OMG, die the state of Florida, die!
May. 1st, 2005 02:39 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lapsedmodernistGirl, 13, argues right to abortion:
"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.
The DCF is the teen's legal guardian after she was taken away from her parents for abuse or neglect. State law allows minors to have abortions without notifying their guardians. Experts say the law extends to wards of the state, raising the question of why this girl's decision has ended up before a judge.
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 Department of Children and Families has the custodial responsibility to do what is in the best interest of the child," the department said.
Alvarez had ordered a psychological evaluation to determine L.G.'s mental condition and whether she would be harmed by terminating the pregnancy or giving birth.
The case is now before the 4th District Court of Appeal where it has been fast-tracked after attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union filed an emergency appeal Wednesday, arguing that neither the judge nor DCF should be involved in L.G.'s decision.
While delaying any ruling until the appeals court decides, Alvarez held a hearing Thursday to weigh arguments.
DCF attorney Jeffrey Gillen said he was concerned L.G. was more likely to suffer "detrimental effects" if she underwent an abortion because she had psychiatric or behavioral problems in the past.
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."
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.
Florida Girl Has Abortion Blocked:
"Too young to choose"
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. Judge Ronald Alvarez in Palm Beach accepted that argument and has granted a temporary injunction and psychological evaluation, which effectively blocks her from terminating the pregnancy.
It is a case which, once again, plays into the heated and divisive debate about abortion in America.
The judge's ruling comes in spite of Florida state law which specifically does not require a minor to seek parental consent before an abortion.
The American Civil Liberties Union 's executive director in Florida, Howard Simon, said forcing a 13-year-old to carry on an unwanted pregnancy to term, against her wishes, is not only illegal and unconstitutional, it is cruel.
"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.
The DCF is the teen's legal guardian after she was taken away from her parents for abuse or neglect. State law allows minors to have abortions without notifying their guardians. Experts say the law extends to wards of the state, raising the question of why this girl's decision has ended up before a judge.
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 Department of Children and Families has the custodial responsibility to do what is in the best interest of the child," the department said.
Alvarez had ordered a psychological evaluation to determine L.G.'s mental condition and whether she would be harmed by terminating the pregnancy or giving birth.
The case is now before the 4th District Court of Appeal where it has been fast-tracked after attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union filed an emergency appeal Wednesday, arguing that neither the judge nor DCF should be involved in L.G.'s decision.
While delaying any ruling until the appeals court decides, Alvarez held a hearing Thursday to weigh arguments.
DCF attorney Jeffrey Gillen said he was concerned L.G. was more likely to suffer "detrimental effects" if she underwent an abortion because she had psychiatric or behavioral problems in the past.
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."
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.
Florida Girl Has Abortion Blocked:
"Too young to choose"
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. Judge Ronald Alvarez in Palm Beach accepted that argument and has granted a temporary injunction and psychological evaluation, which effectively blocks her from terminating the pregnancy.
It is a case which, once again, plays into the heated and divisive debate about abortion in America.
The judge's ruling comes in spite of Florida state law which specifically does not require a minor to seek parental consent before an abortion.
The American Civil Liberties Union 's executive director in Florida, Howard Simon, said forcing a 13-year-old to carry on an unwanted pregnancy to term, against her wishes, is not only illegal and unconstitutional, it is cruel.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-05-01 08:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-01 08:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-01 10:47 pm (UTC)(apparently conservative activist judges are just peachy though...)
no subject
Date: 2005-05-01 08:27 pm (UTC)w
Date: 2005-05-01 09:23 pm (UTC)13 year old sexual partner when they say "we have had consenting sexual relations with each other." because although the sex is consentual, the child molestor still gets "hung", so to speak. i mean can any reasonable person, conservative or liberal, think that the 13 year old girl is old enough to consent to sex with a man, say in his 40's?
there has to be a reasonable line of standards drawn...my humble opinion,
of course.
M
Re: w
Date: 2005-05-01 09:27 pm (UTC)Also where do you get the idea that her partner was older? Nowhere in the article did it identify her father or his age. This is conjecture and I do not see its relevance to whether or not she should be able to terminate her pregnancy.
Re: w
Date: 2005-05-01 09:37 pm (UTC)no...no - i'm just "saying" - there are cases similar to the ones i've "posed" above. many cases, over and over, where the man in his 40s has protested the judge and jury over sexual relations he's had with a teen partner.
back to the main topic, if a 13 year old girl is given a right to choose an abortion, what is to stop grown men from pursuing consentual sex with them? how can a judge declare any person there forward of child endangerment and/or rape if the adult can say, "she is old enough to decide the fate of her child, so she is old enough to say yes to me"
the whole system would unravel and leave child molestors free to roam cities and towns, finding little lost faces just aching for the father figures they are missing in their lives. this case is inter-related. you must see that, no?
just for conversations-sake...not trying to be difficult.
M
Re: w
Date: 2005-05-01 09:44 pm (UTC)That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. I was going to enumerate all the logical fallacies your argument falls into, but there were just too many.
So let me just say, what is stopping grown men from pursuing sex with 13-year old girls now? I mean, the type of men who are pursuing sex with 13-year old girls.
Furthermore, in Florida 13-year old girls DO have the right, legally, to choose an abortion, without parental consent or notification, so the fact that this case ended up in court is already illegal and a testament to the ever-growing creepy tentacles of the "culture of life" nurtured by the Bush clan.
