This article says it all:

quote:

---

Its 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

---

edit: oops!! i misread that! sorry...

um, i suppose if she wanted to carry the child to term and knew the risks (as did her guardian(s)) then she should be allowed to continue her pregnancy. and if she doesn't/didn't know the risks, she should be educated on them asap. i think it's important to know what you're getting yourself into in any kind of medical situation. it's your right.

[ 30 April 2005: Message edited by: ShyViolet ]

Who can feel entirely comfortable with giving a 13 year old the responsibility for such a decision? Who can feel entirely comfortable with excluding her from the process?

It's a wisdom of Solomon decision.

And this poor girl is a ward of the state so it appears that she's had a lifetime of difficulties.

I am not going to get into the political debate of all of this. It will change nothing. Whatever happens I hope she is able to heal and get on with her life.

To take my mind off it, there is a really irritating typo in that article.

OK, somewhat more coherent. Forcing that girl to bear a child is more than illegal, unconstitutional and cruel, it's SLAVERY. Welcome to Gilead, folks. Where a fertile womb is a price above rubies.

What's her address? I'll mail her a dose of taxomifen.

[ 30 April 2005: Message edited by: Anchoress ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:

Remember that this is an extreme case of "children having children". Precocious puberty seems to becoming much more common in many countries. Hormones in food? Diet? There are ten-year-olds who get their period now.

---

But we're talking about a 13-year old here. Don't get me wrong, this is a vindictive, disgusting act by the State.... but wasn't Julliette just foreteen when she wanted to marry (and supposedly start pumping out the kiddies soon after) Romeo ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anchoress:

OK, somewhat more coherent. Forcing that girl to bear a child is more than illegal, unconstitutional and cruel, it's SLAVERY. Welcome to Gideon, folks. Where a fertile womb is a price above rubies.

[ 30 April 2005: Message edited by: Anchoress ]

---

http://www.keepkidshealthy.com/welcome/conditions/precocious_puberty.html

When Should Puberty Start?
From Vincent Iannelli, M.D.,
Your Guide to Pediatrics.
FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!

Learn the signs of early puberty
Q. My daughter is 9 years old and is beginning to 'develop'. Is it normal for children to start puberty so young?
A. Yes. In general, 9 is a very appropriate age for your child to start puberty. Puberty normally occurs in a series of five stages (Tanner stages) that typically begin within the ages of 8 and 13 for girls and 9 and 14 for boys. Puberty is consider early (precocious) if it occurs before the age of 8 years in girls and 9 years in boys

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Precocious puberty? I find that term very offensive and the onset of puberty at 10 is not abnormal or indeed "early".

---

Medically, precocious puberty is currently defined as "...development of secondary sexual characteristics, or menarche in girls, at or before the age of 9 years..."

Scary, seeing pictures of 5 year old girls with fully developed breast tissue...

Edit: remind beat me to it - well, the age I got is from Kumar & Clark, Clinical Medicine, 2002.

[ 30 April 2005: Message edited by: sub lite ]

I am not sure what is wrong with having an evaluation done. I'm not being argumentative, I just would like to better understand.

And I am not being biased - or if I am I'm not

quote:

---

Forcing that girl to bear a child is more than illegal, unconstitutional and cruel, it's SLAVERY. Welcome to Gilead, folks. Where a fertile womb is a price above rubies.

---

Unless I am missing something an evaluation is being done to make sure she is capable of informed consent. Dollars to donuts she'll be having an abortion within a week. I can honestly say that I think if there were a situation where the parents wanted an abortion and the child wanted to carry to term and the judge ordered an evaluation as a tool to make sure that she understood all issues I'd not feel I could criticize that.

quote:

---

I thought the state was supposed to act in the best interests of the child. This so clearly isn't. Reading this has made me so angry. How can maturity be a factor in a situation that's already a fait accompli? It's not like she has the option of not making a decision as an adult; that flew out the window when she became pregnant. That's why this has to be something that the guardian (real parents or the state) can't control.

---

I am not sure how it is not in someone's best inerests to make sure that they can engage in informed consent.

Honestly, you guys, I am not getting this. I can understand if you were all upset about the law where minors can't cross state lines to get abortions while avoiding informed consent legislation. I wouldn't be in agreement but I'd at least understand your perspective.

