I don’t like abortion.
I do, however, recognize that it is the settled law of the land, and I will abide by that law. I will never put myself in a position to cause an abortion, and I really have no problem with parental notice and 24 hour waiting periods, in general.
I recognize that there are some people who think abortion is murder all the time. I recognize that there are those who think that abortion should be legal all the time. I think both camps are a bit extreme.
I do recognize that not all people feel the same way I do, and, with that in mind, I have staked out a clear weasily middle ground that leaves me ripe for attacks from both sides. I do, however, respect the law and the people we have elected to write and administer the law, and believe that just because some people want to end abortion all the time, they have no right to force their viewpoints on individuals, particularly in cases in which we have determined there is a right to privacy, invented or not, bad logic of Roe v. Wade or not. If it is legal, and they are within their rights, your vieewpoint does not matter, however sincere you are and however strong your belief may be.
As such, I have not had much to say about the abortion case in Florida in which a 13 year old, a ward of the state, got pregnant and requested to have an abortion. The Florida Department of Children and Families, everybody’s favorite new political football in the abortion/religion/culture of life debate, did the wrong thing, in my estimation, trying to stop the abortion. Florida law is pretty clear:
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.
(3) Nothing in this act shall affect the provisions of s. 390.0111.
I understand that the DCF is under statutory pressure and obligation to not consent to abortions, but they were not the ones consenting- the thirteen year old was. As the law states, the thirteen year old’s consent was to be viewed as “valid and binding as if she had achieved her majority.”
This case is sad for a number of reasons. If you think about it, it is simply sad that a 13 year old has to grow up in the custody of the state. It is sad the DCF did nothing to report her absence when she ran away. It is sad young people are having careless and loveless unprotected sex. Everything about the case is saddening.
But what really angers me is that this was a political maneuver- a game, and there was no excuse for it. In the past, this never would have happened, and for those who want to correct me, according to the NY Times, it never has:
Carolyn Salisbury, associate director of the University of Miami Children and Youth Law Center, said she knew of many minors in state custody who had received abortions, and of only one other case where the state had objected. In that instance, she said, a state lawyer dropped the objection on being reminded that Florida does not require parental consent.
“Her case shocked me because for decades, girls in foster care have been consenting to their own abortions,” Ms. Salisbury said. “The state wouldn’t aid the girl but it wouldn’t stop her, either.”
The law is clear, but with Schiavo having just died and the usual suspects looking for payback, or affirmation of their beliefs, or whatever, the state through its agency engaged in a little game of political football in clear violation of Florida law. And, as such, this will be spun as another example of judical activism and an out of control judiciary. Look at the rhetoric coming from Jeb Bush:
“Look, if the judge has ruled, it’s time to move on,” Governor Bush said. “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 her baby will be lost. There’s no good news in this at all.”
Bush is smart, and he recognizes that what his DCF tried to do was clearly against the law, so now he is distancing himself and putting this all off on one of those ‘activist judges.’ And let’s be clear- the judge did not rule on whether or not she should have an abortion- the judge was not in a position to make such a determination. He was simply required to judge whether or not she was mentally competent, which she clearly is:
“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…”
L.G., who told Alvarez she had run away at least five times from her youth shelter, maintained, “It would make no sense to have the baby.”
“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.”
Activist judges are not running around forcing thirteen year olds to have abortion. Judge Alvarez did not pick up a phone book, flip through the pages, and randomly choose a pregnant 13 year-old so he could order her to have an abortion. All he did was rule that she was competent to make her own decision, a clear affirmation of extant law.
This should be recognized as ‘doing his job,’ and this was not judicial activism in any sense of the term. It was activism on the part of the DCF to politicize this issue in clear contradiction of the law of Florida, but this was not judicial activism. It was judicial restraint. Judicial activism would have been ruling that a clearly competent minority entitled to act on her own behalf as a majority is ‘incompetent.’ Now THAT would have been blatant judical activism.
Which is precisely what some people want:
The barely teenaged girl is a ward of the Florida Department of Children and Families and has run away numerous times. Judge Alvarez also ordered either the young girl’s custodians or attorneys (one of her lawyers is the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida) to actually drive her to get the abortion.