Re: w
Date: 2005-05-01 09:49 pm (UTC)i know that men pursue 13 year old girls...that is obvious - ha ha...but what i'm SAYING is that more of them will use the right to choose issue to defend themselves in court. and there isn't an attorney worth the license on his/her wall who wouldn't take that case.
so - in your logic, i can march down to florida and have sex with all the 13 year old girls i can find. then if someone tries to convict me, i can just say, "hey - she's old enough to choose". and i'd probably win the case - don't you think? do you think that that would be fair? curious...
M
Re: w
Date: 2005-05-01 09:53 pm (UTC)Re: w
Date: 2005-05-01 10:04 pm (UTC)i know...but in time, wretched types
would hope to twist it that way. but,
let's hope not.
M
Re: w
Date: 2005-05-01 10:07 pm (UTC)What you are suggesting is legally implausible. That is the only thing that matters here.
Re: w
Date: 2005-05-01 10:15 pm (UTC)no - wouldn't quite go that far.
people have used every minor case and scenario to defend themselves (did you hear about the twinkie defense case where a woman killed her husband and claimed it was her addiction to sugar and twinkies that caused her to kill? she actually got off on that premise!). so, using the right to choose issue to defend a child molestor is not too far fetched at all.
trust me, when lawyers and $$ are involved, they'll say and do anything. and just one liberal minded judge is enough to set off a new premise for all cases to follow.
M
Re: w
Date: 2005-05-01 10:25 pm (UTC)The "Twinkie" defense was not used in the case of any woman, it was used in the case of a defendant named Dan White who shot and killed San Francisco mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk.
Psychiatrist Martin Blinder testified in court that White had been depressed, which led to eating junk food, specifically Twinkies and Coca-Cola. This further deepened White's depression and led to the murder spree, and this became known as the "Twinkie defense."
While it was used for a diminished capacity plea, he was still convicted for voluntary manslaughter and sentenced to seven years in prison.
Re: w
Date: 2005-05-02 05:34 am (UTC)Re: w
Date: 2005-05-01 10:28 pm (UTC)One "liberal-minded" judge is not enough to set a precedent, that is not how the judicial system of courts and the chain of case reviews works.
I am sorry, you seem like an amicable enough conversationalist, but I cannot argue with you if you don't know any *facts* of the issues you want to discuss, and aren't willing to at least look them up before basing an argument on them. This is not useful for either of us.
Re: w
Date: 2005-05-01 10:34 pm (UTC)Yeah, but it's highly entertaining watching you set this douchebag straight...
Re: w
Date: 2005-05-01 10:35 pm (UTC)Break it down for this dude why he is saying makes no legal sense.
BREAK IT DOWN!!!
Re: w
Date: 2005-05-01 10:35 pm (UTC)ah yes...precedent - my apologies. i'm doing
like 3 things at once. but either way - i know the facts just fine. and in this debate, case studies will show you that one seed is all a wiley lawyer needs to grow an idea. that's fact. i'm obvoiusly playing devil's advocate - and if you don't see the relevance of setting reasonable standards, i'm afraid there is not much we can discuss - true.
M
Re: w
Date: 2005-05-01 10:37 pm (UTC)Re: w
Date: 2005-05-01 10:38 pm (UTC)the fact: lawyers will use any and any way to defend their client. using the right to choose issue is not so far fetched when it would come to defending their child molesting client.
that is the fact. it's already been debated.
M
Re: w
Date: 2005-05-01 10:44 pm (UTC)You look to case law for precedent and analogies, not statutes. You don't look to statutes to argue a case unless it's part of a broad set of regulations and you're trying to discern legislative intent. That isn't the case here, so your argument about old men is irrelevant.
If the judge makes any decision other than to throw this case out based on the justiciability doctrines, he won't be following the law.
Re: w
Date: 2005-05-01 11:25 pm (UTC)I like that photo of you too.
Re: w
Date: 2005-05-02 09:51 pm (UTC)this guy's journal.
What's with
All the poetry?
And the pictures.
I bet I've passed him
On Rush street
Thursday nights as I head home
from a long day at law school.
He was probably wearing
Distressed jeans, and
A shirt with vertical stripes
With the top two buttons undone
To reveal his manly chest
And the faint aura
Of AXE Body Spray for Men®
While his hair gel glimmered
Reflecting the lights of the city.
-P
Re: w
Date: 2005-05-03 12:56 pm (UTC)it poetry
When all he does is
use small words and
cliches strung together
As tacky colored Mardi
Gras beads
On an old faded necklace that
someone threw from a parade
float and it got caught
among the branches
to
be rained on forever or
perhaps smashed by
traffic on St Charles
before being swept
away
by inmates on trash duty?
Re: w
Date: 2005-05-03 09:02 pm (UTC)Re: w
Date: 2005-05-03 09:02 pm (UTC)Re: w
Date: 2005-05-01 10:31 pm (UTC)(Sarcasm aside, I'm not entirely sure that legal plausibility is a relavant factor considering this is Florida we're talking about here. The Schiavo case? Bush v. Gore? Legal precedent means nothing to these people! :-P )
Re: w
Date: 2005-05-01 10:33 pm (UTC)Re: w
Date: 2005-05-02 02:26 am (UTC)so true. it's a huge issue. a difficult
one, to say the least.
M
no subject
Date: 2005-05-02 09:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-04 08:43 pm (UTC)