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hailey:
I am not sure how it is not in someone's best inerests to make sure that they can engage in informed consent.

---

1. She is already pregnant. I don't know her relationship or sexual details obviously, but the oppurtunity of preventing a process from happening to her body until she can consent to it has passed, whether she was informed or intelligent enough to consent to sex and the possibility of pregnancy has passed. She now must either abort or go through pregnancy.

2. It's not like she could possibly go through the abortion without being informed of the risks. They always discuss the procedure before doing it and they make sure that this is what the patient really wants. By saying she wouldn't otherwise be informed, it makes an implication of a lack of professionalism among abortion providers that simply is unwarrented.

3. As anchoress said, it treats children in care as a different class under the law than children who aren't in care.

quote:

---

Remember that this is an extreme case of "children having children".

---

A 13-year old is a child.

This kind of state meddling will only push young girls to go underground to terminate a pregnancy, with all the dangerous, unsafe, unsanitary conditions that entails.

The legal busybodies involved don't care about the health and welfare of a 13-year old ward of the state. They only care about furthering their own agendas.

[ 30 April 2005: Message edited by: Jumble ]

quote:

---

By saying she wouldn't otherwise be informed, it makes an implication of a lack of professionalism among abortion providers that simply is unwarrented.

---

Have you ever had a baby? I'm not meaning that sarcastically at all but they do a very poor job of making sure women are informed on a whole range of things. I've seen them break women's water without even discussing it with them and going through various options with them. That's just one example.

I would absolutely say that the medical profession has much to learn about informed consent despite all the improvements in the last few years. I wouldn't limit that to abortionists.

quote:

---

3. As anchoress said, it treats children in care as a different class under the law than children who aren't in care.

---

I agree with that. That's terribly bothersome.

quote:

---

Since this young woman is deemed too young to choose an abortion, once her child is born, she will likely be deemed too young to raise a child. Apprehension will soon follow, thus relieving the state of any responsibility for supporting this mother and child through making the baby available for permanent adoption. This young woman is being subjected to pregnancy and childbirth and likely, the grief of losing a child. How cruel.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hailey:
Have you ever had a baby? I'm not meaning that sarcastically at all but they do a very poor job of making sure women are informed on a whole range of things. I've seen them break women's water without even discussing it with them and going through various options with them. That's just one example.

I would absolutely say that the medical profession has much to learn about informed consent despite all the improvements in the last few years. I wouldn't limit that to abortionists.

---

That's a rather condescending comment. No, I haven't had a baby. I have, however, had an abortion several years ago and they were indeed very cautious about ensuring that I had carefully considered my choices and explained all the risks.

I'm sorry you've seen less than proper standards, but automatically assuming that she wouldn't be informed is still an insult to the medical profession as a whole. I hope the patients in question were able to take up a complaint against the health care providers who didn't use proper standards of care.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hailey:
If she has an abortion she is subject to having to live with that memory. Easy? for some yes and for some no. I know at that age I would have been haunted but, quite honestly, I'd have been haunted by any outcome.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Loretta:

As a ward of the state, doesn't the state have the responsibility to consider her best interests? Isn't that the premise of all child welfare legislation? This appears to be ideologically driven decision making and this young woman/girl is caught in its grips.

---

they should, but they don't....

*note* i know this story is old. i wanted to show y'all though that this isn't the 1st time something like this has happened. i'm also going to see if i can't hunt down the outcome to this story.

edit:the outcome

[ 30 April 2005: Message edited by: ShyViolet ]

quote:

---

That's a rather condescending comment.

---

I understand it came across that way but I hope that you will accept that that was not my intention. I just really feel that women are notoriously ill-informed around that time. I have very strong beliefs about that.

It was my intention to just explore if you felt well-informed it wasn't my intention to insult you.

quote:

---

I'm sorry you've seen less than proper standards, but automatically assuming that she wouldn't be informed is still an insult to the medical profession as a whole. I hope the patients in question were able to take up a complaint against the health care providers who didn't use proper standards of care.

---

I am glad that you felt well-informed.

Girl, 13, argues right to abortion

quote:

---

"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?"

