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

reply to post by LurkingRelentlessly

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

It was the young girls statement as to why she was seeking relief through the courts.

your opinion. i say he wasnt.

Your opinion isn't backed by the facts of this man's history on the subject. He is, on the record, avidly against all abortion.

then you admit she was irresponsible?

No. I'm saying that she didn't have the tools to make a responsible decision, ie sex education. Judging a minor to be too irresponsible to decide to terminate a pregnancy and yet NOT too irresponsible to be a parent is hypocrisy at it's finest. The judges agenda is clear as day.

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.

What makes you think that she had access to birth control? If her foster parents were Catholic, then she probably was told that contraception is a sin.

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.

You act as though she has no right to an abortion?

No women should ever have to be victimized by their own biology any longer. We have medical recourse to take care of these problems these days. This case should never have gone to court because any women who finds themselves pregnant should have access to abortion to relieve the situation, regardless of age.

Do you think a judge, a parent or a foster parent should have the right to force an abortion on an unwilling minor? Because, the implication goes both ways.

This decision should be between a woman and her doctor, only. Courts and parents and especially foster parents should have no say, period! The law is unjust and unconstitutional, in my opinion, and needs to be changed.

reply to post by LurkingRelentlessly

You don't know if she was actually being responsible or not. She may have used a method of birth control and she may not have. I do know that there are messages out there via sex ed and other media that promote condom use as being responsible and she may have done so.

I do not know but what I do know is that she tried to take a responsible approach to dealing with her mistake and was not allowed to carry that responsibility out. Instead, she has been railroaded into having to give birth to a child who may become a burden on the community to pay for its rearing through the first few years as I do not believe she will have the means on her own.

The foster parents are not obligated to care for the child's child and they may not be her parents for any remarkable length of time should the system decide to move her for any reason.

The inability of her to abort the early pregnancy and her possibly not being able to care for the child either monetarily or mentally may force her to give the baby up for adoption. So then she will become a forced breeder nothing more and the state doesn't really care where the baby ends up, be it in her care or another's as long as they have more potential tax slaves and control over that girls body.

You can't stop humans from acting on their most basic instincts.

windword

We have medical recourse to take care of these problems these days.

Wow so being pregnant is a problem?

thesaneone

windword

We have medical recourse to take care of these problems these days.

Wow so being pregnant is a problem?

Yes, that is why a solution is called for. If it wasn't a problem the condom manufacturers and birth control companies as well as the ob/gyns and others would be out of business instead of solving these problems.

I think Windword was implying that there are medical professionals trained to handle these situations of accidental pregnancy. If I'm wrong then Windword, please correct me.

reply to post by windword

It was the young girls statement as to why she was seeking relief through the courts.

whats that got to do with religion playing an alleged role in the court case?

Your opinion isn't backed by the facts of this man's history on the subject. He is, on the record, avidly against all abortion.

how do you know his decision was based on that? other than paranoia?

i must have missed where he stated it.

No. I'm saying that she didn't have the tools to make a responsible decision, ie sex education. Judging a minor to be too irresponsible to decide to terminate a pregnancy and yet NOT too irresponsible to be a parent is hypocrisy at it's finest. The judges agenda is clear as day

and yet she made the decision to have sex anyway. this constitutes irresponsibility.

it is not hypocrisy at all. the "judgement" call on part of the minor for both having a baby and not having a baby takes place pre-sexual conduct. NOT after. she neglected this judgement and now is dealing with her own consequences.

What makes you think that she had access to birth control? If her foster parents were Catholic, then she probably was told that contraception is a sin.

clearly what her parents tell her has no bearing on her actions/decisions. abstinence is free and requires no parental consent.

You act as though she has no right to an abortion?

she doesnt until she is 19. now we really are going in circles.