“Here you have yet another judge who has established a pattern of decisions that are contrary to stated public policy. This is a clear example of a system that should be protecting this young girl and her unborn child, yet has failed miserably,” says Tony Perkins, President of Family Research Council.
“Judge Alvarez created rights for a 13-year-old girl who is far too young to make such decisions and understand the repercussions, both physical and emotional, of terminating her pregnancy,” continues Perkins.
“The ACLU and Judge Alvarez seem to believe children know best when it comes to abortion even though they legally cannot determine whether they are ready for a body piercing, tattoo or even a tanning booth until they have reached the age of eighteen in some states. This is an absurd and very harmful abuse by the ACLU and Judge Alvarez to advance their own political agendas regardless of who will get hurt in the process.”
Judge Alvarez created no rights for this girl. The ACLU made no judgement on what rights she should have. The Florida legislature did.
Keep this in mind when you hear about judicial activism, because what is really being debated here is not judicial activism, but control of the judiciary and instilling judicial activism. While there are clear cases of judicial activism, the now focus-grouped phraseology is being applied broadly and inappropriately as a weapon in the culture wars.
If you follow the logic of the tanning booth or body piercing comment, what they want is rather blatant and straight-forward activism. They want a judge to say something like this:
“Despite the clear intent of the legislature to confer majority status to minors regarding their health care in cases such as this, I find that this makes no sense in a state where we forbid minors to vote, buy liquor, get tattoos, have elective cosmetic surgery, or go to a tanning booth without permission from their parents. Therefore, I am ignoring the law and forbidding this girl from having an abortion by declaring that she is incapable of making that decision.”
That is what they want, and that is judicial activism. It doesn’t get any clearer than that.
You don’t have to like abortion, but you do have to respect the law. If you don’t like the law, change it. Change your representatives and other elected officals. Change the governor and replace him with a governor who will move to change the Florida Constitution.
But quit pretending there is some crisis in the judiciary when decent people apply the law as written, and quit smearing good people. And most of all, quit attacking our judges, the overwhelming majority of whom are doing EXACTLY what they are supposed to do- faithfully interpreting the law and applying it fairly.
Please.
KC
I became a Dem over a year-and-a-half ago, but when I read you John, I can’t help but regret my decision a little. Then I remember you’re a minority in the Republican Party now and I slip back into reality.
Mr Furious
Excellent post, John. You distilled the situation in Florida perfectly. And your “weasily middle-ground” position is one of the most welll-reasoned and presented positions I’ve seen/heard/read.
As on most issues, I am to your left on this, as well, but I can respect and understand where you’re coming from. One thing, however…
“…I will never put myself in a position to cause an abortion…”
An admirable stance. One that everyone, ideally, should strive for. Goes right along with the “safe, legal and rare” approach I advocate. But unless you have a vascectomy, or practice perfect birth control with a woman who agrees completely that she will deliver any baby, regardless of her health or the baby’s, such a statement is really the ultimate hypothetical. Or, there’s always abstinance…
I believe you mean what you say, and have every intention to follow that through in your life, just remember about good intentions and roads and all that.
Once again, another excellent post and more reason why this has become my first and last (but hardly only) stop whenever I’m online.
ppgaz
Another right-on post, John. Well reasoned and well stated.
Unfortunately, we are seeing the result of giving authority to elected officials who are only interested in pandering to a voting bloc. They don’t care about the independence of the judiciary — a pillar of our system of government — or anything else that interferes with their grip on power.
cameron
Activist Judge(N.)-A judge who’s ruling(s) follow the law and do not line up with christian conservative republicans belief system.
ape
“weasily middle-ground”: welcome to my world.
Actually, most people inhabit it.
One query: How many people ‘like’ abortion? I remember hearing someone on the radio once who seemed to. But I think it’s pretty rare.
JC says:
“I don’t like abortion.
I do, however, recognize that it is the settled law of the land..”
This confuses me. Very few people ‘like abortion’ (any more than they ‘like death’ ‘like lying’ etc..)
And in what sense is it ‘the law of the land’?
(Reminding me of Bill Hicks:
“People reacted like the Supreme Court APPROVED of flag-burning..
‘Do I gotta burn my flag?’
No.
‘But the Supreme Court said..’
NO! Shut the fuck up.. they just said that maybe, if you DO burn a flag, you don’t have to go to prison.”)