---

Excuse me while I pick myself up off the floor.

When a 13 year old faces off a circuit judge who can't give a straight answer to a straight question something is SERIOUSLY fucked up in the good old US of A. This 13-year-old seems to have a better grip on the situation than the judge or anyone else:

quote:

---

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."

---

Should we not be flabbergasted by this exchange? You damn right its a good point, "your honor!" Seems the young woman has made her case in a way that should shame the legal system and the state's childrens services. The young woman believes the state would be waiting to snatch the child away from her after delivery but seems to be saying to the state : if you make me have this child I'm keeping it.

Well, will the state argue then that she can't afford to bring up the child? If they do that, would they not be arguing her case for an abortion anyway? And after the state of Florida litigates this case to the bitter end, if they do, they would probably have spent enough taxpayers money to send the woman's unborn child to Harvard. DCF is arguing that this young woman has had psychological problems in the past and therefore would be traumatized by an abortion. SO they'll tie her to a gurney, force her to deliver and take the child away and THAT won't be traumatic?!?

I'm beside myself here. This is barbaric reasoning.

The judge recovered enough to blast DCF for caring more about "saving" this 13-year-old's unwanted baby rather than the welfare of the young woman, who conceived after running away from a placement:

quote:

---

The judge blasted the DCF, saying the agency never asked the court to issue an order to take the child into custody after her most recent disappearance.

"To say that I am angry at that would be an understatement," Alvarez said. "To rush into this court on an emergency basis because this child is pregnant and wants an abortion, I don't know where our priorities in life are. The priority should have been to make certain that an order to take her into custody was issued as soon as possible, and that she was found and taken off of the streets or wherever she was. But nobody cared."

---

Of course this is the SAME DCF that "lost" Rilya Wilson, later found dead.

But hey, this is the state of Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris and the rest of the nuts of the religious right. This young woman's life isn't of any concern to these people until there's a fetus THEN they move heaven and earth to shuttle her into a courtroom and deny her what she wants and is entitled to under Florida law.

Everybody knows at least one couple who is struggling with infertility. But this is anti-abortion pushed to a terrible, logical extreme.

From the article:

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hailey:
It's just a gruesome situation. Just nauseatingly sad.

It's a wisdom of Solomon decision.

And this poor girl is a ward of the state so it appears that she's had a lifetime of difficulties.

---

Well, my first reaction to this was but when I thought about it, I realized, you're right: it is a Solomon type decision. The thing is, if this girl 'belonged' to a father - such as a politician, a lawyer, a doctor - there would have been no questions asked. She would have rapidly received the safest procedure available, the one that respects her life, and nobody would have been the wiser.

Hailey, I've known pro-life churchpeople who've admitted to me that if their daughter had been raped or was extremely underage and pregnant, they would ensure she had an abortion without hesitation. Another pro-life person told me that if it turned out that his wife was pregnant with a severely mentally handicapped baby, he would urge her to abort.

It smacks of enforced breeding of mentally handicapped people to have their children for who knows what purposes.

quote:

---

This case does really highlight the serious drawbacks and outright cruelty of that old "pro-life" solution wherein pregnant women should be forced to give birth - "because God knows there are so many couples out there who can't conceive and want to adopt."

---

I'm prolife and I do not know people who present their thoughts that way.

quote:

---

Well, my first reaction to this was

[QUOTE]

Well...you can agree or disagree with me about abortion..that's fine..but I am very sincere that I feel terribly sad about this situation no matter what she chooses. Even if she gave birth I'd just feel so sad about it. Who would wish a child this situation?

Think whatever you want but I'm not heartless.

[QUOTE] The thing is, if this girl 'belonged' to a father - such as a politician, a lawyer, a doctor - there would have been no questions asked. She would have rapidly received the safest procedure available, the one that respects her life, and nobody would have been the wiser.

---

I agree that there is profound sadness attached to the reality that she is being treated differently because she is a child with an unfortunate life that ended up in government care. If she had a family the situation would be handled differently.

quote:

---

Hailey, I've known pro-life churchpeople who've admitted to me that if their daughter had been raped or was extremely underage and pregnant, they would ensure she had an abortion without hesitation. Another pro-life person told me that if it turned out that his wife was pregnant with a severely mentally handicapped baby, he would urge her to abort.