No women should ever have to be victimized by their own biology any longer.

she is not a victim she did this to herself.

any women who finds themselves pregnant should have access to abortion to relieve the situation, regardless of age.

find themselves pregnant? lmao. you speak of it as though its as spontaneous as waking up to finding a pimple on your forehead.

pregnancy is self initiated. it starts with a choice. she could have chosen to avoid this until she was lawfully able to explore an abortion route.

Do you think a judge, a parent or a foster parent should have the right to force an abortion on an unwilling minor? Because, the implication goes both ways.

i plead the 10th.

i dont condone prostitution but im not going to impede Nevadas right to legalize it.
i may or may not condone marijuana use but im not going to stop washington or colorodo from legalizing it, likewise im not going to stop texas or oklahoma from criminalizing it.

This decision should be between a woman and her doctor, only. Courts and parents and especially foster parents should have no say, period! The law is unjust and unconstitutional, in my opinion, and needs to be changed.

it is. for adults.

do you think its unconstitutional for minors to be prohibited from purchasing firearms?

reply to post by evc1shop

You don't know if she was actually being responsible or not. She may have used a method of birth control and she may not have. I do know that there are messages out there via sex ed and other media that promote condom use as being responsible and she may have done so.

if she did not then shes automatically irresponsible.

if she did then she must have overlooked the print on the packaging warning there is still a chance. either case constitutes irresponsibility.

the only responsible way to have done this in her case would have been to seek parental(guardian) approval for an emergency abortion BEFORE she had sex, IN-CASE whatever means of contraceptive she used (if any) failed.

I do not know but what I do know is that she tried to take a responsible approach to dealing with her mistake and was not allowed to carry that responsibility out. Instead, she has been railroaded into having to give birth to a child who may become a burden on the community to pay for its rearing through the first few years as I do not believe she will have the means on her own.

this is all speculation. perhaps she can choose the adoption route.

The foster parents are not obligated to care for the child's child and they may not be her parents for any remarkable length of time should the system decide to move her for any reason.

good point, i agree with you here. although by time she has the child she can emancipate herself. not saying its a realistic choice but it helps illustrate the situation at that point.

The inability of her to abort the early pregnancy and her possibly not being able to care for the child either monetarily or mentally may force her to give the baby up for adoption. So then she will become a forced breeder nothing more and the state doesn't really care where the baby ends up, be it in her care or another's as long as they have more potential tax slaves and control over that girls body.

forced breeder? that implies she was forced into having sex initially.

i agree with your point on adoption though. personally if i lived in Nebraska that is the issue i would be putting my energy into changing. but to each his (or her) own.

reply to post by LurkingRelentlessly

good point, i agree with you here. although by time she has the child she can emancipate herself. not saying its a realistic choice but it helps illustrate the situation at that point.

I am going to assume that you think that once she has the child, she will instantly be afforded the knowledge about how to emancipate herself. How is it that she would then be adult enough to live on her own and be responsible for herself then but not a few months earlier. If it is simply an age, then the courts could have promoted her to a non-minor status, just like they do with minors when they want to try them as adults for crimes.

You have made a few good points that the adoption laws and others may need some re-work and I plainly think that the female body should not be regulated in a court of law. That is something which the courts should review.

I know you and I will probably never see all things the same here and I know this thread will go back and forth, round and round as each post tries to sell a sensible argument to the others here. I, certainly, am guilty of it and feel that your mind will not be swayed either.

I do not live in Nebraska but I do feel for the girl who could not exercise an option that should be hers to choose.

windword
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

Welcome to the "New World where women are biological slaves.

Biological slaves? Someone forced her to have sex?

Where is everyone's sense of responsibility?

So many are being duped. Maybe she should have taken the abortion pill...they named it RU-486! You think that was an accident? When you 86 someone it means you killed them. Are you for death is what RU-486 means. Something evil is afoot.

Why didn't she just get the morning after pill?

She could have got a friend to buy it. I've bought them once for someone who was 6 months shy of her birthday that would allow to buy them herself.

