Not only that, but it can be physically dangerous to carry a baby when the mother is that young. 

If a girl is old enough to get pregnant, she’s old enough to be able to choose whether to continue the pregnancy or not.  It’s just as much her body as when she’s 18. 

Florida sure has shaped up into a showcase for all that is wrong with provincial America.

I had heard on NPR that she is homeless also… which brings up the question… was it rape?  No one seems to be asking that. 

Instead of making her go though that, maybe they should worry about finding her a good home and a second chance at being a child.  After all, that is all she is.

We let this crap happen in the dark ages, it shouldn’t be happening now.

If a girl is old enough to get pregnant, she’s old enough to be able to choose whether to continue the pregnancy or not.

This is indicative of the knee jerk reaction to the abortion issue.  Let us not think the matter through, but immediately start screaming about the Man infringing upon a woman’s right to choose.

There is a wide range of adolescent women that are more than capable of getting pregnant.  With many, they may be capable of making such a choice.  However, as is the case with nearly all issues, there are caveats.  It is not hard at all to imagine a situation where a child is not capable of making that decision. 

What do we do, and how do we sort such matters out then?

Well, it seems to me that the rational response, as in other situations, such as the Schiavo matter, is to let the courts figure it out. That is what is being done in this case.  Y’all haven’t read the articles that well or are willfullly ignoring some details.  So, I will fill in the blanks here:

...the girl has run away from state homes at least five times and was gone for a month when she became pregnant early this year.

I don’t know much else about her background, but it seems that at the very least, stability appears to be an issue for this gal.  Since she is in state custody, her parents have lost their parental rights, the state stands in the role of the parents.  Under Florida law, the state cannot consent to an abortion.  THAT DOES NOT EQUAL THE GIRL CANNOT GET THE ABORTION.  What it means is that there is a hearing on whether she is capable of making the decision, and if that decision is to have the abortion, then a determination will be made as to whether the child would be physically and emotionally harmed by the abortion procedure.  That seems pretty reasonable to me.

In fact,

Alvarez held a hearing Thursday in Palm Beach County Juvenile Court to determine whether the girl, identified in court records as L.G., might be physically or emotionally harmed by an abortion.

But Alvarez said he will wait to rule on whether she can go ahead with the abortion until the 4th District Court of Appeal decides whether he has any authority in the case.

So it seems the system is functioning.  Keep the powder dry for real issues, not imagined ones.

One thing is obvious: the Florida foster care program failed this child.

This is indicative of the knee jerk reaction to the abortion issue.  Let us not think the matter through, but immediately start screaming about the Man infringing upon a woman’s right to choose.

Is there anything more important than a woman’s control over her own body?  Is there anything we should have a knee-jerk reaction about BEFORE considering that?

I don’t know much else about her background, but it seems that at the very least, stability appears to be an issue for this gal.  Since she is in state custody, her parents have lost their parental rights, the state stands in the role of the parents.  Under Florida law, the state cannot consent to an abortion.  THAT DOES NOT EQUAL THE GIRL CANNOT GET THE ABORTION.

According to the article, she wants the abortion, and is being STOPPED from having the abortion. 

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.

It’s not a matter of the state being “unable to consent,“ it’s a matter of the state trying to stop her. 

What it means is that there is a hearing on whether she is capable of making the decision, and if that decision is to have the abortion, then a determination will be made as to whether the child would be physically and emotionally harmed by the abortion procedure.

In other words, if she makes the decision that they don’t like (i.e. the one she ALREADY MADE), they still have one more way to stop her, and that is to claim that she could be “emotionally harmed” by the procedure.

So she can’t get an abortion.

This is not a case of being unsure of a woman’s wishes and asking the court to make a determination.  This is a hearing to determine whether the state, being in some sort of loco parentis (and I use the term advisedly), can decide whether to stop someone in its custody from undergoing a medical procedure that she wants and needs.  Would they block her from having her wisdom teeth extracted because it might “harm her physically or emotionally”?

No.  This is allowing individuals under the aegis of the state to exercise their personal preferences on abortion and force them on a girl who happens to be under its power.  This is confusing the wishes of individuals (if her parents still had custody of her) with the responsibilities of the state, which is presumed not to have any “moral preferences”—only legal guidelines.

