"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"

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (65 of them)

Well it's not like I have anything to say other than what should be obvious to anyone. It doesn't matter that a state can't consent to abortion or sterilization, because no woman of any age should have to get the permission of a ward of any kind, state or parental, in order to have an abortion.

― Dan I., Monday, 2 May 2005 19:18 (nineteen years ago) link

For those who don't read links, I should note that the second article says the ban is temporary while the child is given a psychological examination to determine if the abortion would harm her mentally.

― Miss Misery (thatgirl), Monday, 2 May 2005 19:22 (nineteen years ago) link

She's already 13 weeks in (or is it 14 now?).

"Temporary"; okay?

― Dan I., Monday, 2 May 2005 19:23 (nineteen years ago) link

I can't find anything in the coverage that gives more details of this statute, so if anyone can find more background that would be nice. It may be that it just sort of happens to exist and had nothing to do with pro-life lobbying. But it's hardly unreasonable to suppose the contrary. Most places you find restrictions of any kind on abortion, it's because of pro-life lobbying. (As in, e.g., the restrictions the U.S. puts on its foreign social aid.)

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).

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Monday, 2 May 2005 19:26 (nineteen years ago) link

(evaluAted, right)

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Monday, 2 May 2005 19:27 (nineteen years ago) link

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.

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).

― Eisbär (llamasfur), Monday, 2 May 2005 19:30 (nineteen years ago) link

Except that I don't think a law saying the state specifically can't consent to abortions is just some kind of accident.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Monday, 2 May 2005 19:44 (nineteen years ago) link

Except that I don't think a law saying the state specifically can't consent to abortions is just some kind of accident.

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

at the very least, its constitutionality is suspect.

― Eisbär (llamasfur), Monday, 2 May 2005 19:50 (nineteen years ago) link

The case seems to be resolved. Florida Butts Out (For Once)

― Pleasant Plains /// (Pleasant Plains ///), Tuesday, 3 May 2005 20:43 (nineteen years ago) link

hooray! back to the runaway bride and the bipolar meltdown sweepstakes.

― TOMBOT, Tuesday, 3 May 2005 20:55 (nineteen years ago) link

"It's a tragedy that a 13-year-old child would be in a vulnerable position where she could be made pregnant and it's a tragedy that her baby will be lost," Jeb Bush said on Tuesday.

By 'vulnerable' you mean on her back then?

― Jimmy Mod Knows You Eat Your Own Farts (ModJ), Tuesday, 3 May 2005 22:08 (nineteen years ago) link

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?

― rocknrolldetox (rocknrolldetox), Tuesday, 3 May 2005 22:18 (nineteen years ago) link

No, I suppourt that...

― Jimmy Mod Knows You Eat Your Own Farts (ModJ), Tuesday, 3 May 2005 22:20 (nineteen years ago) link

"Since you guys are supposedly here for the best interest of me, then wouldn't you all look at that fact that it'd be more dangerous for me to have the baby than to have an abortion?" she asked. Alvarez called that "a good point."

i imagine the judge rubbing his chin thoughtfully.

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Tuesday, 3 May 2005 22:21 (nineteen years ago) link

well at least florida's batting 0 for 2 and articles are identifying these as personal rights issues instead of culture of life/death crusades.

― lolita corpus (lolitacorpus), Wednesday, 4 May 2005 17:52 (nineteen years ago) link

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.