Course most girls here underage when they go for abortion they cross the border where its legal for underage which stirs controversy on local news but there was always the stories growing up in school, girl gets pregnant they take the 3 hour trip, cross border and get abortion.

Of course now there is the morning after pill which actually works up to weeks after should be kept on hand as an addition to contraception.

If active and not wanting to get pregnant then always keep supply of condoms, birth control, and morning after pill.

LoneGunMan
Maybe she should have taken the abortion pill...they named it RU-486! You think that was an accident? When you 86 someone it means you killed them. Are you for death is what RU-486 means. Something evil is afoot.

The shortened name of the compound is not relevant to your claims. Mifepristone was the 38,486th compound synthesized by French pharmaceutical company Roussel-Uclaf ("RU") from 1949-1980. RU-38486 became RU-486.
Source

reply to post by evc1shop


yes clearly Nebraska's laws are a bit contradicting. but if thats how they want to live i feel they have the right to live that way.

the unfortunate part of my position is that, this girl does not have the option to move.

in that sense the state needs to provide something. i dont know what that something is. maybe a bus/plane ticket to a relative in a state that would allow it? i know that sounds half assed... ill just conclude that im glad im not a 16 year old pregnant foster child in Nebraska....

(sorry if that sounds insensitive)

LurkingRelentlessly
reply to post by evc1shop

 

yes clearly Nebraska's laws are a bit contradicting. but if thats how they want to live i feel they have the right to live that way.

the unfortunate part of my position is that, this girl does not have the option to move.

in that sense the state needs to provide something. i dont know what that something is. maybe a bus/plane ticket to a relative in a state that would allow it? i know that sounds half assed... ill just conclude that im glad im not a 16 year old pregnant foster child in Nebraska....

(sorry if that sounds insensitive)

I do not find it insensitive, it is quite the reality that living there has bestowed upon this girl and who knows how many others.

I just can't believe that this girl tried to be honest by owning up to the fact that this happened to her and did not seek out a black market abortion yet was not able to get one because someone else's interests were more important.

I am glad you are not one either or you would be seriously contradicted

reply to post by LurkingRelentlessly

whats that got to do with religion playing an alleged role in the court case?

You said that religion played no part in this "problem". I said, it's the reason that the girl had to seek relief from the courts.

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.

how do you know his decision was based on that? other than paranoia?

This judge served as president of a national "Right to life" organization and has professionally represented abortion protesters who broke the law, successfully defending them through emotional manipulation.

Seventeen Operation Rescue protesters in Omaha, Nebraska, have managed to defeat charges that they violated trespassing laws by advancing a “necessity defense” that can sometimes convince juries that an unlawful action was essential to prevent a grave evil. “We showed them that abortion is the killing of another human being,” said defense lawyer Peter Bataillon, who made his clients testify at length about how abortions are performed and got permission from the judge to show videotapes about fetal development as well as abortions-in-process. Visibly upset about the verdict, Susan Hale, a lobbyist for Planned Parenthood, told the Omaha World-Herald, “the judge and the jury condoned illegal act

A leopard can't change its spots.

In Kansas, anti-abortion protesters threatened, fire bombed and murdered an abortion doctor, raided abortion clinics, and made private medical records available on FOX NEWS!

and yet she made the decision to have sex anyway

A decision to have sex is NOT a decision to become a parent.

NOT after. she neglected this judgement and now is dealing with her own consequences.

She's dealing with the enforced punishment for her decision.

clearly what her parents tell her has no bearing on her actions/decisions. abstinence is free and requires no parental consent.

You don't know that. Have you ever been 16 and in love? I have. If her foster parents had any integrity at all they would have seen that this young women was sexually mature, and they would have addressed her sexuality in a open manner, and assisted her in getting birth control. Instead, they either stuck their heads in the sand, or they preached abstinence, which is unrealistic, or they denied her to access to birth control. It was their responsibility and they failed her.

she is not a victim she did this to herself.