Hypocrisy, that's what's so very, very sad.

---

Well I don't know what to say to that. I have never met anyone prolife who would do that. I have met prolife people that had abortions and felt differently about the issue in later years. I don't see that as hypocritical anymore than it would be hypocritical if I started to say pro-choice things tomorrow (don't hold your breath!) because people change and grow with time. People can evolve into different positions. But someone who is already prolife? I can't see it happening with anyone I know. That would be terrible.

I can say that without question when I was 13 I would have had the baby and that baby would have been welcomed into our family with such love. Horrendously difficult? I can't even imagine.. And if my baby was disabled? My husband and I would cherish our child deeply. I worked with special needs children and have had the opportunity to know many children without disabilities just naturally in the community. I don't see people with disabilities as sub-human expendables. We'd had the child in heartbeat.

In all circumstances my family would have cherished a child under any circumstances as a member of our family. Nobody would have made me feel that my baby had less value because of the circumstances surrounding the conception (rape) or because of my age (extremely immature) or because of severe health challenges. If you've met christians like that yes, indeed, that's very very very sad on more levels than I explain.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
No shyviolet, that is not the outcome per se. Where did the child go? What will this child's life be like? Who cares where this child went? Is anyone watching to see what happened to it? The mother had ben abandoned so there is no extended family? And what about the mother it was taken from did she know what happened to her?

It smacks of enforced breeding of mentally handicapped people to have their children for who knows what purposes.

Sick simply sick!

---

well, i had meant the outcome of the case, but you're right. no one will ever know what has or will happen to the baby. as for what the mother knows, i can't say. she functions on the level of a 1 yr old according to the article, but maybe she was aware of the child on some other level. i have no idea...

quote:

---

I'm prolife and I do not know people who present their thoughts that way.

---

Secondly, please stop using those catchwords 'sub-human expendables'. You don't know how conflicted pro-choice advocates or women who've chosen to have an abortion can feel about the reality of their lives and their choice. Not to mention those of us who aren't even activists.

Do you realize that as humans, we are all expendable in one way or another? (Just consider the bible god's point of view - some people's lives are just more expendable than others.) I'll give you an example of what I mean. As recently as 50 years ago, priests in Quebec used to make the rounds of homes to ensure that families would have another baby at least every two years. Yes, they kept records. It was pro-life pushed to a (logical) extreme. Without modern medical technology, women were expendables. Childbirth can be very dangerous; without modern medical care and technology, when labour was very difficult, it was up to the husbands to decide: they were often asked to choose whether it was the baby or the mother who would be saved. Which one was the expendable, in your opinion? If the husband chose to keep the wife, then the baby was the expendable - sub-human, do you really think they thought that way? If he chose the baby, he was putting the welfare of everyone else in the family on the line.(By the way, they weren't always necessarily encouraged to choose the wife. And sometimes they lost both.) Why do you think that Quebecers are now so favourable to abortion, as a whole? It's because they've already experienced first hand, the horrors produced by an absolutist pro-life religious and political agenda. Many grandmothers are still around to tell the stories.

[ 01 May 2005: Message edited by: brebis noire ]

quote:

---

I can say that without question when I was 13 I would have had the baby and that baby would have been welcomed into our family with such love. Horrendously difficult? I can't even imagine.. And if my baby was disabled? My husband and I would cherish our child deeply. I worked with special needs children and have had the opportunity to know many children without disabilities just naturally in the community. I don't see people with disabilities as sub-human expendables. We'd had the child in heartbeat.

In all circumstances my family would have cherished a child under any circumstances as a member of our family. Nobody would have made me feel that my baby had less value because of the circumstances surrounding the conception (rape) or because of my age (extremely immature) or because of severe health challenges.

---

Let's see how many smug middle-class assumptions we can find in this response, shall we?

Hailey - you are married, presumably educated in some fashion and enjoy the support of a loving family. Yet you dare to compare yourself to an uneducated 13 year old girl who has no family support at all.

If you feel that this girl should compact her misery by being forced to raise a baby, you are condemning her to rasing a child alone without money and also without safe/adequate housing or child care or emotional support. You are condemning her to a life of poverty to justify some Christian rhetoric you absorbed somewhere along the line in your privileged, sheltered life.

