Roe v. Wade is Dead

[AGBF]

Below are excerpts from a story by Jeremy Cooke.

"Florida girl has abortion blocked
By Jeremy Cooke
BBC News, New York

A pregnant 13-year-old girl in Florida has been told she cannot have an abortion because she lacks the maturity to make such a decision.

A state court granted an injunction which prevents the girl from terminating her pregnancy.

She is three months pregnant and had planned to have an abortion on Tuesday of this week.

...

''Too young to choose''

Florida''s department of children and families intervened and took the matter to court, arguing the teenager, who is under the care of the state, is too young and immature to make an informed medical decision. Judge Ronald Alvarez in Palm Beach accepted that argument and has granted a temporary injunction and psychological evaluation, which effectively blocks her from terminating the pregnancy.

...

The judge''s ruling comes in spite of Florida state law which specifically does not require a minor to seek parental consent before an abortion."

The right has killed Roe v. Wade as it wished to. Now the upper middle class can start leaving the country for their abortions as they used to when I was growing up.

Deborah

 

[ammayernyc]

I agree that this is a travesty, but it''s a different case since this girl is a ward of the state. She is technically not a private citizen since she is in foster care.

I wonder if the state will now take care of this poor baby''s baby, and her therapy that is surely needed now and will obviously be needed in the future.

 

[ammayernyc]

Just reading the news... a judge rulled yesterday that she is competent to make her own decision:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7718218/

 

[AGBF]

Date: 5/3/2005 10:32:11 AM
Author: ammayernyc
Just reading the news... a judge rulled yesterday that she is competent to make her own decision:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7718218/

Thanks for the update. I still find this sort of decision (the judge''s first one) to be outrageous. If she is too young to have an abortion (at 3 months, mind you!), she is too young to give birth. If an abortion would be traumatic, childbirth would be traumatic. This whole side-with-letting-pregnancy-go-on business enrages me. Women are still in bondage, still being forced to bear children.

And for those who believe a 3 month fetus is a child: I do not. You follow your religion and let others follow their religions! I would *NOT* have an abortion myself at six months! If my life were in danger at that point in a pregnancy, I would ask to have a Caesarian with a team of neo-natal specialists standing by!

Not believing a three-month old fetus is a baby is *not* believeijng that a fetus NEVER becomes a baby!

Deborah

 

[NoonersMom]

ABGF...I am right there with you. I am outraged that they tried to stop what clearly was the girl''s right to choose...plain & simple. It''s another case of the children''s protective agency making horrible decisions. I was very happy to read that civil liberties group came to the girl''s rescue & represented her.

Regardless of one''s religious beliefs, the government does not have a right to tell you whether or not you can choose to terminate your pregnancy. It''s a personal decision & is based on individual circumstances.

However, if Frist & the other''s have their way, they are going to hammer away at that through the nuclear option....first stop the Dem''s chance of fillibustering and the appoint neo con judges. Needless to say I am quite scared of what our court system might come to (on a wide range of issues & civil liberties....not just this). It''s only just the beginning.

 

[tanuki]

The fact that this girl is 13 years old means that technically she counts as a rape victim even if she had sex voluntarily.

The fact of her age means she is the victim of a child molester.

 

[Rank Amateur]

I''m not totally anti-abortion, but if I were a physician I can''t imagine that I''d have the stomach to perform an abortion on a 3 month old fetus.

I wonder what would be done if it were found that the girl was not mentally competent. It seems to me that the lesser of two evils is to let the fetus live.

 

[Rank Amateur]

Date: 5/3/2005 12:12:41 PM
Author: tanuki
The fact that this girl is 13 years old means that technically she counts as a rape victim even if she had sex voluntarily.

The fact of her age means she is the victim of a child molester.

What if the father is the same age? Still rape?

Has the father any rights to the child?

 

[AGBF]

Date: 5/3/2005 12:25:24 PM
Author: Rank Amateur
I''m not totally anti-abortion, but if I were a physician I can''t imagine that I''d have the stomach to perform an abortion on a 3 month old fetus.

I totally respect your position on *performing* an abortion. Your conclusion (let the fetus live) is not mine, however. No one is asking that people who are against abortion on three-month fetuses *perform* the abortions. Nor that people who are against abortions on three-month fetuses *have* abortions.

That does not mean that women (or female children) pregnant with fetuses of three months who do *NOT* feel as you do should not be entitled to abortions, however.