Every woman is a victim of biology. Perhaps you need to take a sex education course. Women don't know when they're going to ovulate and they can't control their cycles. Even after ovulation, a woman can ovulate again, in the same cycle, due to orgasm or arousal. Sperm stays alive for days. Nature tricks us into procreation, even when we don't want to.

find themselves pregnant? lmao. you speak of it as though its as spontaneous as waking up to finding a pimple on your forehead.

It is! Also, 50% of pregnancies are spontaneously aborted naturally.

Again, having sex isn't a contract to become a parent, according to The Supreme Court.

Not all sex results in a pregnancy. Most young teens think that "it" won't happen to them, or if it's their first time, or if they do it standing up, or if they duche afterwards...... This is why sex education is imperative!

Surprise! You're pregnant!

do you think its unconstitutional for minors to be prohibited from purchasing firearms?

Owning a firearm isn't an inalienable right, endowed by the creator. Autonomy over one's body is.

This decision should be between a woman and her doctor, only. Courts and parents and especially foster parents should have no say, period! The law is unjust and unconstitutional, in my opinion, and needs to be changed.

it is. for adults.

A woman who is able to become pregnant HAS an adult body and an adult problem. What Nebraska has is a "Trap Law" which isolates young women from their right not to be pregnant, a right guaranteed by SCOTUS, making them separate class of citizens.

These young women are subject to child abuse, through forced birth; forced into an at risk situation for themselves and their child; forced into biological slavery, forced to provide blood, flesh and housing for an unwanted and uninvited guest. This is akin to forcing a child to give bone marrow or a kidney to someone else.

These young women are being forced into an adult situation but being denied the basic right of autonomy over their own bodies and self determination over their futures.

The fact that a high number of these young, disenfranchised women will give up their children for adoption is an uncounsciable excuse for breeding babies for the adoption industry for profit. It's disgusting!

This is cruel and unusual punishment levied on young women, and young women only, for having sex! Part of me hopes that this case goes to SCOTUS. Part of me hopes that this young women "got it done" anyway, under the "Necessity Defense", in spite of her foster parents and this very biased judge.

I'd hate to see her child put up for adoption under these circumstances.

reply to post by windword

This judge served as president of a national "Right to life" organization and has professionally represented abortion protesters who broke the law, successfully defending them through emotional manipulation.

so wheres his statement saying that is what he based is ruling off of? all you did was take 2 unrelated events and tie them together via paranoia.

A leopard can't change its spots.

In Kansas, anti-abortion protesters threatened, fire bombed and murdered an abortion doctor, raided abortion clinics, and made private medical records available on FOX NEWS!

WOW!
and i just saved a ton of money on my car insurance! now back to discussing the court case!

She's dealing with the enforced punishment for her decision.

dont we all? isnt that called life? i realize the effect of changing the non-biased word of "consequence" to the big scary biased word of "punishment".

i paid my rent this month, therefore im dealing with the punishment of living in my house another 30 days.

doesnt really work but your entitled to your opinion.

You don't know that. Have you ever been 16 and in love? I have. If her foster parents had any integrity at all they would have seen that this young women was sexually mature, and they would have addressed her sexuality in a open manner, and assisted her in getting birth control. Instead, they either stuck their heads in the sand, or they preached abstinence, which is unrealistic, or they denied her to access to birth control. It was their responsibility and they failed her.

yes i do know that, for the simple fact that this could have been willingly avoided by her, and her alone. the responsibility doesnt fall on the parents to provide contraceptive.

abstinence is unrealistic? that is your opinion. its actually unequivocally hands down the most effect method of not getting pregnant that exists. and YOU dont know that they DIDNT teach it. for all we know they did and she simply ignored it entirely.

your ignoring of responsibility is staggering on so many levels.

Every woman is a victim of biology. Perhaps you need to take a sex education course. Women don't know when they're going to ovulate and they can't control their cycles. Even after ovulation, a woman can ovulate again, in the same cycle, due to orgasm or arousal. Sperm stays alive for days. Nature tricks us into procreation, even when we don't want to.

at what point in biology is a woman unable to resist the urge to have sex?

please explain. this interests me.