When this girl is desperate for money to buy diapers, or so frustrated at the end of a day of continuous childcare without relief that she feels like beating her baby, are you and your Christian friends going to step in and help her out? My guess is no.

Statements like this

quote:

---

I can say that without question when I was 13 I would have had the baby and that baby would have been welcomed into our family with such love.

---

only betray your complete ignorance and total lack of compassion for people who are not like you.

[ 01 May 2005: Message edited by: Granola Girl ]

quote:

---

Secondly, please stop using those catchwords 'sub-human expendables'. You don't know how conflicted pro-choice advocates or women who've chosen to have an abortion can feel about the reality of their lives and their choice. Not to mention those of us who aren't even activists.

I didn't see that comment as about abortion so much as about our society as a whole views people with disabilities. That being said I would apply the statement to abortion.

I've never heard the story about the visiting Priests. I'll look into that. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

[QUOTE] Hailey - you are married, presumably educated in some fashion and enjoy the support of a loving family. Yet you dare to compare yourself to an uneducated 13 year old girl who has no family support at all.

[QUOTE]

No I am not. I am responding to the statement made that prolife activists would just go and quietly have their daughters abort the baby. I don't think that would happen in many prolife families.

This young 13 year old girl has much greater challenges than I have ever had to bear. I would not insult her circumstances by suggesting that I've lived her life.

[QUOTE]If you feel that this girl should compact her misery by being forced to raise a baby, you are condemning her to rasing a child alone without money and also without safe/adequate housing or child care or emotional support. You are condemning her to a life of poverty to justify some Christian rhetoric you absorbed somewhere along the line in your privileged, sheltered life.

---

I don't feel she should be condemned to that kind of a life. I believe that the prolife movement needs to concentrate their attention on improving the life circumstances of any young mother so this doesn't represent the lifestyle that she is facing. It's an area of growth for our country.

quote:

---

When this girl is desperate for money to buy diapers, or so frustrated at the end of a day of continuous childcare without relief that she feels like beating her baby, are you and your Christian friends going to step in and help her out? My guess is no.

---

I do try to make a meaningful contribution to persons in difficult situations after they have had their baby. I can give you actual examples if you wish.

I do recognize that there is a legitimate criticism that the prolife movement winds down their supports after the conclusion fo the pregnancy.

You can disagree with me all you like on this issue but I don't believe you will ever find an example of me assuming a position that we should continue to provide support to young mothers raising their children. If you knew me personally you would know that I have never complained about paying taxes.

[QUOTE] only betray your complete ignorance and total lack of compassion for people who are not like you.[QUOTE]

I don't feel that that is a comment you've made after examining my quote in context. I was responding to a comment made that all prolifers would just quietly go and abort their grandchild. I don't believe that that is true and I am speaking about what my prolife parents and myself would have done at that age.

I appreciate that other families have different circumstances.

quote:

---

Originally posted by brebis noire:
Hailey,
Secondly, please stop using those catchwords 'sub-human expendables'.

[ 01 May 2005: Message edited by: brebis noire ]

---

But it was the word 'sub-human' that bothered me more; I'd like to know what, exactly, could be classified as a "sub" human entity?

[ 01 May 2005: Message edited by: brebis noire ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by brebis noire:
But it was the word 'sub-human' that bothered me more; I'd like to know what, exactly, is "sub" human?

---

Anchoress: point made and taken. Sorry.

[ 01 May 2005: Message edited by: Américain Égalitaire ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by brebis noire:
Yes, fern, I remember thinking 'expandables' might've been a freudian slip. There's nothing like that expandable feeling when pregnant!

But it was the word 'sub-human' that bothered me more; I'd like to know what, exactly, could be classified as a "sub" human entity?

[ 01 May 2005: Message edited by: brebis noire ]

---

quote:

---

I agree with Hailey so infrequently that I prefer to think s/he meant 'pre-human' Those prefixes can be pesky for the homeschooled.

---

You have identified yourself in this thread as a pro-choice feminist and I believe that you have routinely presented yourself as a feminist.