In fact, almost everybody dislikes abortion. Whatever our views on the disposition of the law regarding it, we can all agree that limiting it as much as possible is one of our aims.
[As an aside: It is clear that the universal availibility of wide choice of effective contraception options is an essential tool in this process.
Maybe some people disagree. If so, that’s because they don’t like sex, or women having control over their reproductive systems, not because they don’t like abortion. This is where we run into real difficulties and there is no common ground. It is tragic that those who style themselves as (and are accepted as) anti-abortion campaigners (really, criminalisation-of-women campaigners) are generally also anti-sex/ anti-contraception nutters. Genuine anti-abortion campaigners should make sure they are not part of their coalition.]
Mr Furious
Nice follow-up, Ape. One of the most infuriating pieces of rhetoric coming from the more extreme pro-lifers (or just loudmouth pretenders like Rush & Hannity) is refering to pro-choicers as “pro-abortion.” Or that a woman actually getting the full spectrum of options and information from her doctor or clinic means she is getting convinced to have an abortion. That’s bullshit, and it pisses me off. I don’t know anybody who is pro-abortion. But I know plenty of people who are thankful that it was an option for them in what ultimately is a desperate and often difficult time. I am one of them.
Jay
Mr. Furious, such rhetoric is alse evident on the other side when pro-life people are called “anti-choice” or when they are described as “wanting to control a womans uterus.”
And let’s not forget that organizations like NARAL want abortion to be legal at any time and for any reason. They’re opposed to waiting periods and parental notification laws. No limits at all.
So you and Ape shouldn’t pretend that those who refuse to give ground reside only on the pro-life side. Hell, groups like NOW and NARAL said that somebody like Evan Bayh would not be an acceptable Presidential candidate because of his opposition to partial birth abortion.
And Cameron, ANY judge or justice is an “activist” when they don’t arrive at a ruling that somebody wants. See Bush v. Gore.
frank
New here. Excellent post. I’ll be back.
John Cole
One of the most infuriating pieces of rhetoric coming from the more extreme pro-lifers (or just loudmouth pretenders like Rush & Hannity) is refering to pro-choicers as “pro-abortion.”
Which is why I felt it necessary to state I don’t like abortion. To those who oppose abortion vehemently, you are easily villified.
ape
Jay –
NOW and NARAL presumably do not, however, argue that there should be more sex and/or less contraception to increase the number of abortions.
They are not ‘pro-abortion’ or anything like it.
Likewise, ‘Anti-abortion’ shouldn’t imply the favouring of legal sanctions.
But on the name-calling issue.. really, don’t start:
We belong to ‘a culture of death’ according to a vast swathe of right-wing commentators and leaders, including their international hero, the Vatican’s Head of State.
We gloried in Schiavo’s death, and would be dancing on her grave if the queue would only shorten.
BTW – Rush is talking TODAY about how TS could have recovered.
Mr Furious
I recognize that there are going to be fanatics on both sides of every issue. but even the most extreme on the pro-choice side are not forcing anybody to have abortions, whereas even the less extreme pro-lifer would force a woman to deliver a child that is not wanted.
One side is advocating for choice, not abortion, and the other side is advocating for control over a woman’s right to control her uterus, whether you want to phrase it that way or not.
I don’t know where you’re getting your info on NARAL, but on the front page of the website they are urging support of Sen. Reid’s Prevention First Act. Vocal and prominant support for sensible legislation sponsored by an acknowledged pro-life Senator — that doesn’t sound too extreme to me.
From the NARAL mission statement:
Maniacs.
Jay
One side is advocating for choice, not abortion, and the other side is advocating for control over a woman’s right to control her uterus, whether you want to phrase it that way or not.
No. That’s where you’re wrong. I am pro-life. I could care less about a woman’s uterus. If I wanted to control a woman’s uterus, I’d be opposed to a woman getting a hysterectomy.
As somebody that is pro-life, my concern is for the unborn child. There is another person involved in the equation, and that’s what people like yourself (I say so because of your statement) seem to forget in this debate.
And don’t give me red herrings about NARAL’s support for some feel good legislation. The fact remains that NARAL is opposed to ANY restrictions on abortion.
ape
Jay – next time I want to borrow your uterus (or your heart, liver, kidneys etc..) I won’t need to ask, yes? I’ll just breeze on in there.