It is! Also, 50% of pregnancies are spontaneously aborted naturally.

Again, having sex isn't a contract to become a parent, according to The Supreme Court.

Not all sex results in a pregnancy. Most young teens think that "it" won't happen to them, or if it's their first time, or if they do it standing up, or if they duche afterwards...... This is why sex education is imperative!

Surprise! You're pregnant!

im not referring to post sexual intercourse. again your ignoring the choice of having sex to begin with and starting your argument (if you want to call it that) post-sexual intercourse.

then again, there is apparently a portion of biology i am not aware of where sexual-intercourse is involuntary.. i eagerly await your explanation of this..

Owning a firearm isn't an inalienable right, endowed by the creator. Autonomy over one's body is.

are we reading the same constitution? see amendment #2 on the bill of rights.

then when your done answer the question. keep in mind i said purchase not own.

A woman who is able to become pregnant HAS an adult body and an adult problem. What Nebraska has is a "Trap Law" which isolates young women from their right not to be pregnant, a right guaranteed by SCOTUS, making them separate class of citizens

what you should have said was "right to not be pregnant via abortion"
plenty of women exercise their right to not be pregnant via abstinence no problem.

These young women are subject to child abuse, through forced birth; forced into an at risk situation for themselves and their child; forced into biological slavery, forced to provide blood, flesh and housing for an unwanted and uninvited guest. This is akin to forcing a child to give bone marrow or a kidney to someone else.

wrong. wrong...and wrong

its voluntary birth due to their decision to initiate the risk. the guest was invited when they decided to play bump-bump.

if a child is forced into giving bone marrow or a kidney they have no course of prevention. such is not the case with sex. the two are not comparable.

These young women are being forced into an adult situation but being denied the basic right of autonomy over their own bodies and self determination over their futures.

are you saying rape is the only means of sexual intercourse for a young woman? this confuses me.please explain.

The fact that a high number of these young, disenfranchised women will give up their children for adoption is an uncounsciable excuse for breeding babies for the adoption industry for profit. It's disgusting!

what about the abortion industry? multi-billion dollar industry baby.

misleading young women into negating their own responsibility for their actions and decisions creates a class of decadent, self-righteous, irresponsible children that the rest of us unfortunately have to live with.

This is cruel and unusual punishment levied on young women, and young women only, for having sex!

this is lawful consequence that is levied on all of society for just about every situation in the book. children have no say and never have. such is the argument for every minor who ever experimented with a substance.

"its my body! waahhhh"

reply to post by LurkingRelentlessly


Dear LurkingRelentlessly,

I can see that you're still attached to the Victorian mindset of the Puritans. I'm going to go slow, to present my case against this out dated morality.

Owning a firearm isn't an inalienable right, endowed by the creator. Autonomy over one's body is.

are we reading the same constitution? see amendment #2 on the bill of rights.

We are, but we're interpreting differently.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.............

The Constitution, ie The Bill of Rights, guarantees that this young women, being discussed, has inalienable rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, separately but equally. According to the constitution, she has the right to defend these rights, up to and including the use of deadly force, ie using a gun (or in this case, an abortion) to protect her rights.

The constitution acknowledges that these rights are inalienable, however, if governing bodies, including parents, become destructive in defending these rights, recourse must become available.

Minors are not exempt of these rights until they reach an age of maturity. Parents and law makers are charged with insuring these rights are maintained for minors, not excluding minors from these rights, but adding additional safeguards to protect them.