And, as I am sure you know, most women (and girls) who seek abortions seek them in the first trimester (on or before the 3 months mark). No one wants an abortion late in a pregnancy.

Deborah

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 5/3/2005 12:25:24 PM
Author: Rank Amateur

It seems to me that the lesser of two evils is to let the fetus live.

Of course it seems that way to you. You''re a man. You wouldn''t be the one having to actually go through labor/delivery.

 

[movie zombie]

women had abortions here in this country, but if you weren''t rich you got to go to the alley with the coathanger practitioner. many women were left sterile and/or with medical problems. women with money could get a real doctor to do it....or leave the country for one. it really is a class issue.

peace, movie zombie

 

[IrishEyes]

With you on that one, Al. Sometimes I cannot believe I live in a country where the government is so insane! Let''s think about it people: 13 girl is FORCED to go through with a delivery. She is not mentally or psychologically competent to care for the child. Child grows up in the foster care system, HOPEFULLY finding a good family, but who knows? Child now is at increased risk for emotional and psychological problems, which lend into his or her adulthood. And the saga goes on....

Why would we force a girl to bring an innocent child into this world so that the baby can MAYBE have a good and productive life? But I guess that''s what you get when religion and conservativism are dominant features in a government ( separation of church and state, at least in this administration IMO, are relatively non-existant).

I''m glad she was permitted to go ahead and have the abortion. Hopefully she will not end up in the same predicament.

 

[MINE!!]

I Kept telling myself that I would not get involved in this conversation. It is the usual conversation that has no end. I personally think that abortion is murder 100% without a doubt MURDER.

My mother had an abortion at 18.. she was pregnant with me when she was 20. She was this close () to having another one with me. But she said that ''society'' would not have been willingly acceptable and that is why she had me. Thank God ''society'' was less tolerant. My children would not have been born had she went through with it.

I fear the courts making decisions, but I fear the decisions of people that think it is alright to kill a child as well. Regardless of religious rights... You cannot have things both ways. Either a child was too immature to make a decision... but she seemed old enogh to spread her thighs and make a child (unless of course it was forced and that is unforunate)

As for the arguement of rape and incest.. that makes yp 2% of all abortion cases. It is a fine line... but those of us who believe it is wrong, need to have a voice against those who condone it as well. If we can convince just one person not to go through with it
.. that will be one more chance for this world to figure itself out.

 

[ammayernyc]

This is an argument that will never be ''won.'' The two sides are not having the same argument... one side is religious, the other is personal liberty. Everyone has their own personal story with abortion... I bet not one of them is a positive one even if the outcome may seem that way now. My personal one is that yesterday I had genetic counseling before I got some blood tests to find out if I''m a carrier for the disease that my bf has. If I am a carrier, and we do get pregnant, then there is a 50% chance we will have a child with the disease. I would have to wait 10 weeks before I would know and would then have to decide. I cannot think of a more horrible decision.

This girl is 13. She grew up in the Florida child care system. Chance are, she did not know about birth control or that she could even get preganant by having sex because ''sex-ed'' consists of don''t have it -- not how to prevent pregnancy and disease.

Besides, even if she knew what she was doing and was doing it willingly is no reason to force a child to go through a pregancy and to have a baby. It''s like punishing her for being a slut.

Personally, I think that if it were men who were carrying the babies not only would abortion be legal without any restrictions, it would be commonplace -- I think men might just get pregnant to prove they were getting laid...

Sorry, rambling, I know...

 

[IrishEyes]

Mine - I''ve seen pictures of your children, I think they are beautiful and I can see why you are a proud mother and feel the way you do. I disagree with your position, but I do understand what you are saying and respect your position, even if I don''t agree.
I just don''t beleive in the government telling a woman what she is allowed to do with her body ( or telling girls either). In today''s society, unfortunately, we have young girls getting pregnant and being in that complicated situation of deciding what their next move is going to be. I think that if the government would get over themselves and start properly educating children from early in their lives about sex and sexuality, this problem would ease up. I know it would, look at every other country besides us. We have the highest teen pregnancy rate of any industrialized nation in the world. Us, the supposedly "richest and most powerful" nation on Earth, can''t even get our kids to take responsibility for their sex. Then we lecture them when they get pregnant, and now I guess we are trying to force them to have a child they shouldn''t have.

