Monday, November 5, 2007

Teens To Make Their Own Abortion Decisions

Did the Ninth Circuit Court just open a branch in Alaska? This is outrageous.

excerpts from The Anchorage Daily News, Nov 4:

The Alaska Supreme Court threw out an embattled state law Friday that required parental or judicial consent before a teenager can have an abortion.

In a 3-2 decision, the court said the consent requirement robs a pregnant teen of her constitutional right to make such an important decision herself and transfers that right to her parents or a judge.

Holy crap, we wouldn't want parents to be making a decision about a surgical procedure for a pre-17 year old kid. Well, we do have requirements about parental approval for really serious procedures like tatooing and piercing. That's a relief.

Clover Simon, head of Planned Parenthood of Alaska, hailed the decision but said it was important for people to understand that in real life, few people will be affected by it.

"There is a very small number of teens who choose to have an abortion without telling their parents," Simon said.

Anchorage attorney Jeff Feldman, part of the Planned Parenthood legal team, agreed. Evidence at trial was that "very few minors find themselves in this situation," Feldman said Friday. Those that do often come "from difficult or troubled families, where maybe the father or stepfather is the father. Not from intact families."

Oh, that's comforting. Teens don't have to get parents consent to kill their baby for convenience. But don't worry, it won't affect very many people, says Planned Unparenthood. Hmm, I seem to remember the same argument before Roe v. Wade

Of the 1,923 abortions performed in Alaska in 2006, 126 were obtained by girls 17 or younger.

Think about that. One thousand, nine hundred twenty three human lives were extinguished in 2006 in our state.

1923 babies killed, mostly for convenience. And we have political action groups and activists clamoring to save the harp seals, save the whales, save the twitterpated sapsucker or whatever.

And now we have activist judges in Alaska acting like the 9th Circuit court--legislating from the bench. They're supposed to enforce the law not throw it out. There is a legislature for law-making and law-repealing.

Mark my words. If this idiocy stands, we will have an escalation of abortions in
Alaska...just watch.


AMBER said...

That is very dis hearting that, that sort of discussion could be left to a teen to come to conclusion on, but yet we are so strict with other things such as body piercings and tattoos which all that is their own body a teen right to choose abortion is another life. And who knows if the youth is suffering from exceptions or other issues or addictions and this is just an easy out is that what we want to be sending out kids easy outs instead of do what is right and the ones who you will need will be there and if not others will. That is what happened to me I found and they help me become a survivor instead of a prisoner.

snowman said...

Amber, I am glad you survived. With your experience and concern, I think your voice would be an important addition to Governor Palin's email inbox.

Alec said...

Relax, have you actually read the decision?

First, the Alaskan constitution has a privacy claus, which makes the privacy protections in Alaska broader than those contained in the U.S. constitution. Second, the court was addressing a statute that gave parents, essentially, a veto over an abortion decision made by the minor, unless the minor manages a judicial bypass. From the opinion:

"The Act also includes a judicial bypass procedure whereby
a minor may file a complaint in superior court and obtain judicial authorization to
terminate a pregnancy if she can establish by clear and convincing evidence either that
she is “sufficiently mature and well enough informed to decide intelligently whether to
have an abortion” or that being required to obtain parental consent would not be in her
best interests."

While the court invalidates the consent law, it is important to note that 1) it does not address the issue of notification, which it identifies as a less restrictive means of serving a compelling state interest (and it recognizes the interests here as compelling) and 2) the comparison to other restrictions is ridiculous. No doubt the court would invalidate a "Parental Consent and Religious Freedom Restoration Act" that purported to give parents veto power over major surgery necessary to save their life, or that subjected it to judicial bypass by "clear and convincing evidence." Or perhaps that would be legislation OK with you, even if it put, say, Jehova's Witnesses' children at great risk of (involuntary) death?

snowman said...

Alec said...

Relax, have you actually read the decision?

No, I won't relax. 'Enlightened' social policies like this are eliminating millions of children each year as birth-control.

If Planned Unparenthood is behind this, you can be sure it is bad policy. Bad policy and bad for children. In 'civil' societies murder is usually considered poor behavior.

Maybe we aren't so civil after all.