In this case, an unwanted pregnancy is threatening this young woman's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, in that pregnancy will have an adverse effect on her life, her liberty and her pursuit of happiness. Her foster parents and the courts failed to protect her rights, placing the rights of her unborn "potential child" above her own, via religious doctrine and a personal bias in the case of the judge, as has been demonstrated. This is unconstitutional, and has been affirmed as such per the SCOTUS ruling in Roe V Wade, which states that an embryo/ fetus has NO RIGHT TO LIFE.

im not referring to post sexual intercourse. again your ignoring the choice of having sex to begin with and starting your argument (if you want to call it that) post-sexual intercourse.

Like it or not, abortion is a method of birth control. And, along with other methods of birth control, like "The Pill", "The IUD", "Norplant", "Depo Provera" and "The Morning After Pill" all rely on "after the fact" methods of expelling the fertilized egg AFTER SEXUAL RELATIONS. All of these methodss require a doctor's exam and an expensive prescription to obtain (except the Morning After Pill, which was just unregulated).

what you should have said was "right to not be pregnant via abortion"

The only methods of birth control which don't employ abortifacients are barrier methods such a condoms or a diaphram, which still requires a doctors exam and an expensive prescription. Many religious bodies still condemn these methods of birth control as well.

The court decided that single people have the right to contraceptives. What’s that got to do with marriage? Everything, because what the Supreme Court essentially said is single people have the right to engage in sexual intercourse.
...............
It’s not the contraception, everybody thinks it’s about contraception, but what this court case said was young people have the right to engage in sex outside of marriage. Society never gave young people that right, functioning societies don’t do that, they stop it, they punish it, they corral people, they shame people, they do whatever. The institution for the expression of sexuality is marriage and all societies always shepherded young people there, what the Supreme Court said was forget that shepherding, you can’t block that, that’s not to be done.

They Are Coming For Your Birth Control

Denying young women the freedom of sexual expression based on Victorian morality, shaming and punishing young women for having sex is a common tactic used by the religious right. Denying young female minors access to birth control remedies, including abortion, in order to control their sexual expression, forcing them to carry their pregnancies to term, simply because of their age and marital status is unconstitutional and these state laws need to be challenged. Parents and courts are failing these disenfranchised women.

abstinence is unrealistic? that is your opinion.

Teaching abstinence doesn't work, and that is a proven fact. States that employ the teaching of abstinence have high rates of teen pregnancy than states that employ the teaching of sex education and allow access to birth control without parental permission.

Almost 350,000 U.S. teenagers under the age of 18 become pregnant each year. Approximately 82% of these pregnancies are unintended.
www.aclu.org...

Acknowledging that it takes "two to tango" that means that, at least, 700,000 teens every year ignore abtsinence. Those stats only reflect those teens who become pregnant, not those who are having sex.

yes i do know that, for the simple fact that this could have been willingly avoided by her, and her alone. the responsibility doesn't fall on the parents to provide contraceptive.

Yes, the responsibility for for protecting young female minors from unwanted pregnancy DOES fall on the parents. Ignoring the raging hormones and a teen's inability to practice restraint, as restraint comes from experience, and can't be forced, is akin to sticking ones head in the sand and pretending that teens don't have confusing and overwhelming urges to have sex. Relying on the teaching of abstinence is unreliable and unnatural, and, is a cop out and akin to neglect.

its voluntary birth due to their decision to initiate the risk. the guest was invited when they decided to play bump-bump.

Consensual sex is not an invitation for parenthood. If a skier breaks his leg, or worse, should they be denied medical intervention because they decided to "play bump-bump"? Should a smoker be denied medical intervention because they chose to smoke?

American-philosopher
Well I dont know if I agree with the judges reasoning of "old enough to have a child but not old enough to have an abortion".

She is not in my opinion not of age to have an abortion on her own. Her foster parents have rights to her decesion making. Until she is 18 right? If her fopster parents say no then that is the right decesion.

Where were the the foster parents when she was making the decision to have the sex that produced the pregnancy? Right, she was exercising free will. I too am flummoxed by the judges decision. I think this issue speaks less about freedom to choose and more to consequences that result. I always liked that Devo line: "Freedom of choice, is what you want. Freedom from choice is what you got."