My failing organs match yours.
You would then be obliged to be concerned for my wellbeing (there’s another person involved here!); and not for your bodypart. This isn’t about them at all. It’s about me.
Stormy70
I think the judge in this case followed the law as written, so if people have a problem they should lobby to have the law changed. Judges are supposed to rule based on written laws, and this judge did what he was supposed to do.
I tend to agree with John’s middle position, I don’t like abortion, and I think the decesion to abort should be kept to the first trimester. Three months should be plenty of time for a woman to make up their minds. I would support a law that would make it so, but until then, I have to respect the laws that are currently in place. Personally, I think abortions will decrease in the future without government interference, based on modern medical techniques . Ultrasounds are now showing babies smiling and playing with their feet at less than four months in the womb. I think this will have a greater effect than any regulatory laws in the future.
Pug
Better be careful or you will turn into a raging moderate. Look, you gotta choose sides. It’s either Sean Hannity or Randi Rhodes.
Otherwise, you have no convictions.
JG
‘Here you have yet another judge who has established a pattern of decisions that are contrary to stated public policy. ‘
Since when are judges supposed to rule according to ‘public policy’? I don’t know whats worse, this guy saying that or the flock of followers who go along with it. We’re fucked. I think Osama bin shithead did a lot more damage on 9/11 than we first thought.
TJ Jackson
I love the if its legal its okay philosophy which brings us 13 year olds having babies and abortion.
How about a discussion of judicial over reach. A 13 year old can’t be executed for a murder but can murder her baby because she is old enough to decide. Which is it? I have no problem with allowing the abortion yet we have been told people under 17 lack the capability to be held accountable for their actions?
Water seeks its own level and in America that level today is low and will probably get lower yet, especially if it is legal.
Rick
Well, here’s hoping the pro- and anti-abortion debate *FINALLY* gets settled. Right here on Balloon Juice after 32 years.
Yeah, that’ll happen. “Will not.” “Will too.” “Will not.” “Will too.”
Cordially…
Andrei
“How about a discussion of judicial over reach. A 13 year old can’t be executed for a murder but can murder her baby because she is old enough to decide. Which is it?”
Judicial overreach doesn’t occur if they are simply enforcing the laws of the land, so stop playing with words. The beef you seem to have is with the laws, not with the judges. As John states:
“All he did was rule that she was competent to make her own decision, a clear affirmation of extant law.”
Further, the use of “murder” when desribing aborting a fetus is a classic example of loaded rhetoric that does nothing but allow people on opposing sides to further entrench their positions.
As a complete side note, did anyone watch “House” last night on Fox? It’s a great show imho. Last night they had an episode about this sort of problem. A 12 year old comes down with TTP and the doctors discover it’s due to her being pregnant. Due to Florida laws, Dr. House can’t inform the parents and forces the girl to make her own life or death decision, and it’s clear Dr. House is quite livid about the whole situation. The girl goes through with the abortion, and then does decide to tell her parents in a scene that is very moving.
The episode was messy, complicated and emotionally accurate imho. It’s not an easy issue, and the answers are hardly clean cut. For television, it was reasonably well written and acted.
Steve Malynn
Andrei, you’re missing what TJ is saying: following the law as written regarding the abortion by the 13 year old was appropriate but overturning the law regarding execution of 17 year old murderers was not appropriate. The first is a hard case eventually decided consistant with the written law, the second a hard case the Supreme Court made new law on (to my mind illegitimately). Actually, as regards the written laws, neither was a difficult decision, the laws were simple.
Sojourner
Hmmm. A 13-year-old is not old enough to make a decision about having an abortion but is old enough to carry a baby to term. What am I missing?
TJ Jackson
Andrei:
You seem to have a real problem with reality. What law says a 13 year old is legally capable of making a decision to have an abortion? What law prohibits a 13 year from being elected. These are fiats by judges not to be found in any law.
This is why our way of life is under attack when unelected individuals can do whatever they wish and have dolts like you call it the “law.” There was more just law in Nazi Germany.
John Cole
TJ- You seem to have a problem with reality. You ask:
What law says a 13 year old is legally capable of making a decision to have an abortion?
The law I listed above, which states:
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.
They wrote that specifically thinking that someone under 18 might get pregnant, and they determined that she was to be allowed to have an abortion if she chose.