"I don't think I should have the baby because I'm 13, I'm in a shelter and I can't get a job"

and ANY retiree who moves there from this point onwards has to be totally crazy -- if i were, say, arizona i'd be marketing myself like MAD to the geritol set.

Then why hasn't she had one, and why is there a news story about it? Apparently, something is in the way, and if there's any more delay, there's going to be a public outcry followed by a long court battle.

The article doesn't make it very clear but it seems perhaps the DHS there thinks it must get permission from the judge rather than act on their own or let the child act on her own.

OMG this girl is my hero. I wish that more ADULT women had her presence of mind — and balls (for lack of a better word).

DCF Secretary Luci Hadi requested a judge's ruling, according to a department statement released Friday. DCF attorneys filed an emergency motion Tuesday morning, the same day L.G.'s caseworker was prepared to take her to a clinic for the abortion.

...

The judge blasted the DCF, saying the agency never asked the court to issue an order to take the child into custody after her most recent disappearance.

"To say that I am angry at that would be an understatement," Alvarez said. "To rush into this court on an emergency basis because this child is pregnant and wants an abortion, I don't know where our priorities in life are. The priority should have been to make certain that an order to take her into custody was issued as soon as possible, and that she was found and taken off of the streets or wherever she was. But nobody cared."

If by "the state" we mean the judge and her specific caseworker, then yes, "the state" agreed with L.C. all along. If by "the state" we mean, apparently, the rest of the DCF, then no, "the state" did not agree with her otherwise the article wouldn't exist.

There is absolutely no reason to believe the DCF thought that they actually required permission for this, as stated in the article. The only way that would make sense is if they believed that the law change being debated in FL vis a vis parental consent actually went through.

Sorry if I've missed some paragraph in this story that explains exactly why I'm a "reactionary asshole" who didn't "read the story."

Yes, I am also a reactionary ass but we all know this already.

No, this girl does have 'pluck,' very well-spoken. I think the state just wants to cover it's ass by getting a judge's permission. She's too young to have a kid.

"The Department of Children and Families has the custodial responsibility to do what is in the best interest of the child," the department said.

I think it's pretty obvious that Jeb Bush's administration was trying to stop the girl from having an abortion. It's just the kind of legal-technicality tinkering they used in the Schiavo case.

And just to play devil's advocate, if this turns into a big national headline issue it's just going to be used by the jackasses in the back row to argue against public healthcare.

apparently she has been denied the abortion due to a Florida statute that prohibits the state from consensting to abortion, sterlization or termination of life support. Apparantly the DHS's hands were tied by this law.

It is kind of the same line of reasoning as "Judge So-And-So wanted Terri Schiavo D-E-D dead!"

I'm sure that's what Randall Terry would say.

A: 1 in 34,000
B: 1 in 1

plan 2:

A: 1 in 10,000
B: 1 in 10,000(?)

Kids, this is not even about the culture of life bullshit, when you get right down to it, this is about how it's impossible to write laws for every scenario under the sun. The situation is fucking ridiculous; it never should have happened to begin with; and this is why statute law is a failure, period, because the world is too complicated to rule out ad hoc solutions to shit like this.

Imagine the discussion when writing up the bill in the first place, if you really think this is about the "Culture Of Life" and "Jeb Bush:"

"Wait! Wait! WHAT IF, and I say WHAT IF, an underage girl, who is unable to work and possibly mentally unsound, escapes from a state home and goes missing for a month and comes back pregnant with a child, which at her young age is more dangerous to bring to term than to abort? Shouldn't we include some guidance, some leeway, to allow for a termination of the pregnancy in such a case?"

Generally, state legislatures don't go to such extent except when tax breaks and district partitioning are concerned, so I think that associating all of this with rabid pro-lifers is going a bit overboard.

apparently she has been denied the abortion due to a Florida statute that prohibits the state from consensting to abortion, sterlization or termination of life support

has been in existence in every state, I guarantee, for a long time. It has less to do with rabid pro-lifers, I also guarantee, than it does with the constitution, and the generally accepted view that it is incorrect for the state to impose any limits on human life and reproduction except in the case of convicted violent criminals.

I may be wrong, but to my mind the statue in question and the fundamental basis for it speaks more to the principles that keep us from forcing women who are interred in prison on lengthy sentences to submit to any form of birth control, even when they are allowed conjugal visitation, and are designed to avoid any legislation or act of jurisprudence which could lead our state down some kind of notional slippery slope that ends in THX-1138.

The state cannot legislatively decide to terminate the unborn. It is probably true that this problem would not exist if not for some pro-life sentiments regarding the definition of a human being under the law, though.

"Temporary"; okay?

It may also be that Jeb Bush's social services department is just being extremely diligent in following the letter of this law that just happens to exist, and that the ideology of abortion doesn't enter into the equation. It may be. Uh-huh. Yup.

x-post: The kid was already evaluted! She had counseling! She said she wanted to have an abortion. The state stopped her (at least temporarily).

and herein lies the problem not only w/ this scenario, but also w/ judicial and administrative decisionmaking in general. that is, statutes are often (but not always) vaguely worded or phrased, or for whatever other reason simply do not cover any and every situation. so these things end up in a court or an administrative agency, where a judge or administrative agent has to make a decision based upon these same vague, under-inclusive laws. it is PRECISELY here that the political right (NOT JUST the religious right!) goes into conniptions and starts screaming about "judicial tyranny" when the judges HAVE to make decisions (and decide in ways that the right-wing does not like).

you are correct. we really should look at this statute though.

at the very least, its constitutionality is suspect.

By 'vulnerable' you mean on her back then?

Shit, a girl who can express herself as well as she did likes to be on top.

Too far?

i imagine the judge rubbing his chin thoughtfully.