I will be really, really surprised if Alvarez makes the ruling that she is allowed to make her own decision and will not be harmed by it.  I will be incredibly surprised.  In fact, Consi, I’ll buy you a pro-life beer if that happens.

I love how the judge ruled she was too immature to make the choice of getting an abortion….but somehow it seems, at 13 and homeless, she is mature enough to raise a child!

I love how the judge ruled she was too immature to make the choice of getting an abortion….but somehow it seems, at 13 and homeless, she is mature enough to raise a child!

And isn’t ironic? Don’t ya think? It’s like rai-ai-ain on your wedding day…

It’s not a matter of the state being “unable to consent,â€? it’s a matter of the state trying to stop her. 

GM, you may be right.  I was under the impression that the minor needed parental consent to receive medical services and that the Dept. could not consent. 

I didn’t spend much time looking but I couldn’t find the law that addressed that.  What I did find was this:

743.065 Unwed pregnant minor or minor mother; consent to medical services for minor or minor’s child valid.—

(1)  An unwed pregnant minor may consent to the performance of medical or surgical care or services relating to her pregnancy by a hospital or clinic or by a physician licensed under chapter 458 or chapter 459, and such consent is valid and binding as if she had achieved her majority.

(2)  An unwed minor mother may consent to the performance of medical or surgical care or services for her child by a hospital or clinic or by a physician licensed under chapter 458 or chapter 459, and such consent is valid and binding as if she had achieved her majority.

It would seem that she does not need consent no matter the circumstances.  Although, I disagree, I would suspect that the court has to find this statute controlling, unless the minor is found incompetent.

As to whether Florida would block the removal of wisdom teeth, I don’t know.  I do know that any medical procedure, except an abortion it seems, requires parental consent, except in emergency situations. 

Given your offer, I need to let you know that I don’t drink much beer.  Too many calories and carbs.  I do drink vodka. I will e-mail you my address and a contact number for a liquor store in my area that will be happy to hold for me a pro-life bottle of Cristall or Belvedere on your behalf. 

I love how the judge ruled she was too immature to make the choice of getting an abortion….but somehow it seems, at 13 and homeless, she is mature enough to raise a child!

Yeah, real double morality.
That’s also something what Consigliere quite “conveniently” forgot to tell.

But after all double morality is nothing new from those extremists in control of capitalistic/corporationistic dictatorship called US.

but somehow it seems, at 13 and homeless, she is mature enough to raise a child!

I’ll hop in on Consis side here, even though my knee-jerk reactions mostly tend to GMs side.

Does anyone here realize that (for better or worse) the state will be the guardian of the newborn kid, should she not get an abortion after all? So she will not really raise it (on her own).

Its not like she will be thrown back onto the street with the kid in her hand, two days later. Seeing that she does not consent to staying in foster homes, they may have to take the kid away from her (if she does not voluntarily give it up anyway).

The above paragraphs do NOT deal with my opinion on her having or not having an abortion, BTW.

the state will be the guardian of the newborn kid

Correction: this SEEMS to me the logical legal take on the situation. I do not know the actual laws that would apply.

I love how the judge ruled she was too immature to make the choice of getting an abortion….but somehow it seems, at 13 and homeless, she is mature enough to raise a child!

Yeah, real double morality.
That’s also something what Consigliere quite “conveniently� forgot to tell.

I didn’t mention that because it did NOT happen.  A judge has not ruled that she is too immature, nor is the child homeless.

I thought this news item at the Sun-Sentinel.com website shows the 13 year old is a lot more capable of making this decision than some folks may have thought:

“Why can’t I make my own decision?“

That was the blunt question to a judge from a pregnant 13-year-old girl ensnared in a Palm Beach County court fight over whether she can have an abortion.

“I don’t know,“ Circuit Judge Ronald Alvarez replied, according to a recording of the closed hearing obtained Friday.

“You don’t know?“ replied the girl, who is a ward of the state. “Aren’t you the judge?“

Against a backdrop of state and federal efforts to pass a parental notification law for teen abortions, the exchange was typical of L.G.‘s pluck as she argued that she had the right and capability to make her own decision, despite a move by the Department of Children & Families to seek a judge’s permission for her abortion.

“I think if I want to make the decision, it’s my business and I can do that,“ she told the judge.
...
“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,“ the girl said as Alvarez and her guardian ad litem, assigned to shepherd her in the legal system, questioned her.