There was a study done in Minnesota a few years ago. For awhile, Minesota had one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the country. Canada, a close neighbor to the North, and a very similar cultural background as Minnesota, had I teen pregnancy rate of only 18-20% vs. Minnesota''s whopping 40% rate. They decided to look at what was different. They noticed that Canada started their sex education way earlier in schools then us. It''s a very easily talked about topic and they don''t segregate the girls from the boys when talking about it to them ( doing so, btw, gives the message that sex is taboo, bad, and can''t be comfortable discussed in the presence of the opposite sex - not a message we should be sending to our children. No wonder men and women have a hard time communicating!). They also did what was called an "abstinence plus" program, as opposed to our "abstinence only" programs. The abstinence plus program basically says that " we wish you don''t have sex until you are old enough and mature enough to understand what consequences and such can arise from the act, however, if you do decide to have sex, here''s what you can do to prevent STD''s, AIDS, unwanted pregnancy, etc" and then they tell them matter-of-factly what they can do. In the US, we use guilt, fear and shame to try to ward our children away from sex. The only problem with this: they are still going to do it. Studies show that whether you are open about sex and precautions and consequences, or completely pent-up and conservative and telling them "don''t do it! You''ll get an STD and DIE!! You''ll be scorned by your family and friends!! You''ll be considered a SLUT!", either way, teens are starting to have sex at an average median age of 16.4 years. The key is, in Canada, where they are still doing it at the same age as here in the US, they are using adequate protection, and are having lower incidences of teen pregnancy ( about half of our rate) and STD''s. Isn''t that the better goal?? They are going to do it any way, it''s a part of growing up and discovering yourself and your sexuality. At least be open enough to let them know what their options are to protect themselves.
So Minnesota adopted a similar program. They started using the abstinence-plus program in the schools ( some of them anyway, I think this may have been concentrated in Minneapolis, but don''t quote me on that) and opened four clinics around the metro area for teens to get accurate info and protection ( condoms and I think birth control pills?) without shame or consequences. Guess what happened? The teen pregnancy rate went down by HALF!!! It fell to that of Canada''s, about 20%!!! Amazing!
Why won''t we do this in the rest of our country? If people don''t want women having abortions, why don''t we start giving young girls accurate sexual information and access to reality?? This could nip the "problem" of abortion in the bud. But we are so damn worried that talking about sex to our children in an accurate and realistic way will "push" them into doing it too early, a fear that is statistically completely unfounded. Our government needs to grow up and get a clue.....
Anyway, this is my viewpoint, other''s are different, and you know what - I appreciate hearing them, it gives me good insight as to what the rest of the population thinks.
MINE, this is not really directed at you, I guess you just got me thinking! Again, I appreciate your opinion and like I said, your kids are beautiful! Make sure they stay safe!

 

[strmrdr]

I hate abortion but for me it boils down too that the .gov has no right to either support or oppose it.
It is simply none of their business and like a ton of other areas these days they have their noses where it dont belong.
One of these days they are going to get their noses chopped off and hard.

 

[tanuki]

I keep waiting for the media to discuss the circumstances of her getting pregnant - the age and situation of the father. So far they haven''t

But even they are both below the age to consent to sex - she is still below the age of consent which keeps this in the venue of child molestation.

Girls nowadays can normally reach puberty as young as age 9. The age is getting lower and lower.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 5/3/2005 2

4:26 PM
Author: MINE!!
I Kept telling myself that I would not get involved in this conversation. It is the usual conversation that has no end. I personally think that abortion is murder 100% without a doubt MURDER.

Like IrishEyes, I respect your opinion...but since other people have different views I see no alternative other than keeping abortion legal and allowing every woman to decide for herself whether she feels it is murder. How can I truly respect your position and still say that I believe what you feel is murder should be legal? Perhaps only because I am on the other side of the argument!

I know that *I* feel capital punishment is murder and *always* wrong. What if I were told it should be left up to the victim's family to decide when it should be enforced? I would say that if it is murder, it is *always* wrong.

So all I can do is say that I hear what you are saying...and neither of us has the final say in this matter.

There is a saying, "Man proposes; God disposes", but I fear that Storm may be right and that we should amend it to say, "Man proposes; government disposes".

Deb

 

[NoonersMom]

Storm, I couldn''t agree more.

