kalikshama -> RE: To immature to have an abortion (10/12/2013 6:14:50 AM)
|
quote:
I wish they had referenced the actual law. Did they deny her a waiver because she's never supported herself, or because her parents are no longer her guardians? From whom a state ward needs permission is not codified: http://www.chron.com/news/article/Neb-high-court-nixes-teen-s-request-for-abortion-4869315.php In the 5-2 opinion, the majority sided with the judge, saying that the abuse exemption does not apply to the girl, finding that a pregnant minor must show, for the purpose of waiving parental consent, that any abuse occurred at the hands of a current parent or guardian. It also found the girl did not prove she was sufficiently mature or well-informed enough to decide to have an abortion. As for her argument that the child protection agency's regulations don't require state wards to get parental or agency consent for an abortion, the majority determined that Bataillon was limited to considering only the parameters laid out in the state's parental consent law, which does not spell out from whom state wards would get consent. The high court did not consider the girl's argument that Bataillon should have recused himself, because she did not ask him to do so or question his impartiality at trial. In a dissent, Justice William Connolly said the girl has no legal parents, and, therefore, didn't have the option of seeking parental consent. That, he said, means the lower court lacked jurisdiction in the case and left her "in a legal limbo — a quandary of the Legislature's making." He also suggested that Nebraska's parental consent law is open to a constitutional challenge by state wards. "I realize that this conclusion means that none of the statutory exceptions apply and that under (the state law), the petitioner is prohibited from obtaining an abortion," Connolly wrote. "An absolute ban on the petitioner's right to seek an abortion obviously raises constitutional concerns."
|
|
|
|