to NOT be a mother and end her pregnancy? The implications of parenthood are far more serious than ending an unwanted pregnancy early and safely.

This judge, and the foster parents in question, believe that abortion is wrong. There is no way that this judge was going to allow an abortion to anyone. He was legislating his pro-life bias from the bench. This young women never had a chance for a fair hearing in front of this judge.

reply to post by windword

Religion was mentioned in the article and in the OP and religion IS playing a key role in this court case.

did the writer of the article or the OP have any influence over the court decision? no? oh. then i guess its irrelevent

The judge, Peter Bataillon, was biased.

your opinion. i say he wasnt.

Given this judge's history and pro-life stance, there was no way that he would allow this young women, or an other any other women, if he had the power, access to an abortion. The judge was biased and should have recused himself.

i voted for obama. does that make me bias when discussing him on the internet based on your logic?

answer: not in the way you would think. im actually quite dissatisfied and against him at this point.

Sex is natural and healthy. It's unnatural and unrealistic to forbid raging hormone driven teenagers from having sex until they're 17. Everyone knows that they will. This girls foster parents should have taken their heads out of the sand and counseled this girl on sex education and birth control methods. It was their responsibility.

then you admit she was irresponsible?

Sex is not a crime. Sex is not immoral or wrong. However, if it was, and she was tried as an adult for having sex without permission from an adult, then she would be held to adult standards and laws. As an adult, she would have access to an abortion, even from jail.

it sure sounds like your admitting she was irresponsible.

What did this 16 year old young women know of sex and sex education?

ding ding ding ding ding. irresponsible!

Teaching abstinence doesn't work! Did the state and this girl's foster parents take responsibility and make sure she was properly educated?

everything she needs to know is right there on the package of the contraceptive. at least as far as this discussion and the courts are concerned.

First trimester abortions, which is what this young women was seeking, are safer than giving birth. The most responsible thing to have done was to give this young woman an abortion.

was she asking the court for permission to give birth? no she was asking for an abortion. therefore that is what they ruled on. have you ever been in court? do you have any idea how the proceedings work? it doesnt sound like you do.

What if she dies in child birth?

then it wouldn't have any bearing on a court decision would it? ruling that she cannot have an abortion is not a ruling saying she must have a pregnancy. i know in your mind it is but in reality it is not. the APPEAL is to the DECISION of the parent, which can be made PRE-PREGNANCY (pre-sexual relations). i dont think ill ever get you to understand this...

if she died in child-birth it would be a result of her own actions. if she died during an abortion procedure (in and only in the event that the appeals court gave permission after the parent contested) then it would be the fault of the state (this is possible in a rape case). there is a third scenario and that is if the parent/guardian gave permission to have an abortion and she died during the procedure, then the fault would lie on the parent/guardian.

A good reason to give her an abortion, as she's obviously too irresponsible to make choices, as a parent, for another human being, her child.

this comes full circle to my original post. here

"the misfortune of my irresponsibility should be pardoned because the consequences impact the potential quality of my life"

that seems to be the summery of what im reading here.

wow...the implications if this were applied to other situations.

ill let your imaginations do the work.

only this time ive finally got you to admit she was irresponsible.

check & mate.

This logic makes no sense. She, also, has not previously had a child or been a mother, and can't fully understand what parenthood entails entirely. How can she be expected to care for another human being if the judge, who is forcing her to be a mother, doesn't think she can understand what it entails to NOT be a mother and end her pregnancy? The implications of parenthood are far more serious than ending an unwanted pregnancy early and safely.

its only confusing to you because your ignoring the obvious third option. ill go ahead and let you point it out since i know your aware of it. it, like abortion, starts with an "A".

This judge, and the foster parents in question, believe that abortion is wrong. There is no way that this judge was going to allow an abortion to anyone. He was legislating his pro-life bias from the bench. This young women never had a chance for a fair hearing in front of this judge.

bull. i bet he would have in a rape case, which is really the only time hes expected to.

its not his or any other judges job to pardon irresponsibility.

you act like just because she got herself into a situation that shes now stuck in, its the states job to get her out of it. this is Incorrect with a capitol I.