One of the beauties of the United States is that we have the freedom to agree or disagree and the personal freedom (at this point anyway) to move forward as we see fit.....choose to have one or choose not to have one. It''s a personal decision.

Maybe this conversation could move into the topic of the system of checks & balances and whether the senate majority leader has the right to over ride the filibuster...something that has been part of this countries tradition & rules of governing since it''s inception. Thoughts?

 

[tanuki]

Although I am not in favor of completely outlawing abortion I have no problem with getting rid of the filibuster.

The filibuster has been used to do as much that was bad as it was used to do things that were good.

If the filibuster had not been part of the rules, laws that provided for the Civil Rights of black people would have been in effect much earlier that they were.

What the filibuster does is allow one elected official who feels very strongly about an issue to stand there and talk and talk and talk (even reading the phone book) and obstruct the business of Congress until finally the other side gives up. I thought a democracy was more about arriving at a majority vote than one person obstructing. This gives too much power to one person.

That said, I think there needs to be more than just 51% of the vote to put a judge on the bench for life, particularly one who will overturn Roe vs Wade.

This country is engaging in a great national debate over abortion. The people elected to Congress by those who oppose abortion are there because of their stand on the issue. I wasn't one of the ones who voted in support of ending abortion in the last election but I saw the long lines of people who were there to do just that to the point of ignoring any other issue that the candidate stood for. The fact that they are there in a majority means that the people want something to change. And they will keep voting these people in until something does change - at which point the opposition will have a similar chance to make its case.

The current law which allows for aborting healthy fetuses right up to the very end of the pregnancy is not acceptable in my mind.

We need to take another look at Roe vs Wade although I don't think that outlawing abortion (and contraception) by affording every right in the constitution to two stem cells is acceptable to the American public either. I also think this country needs to have a serious discussion on what happens in the case of rape victims and in the case of the health of the mother. And I think the point in the pregnancy where you should have had enough time to make up your mind needs to move back to less than 20 weeks.

Your opinion may vary.

But this issue is going to show up in every election until something changes about abortion and when you look at the people who are making their political fortunes off of public sentiment over abortion it becomes clear that delaying the decision is to the detriment of the business of the entire country.

 

[Rank Amateur]

Date: 5/3/2005 1:51:27 PM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 5/3/2005 12:25:24 PM
Author: Rank Amateur

It seems to me that the lesser of two evils is to let the fetus live.

Of course it seems that way to you. You''re a man. You wouldn''t be the one having to actually go through labor/delivery.

It is true that the serious injury/mortality rate for a woman giving birth is quite high, but the mortality rate for the fetus undergoing an abortion is 100%. The grayer the area the more I lean toward life. I just don''t know.

The issue is far from black or white but the consequences are black and white indeed.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

Date: 5/3/2005 2

4:19 PM
Author: IrishEyes
With you on that one, Al. Sometimes I cannot believe I live in a country where the government is so insane! Let''s think about it people: 13 girl is FORCED to go through with a delivery. She is not mentally or psychologically competent to care for the child.

Exactly. This is EXACTLY what went through my mind while reading about this in the paper. How can this child be THAT MUCH MORE mentally developed in the matter of caring for this child? Seems like this girl has a clearer view of reality re: pregnancy than those who were trying to stop this abortion.

I''m not for or against abortion, per say, but believe that regardless of laws, women WILL do what they have to, so it should be legal.

 

[MINE!!]

Perhaps it is not an issue of pro-choice or pro-life. it is a matter of Pro-responsibility. Who is responsible in this case, a thirteen year old, the state? Who is responsible as a 2o year old?

 

[movie zombie]

we all define responsibility differently. i don''t know why your mother told you her story, but it does seem a bit odd to me. having said that, i do know that having an abortion is not an ''easy'' choice. but it s a choice best left to the woman and her doctor.

no one is forcing anyone to have an abortion. there is more than adequate discussion with the medical people prior to the procedure. many women change their mind. many children wish they had never been born. i think what bothers me the most is the lack of care for the child once it is born. where are the medical services, where is the housing, where is the pre-school head start program, where is the good school, where is the clothing, where is the education, where are the ''caring'' adults? it seems that many against letting women make their own decisions do not make sure that there are adequate services for those that do decide to have and keep the child.

i respect those that decide that they would not have an abortion, but i also respect those that decide to have one. what i don''t respect is a society that fails to care for its children. again, this is a class issue.

peace, movie zombie