L.G. laid out different reasons for wanting an abortion.

“DCF would take the baby anyway,“ she said, but later added: “If I do have it, I’m not going to let them take it.“

She also questioned the health risk of carrying the fetus to term.

“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.“

Dr. Ethelene Jones, an expert in obstetrics and gynecology, testified earlier in the hearing that abortions are “definitely” safer than full term pregnancies for girls L.G.‘s age.

“At her age and at her stage of gestation ... her risk of death from an abortion procedure is about 1 in 34,000,“ said Jones, who has held positions at Planned Parenthood and the ACLU. “The risk of death in pregnancy is about 1 in 10,000.“

L.G. said her caseworker had taken her on three visits to clinics, and risks and alternatives to abortion were discussed.

Lynn Hargrove, the court-appointed psychologist, testified L.G. had a “mild mood disorder” but did not have “a significant psychotic or delusional thought process” that would interfere with rational decision making.

Kid seems able to make the decision to me.

Kid seems able to make the decision to me.

I would agree.  Absent incompetence, the statute above should apply.  Hence, my opinion that the court will allow her to proceed.

Kid seems able to make the decision to me.

I agree.  I wish she would have used her brain this much before she had sex.  Maybe all of this could have been avoided.

She sounds pretty sharp, probably has few illusions about life thanks to a pretty bad excuse for a childhood.

Not sure if anyone else mentioned this - I missed it if they did - but it sounds strange to say “the state cannot consent to an abortion.“  The most the state can do is allow or forbid an abortion - the state cannot get pregnant.  Only the person receiving the abortion could “consent” to it.

For once, I think I have to completely agree with Consi.  I do think that most children 13 and under need some sort of adult consent to undergo a medical procedure.  Moreover, I do think that in this case, given that she’s a ward of the state, the situation is a little more complex than normal.  However, hopefully the courts will be reasonable and actually consider whether she’s competent to make the decision to have an abortion or not rather than to dismiss the case outright.

However, hopefully the courts will be reasonable and actually consider whether she’s competent to make the decision to have an abortion or not rather than to dismiss the case outright.

They’d best hurry the hell up with a decision then.  At three months the procedure is much safer than it is later in the pregnancy - and at the rate the courts move, the kid will be in Kindergarten before they decide s/he can be aborted.

I love how the judge ruled she was too immature to make the choice of getting an abortion….but somehow it seems, at 13 and homeless, she is mature enough to raise a child!

Actually, the rest of society will be raising both this girl and her child.  And I don’t know about anybody else, but I cannot afford to keep paying for everybody’s mistakes.

The Swine sez:

For once, I think I have to completely agree with Consi.

So THAT’S how all this ice got here ... Lucifer just did a triple axel. 

Actually, the rest of society will be raising both this girl and her child.  And I don’t know about anybody else, but I cannot afford to keep paying for everybody’s mistakes.

Keep focusing on the big mistakes (Iraq, corporate golden parachutes, what have you) instead of sweating the penny stuff, Cindi!

Keep focusing on the big mistakes (Iraq, corporate golden parachutes, what have you) instead of sweating the penny stuff, Cindi!

Oh, Ingolfson, I keep telling myself that, but my outrage meter lately has been in warp drive.  Good advice, though.

Ingolfson, is that you in your gravitar?  You look so suave!

For all the yap about “personal responsibility” I have noticed that opposition to abortion seems to be disconnected from issues of ability to support children.  All those “penny” mistakes do add up.  How is it “family values” to force a 13-year-old to bear a child in a society that talks about adoption but pushes a sentimental framework for keeping your children even when you are still a child yourself?

DOF,

I completely agree with you, that’s why I hope the courts find that she’s competent to make the decision to have the abortion.  I mean, I think it would have been easier if the state had given its consent as her guardian but since it didn’t….

Looks like the judge got some common sense

Judge: Florida DCF cannot bar teen from getting abortion

The girl told the judge she was struck by the fact that a counselor told her a pregnancy would be riskier than abortion.

“Since you guys are supposedly here for the best interest of me, then wouldn’t y’all look at the fact that it would be more dangerous for me to have the baby than to have the abortion?“ Alvarez told her she had “a very good point.“