Feminism is not something I have historically held a positive image of although I will say that meeting certain persons here has prompted me to re-evaluate whether or not my images and views are always fair.

When I meet women such as yourself who identify themselves as representative of feminism and then choose to define women who have shaped their life according to different values than you hold dear as "pre-human" you reflect everything that I have ever been taught about feminism.

In all sincerity, I thank you for the reminder about what it's all about. I would not wish to be deceived and actually shift to believe that feminism is about equality of women. Clearly, it's about the equality of somewomen and seeing women who disagree with you as pre-human.

I hadn't thought that I would see a thread in the feminist forum , in particular, diverted to make a sexist comment about another female on babble. Obviously, what I would predict and what is within the scope of your behaviour is different.

[ 01 May 2005: Message edited by: Hailey ]

quote:

---

I worked with special needs children and have had the opportunity to know many children without disabilities just naturally in the community. I don't see people with disabilities as sub-human expendables. We'd had the child in heartbeat.

---

quote:

---

When I meet women such as yourself who identify themselves as representative of feminism ... you reflect everything that I have ever been taught about feminism.

---

And when you try to argue (however mildly and innocuously you try to frame it) that a 13 year old girl should be submitted to psychological testing or "counselling" before she can have the abortion that she seeks, you reflect everything that I have ever had the misfortune to discover about privileged Christian pro-lifers.

You have taken an ideological position that, happily for you, affects women of your own class/position least of all (at least, in public, that is!). How very brave.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Américain Égalitaire:
Anchoress: point made and taken. Sorry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
A 13-year-old girl in Florida was refused a planned abortion as it was ruled she was not mature enough to make such a decision.

But mature enough to have her life ruined by this idiot decision?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4500245.stm

---

And mature enough to raise the resulting baby? Oh, puhleeeeaaaaaasseeeeeeeee.

quote:

---

"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?

---

quote:

---

...DCF insists that it's forbidden by law to let any person under its supervision undergo an abortion or sterilization procedure. Apparently this is to ensure that the agency will never run out of clients.

Forcing children in state custody to have babies against their will guarantees that there will be a whole new generation of abused, abandoned and neglected kids for taxpayers to support. It's quite a clever plan...

...In a way, she's one of the lucky ones; she only got pregnant. Others in state care have been tortured, raped, killed or, in the case of Rilya Wilson, vaporized into thin air...

...The zealots picked by Gov. Jeb Bush to run the agency are never too busy to play politics with somebody's private agony. The Terri Schiavo case was the most recent debacle, but there have been others.

Two years ago, DCF fought to block a severely retarded Orlando woman from having an abortion. In that case, the agency litigated for so many months that the operation could not be safely performed. The woman gave birth, and the infant was put up for adoption...

---

quote:

---

Apparently this is to ensure that the agency will never run out of clients.

---

I wondered where they got the paranoic to write something as absurd as this, and then I checked the link. Commondreams.org! I should have guessed.

[ 02 May 2005: Message edited by: Contrarian ]

quote:

---

...Since 1985 Hiaasen has been writing a regular column, which at one time or another has pissed off just about everybody in South Florida, including his own bosses. Somehow he has managed to remain employed, and today his column appears on most Sundays in The Herald’s opinion-and-editorial section, and may be viewed online at www.herald.com.

Hiaasen began writing novels in early 1980s...

...The London Observer has called him “America’s finest satirical novelist,”...

---

[ 02 May 2005: Message edited by: Contrarian ]

quote:

---

A judge ruled that a 13-year-old girl at the centre of an abortion fight with the state may terminate her pregnancy, and Govenor Jeb Bush said Tuesday that the state will not appeal further...

...Last week, Judge Alvarez blocked the girl's abortion until a psychological evaluation was completed.

“He ruled that she is competent, that she has made a decision and that she has a right to act on that decision,” said Howard Simon, executive director of the Florida American Civil Liberties Union, which represented the girl...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Contrarian:
Carl Hiassen weighs in.

---

Whenever someone posts something reasonable they are booted. See perfect example here:
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=24&t=000615

I question the use of these terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice". As if the women who are prolife are the guardians of motherhood and the women pro-choice are casually having abortions because don't care about life.

As a mature adult I know families where the occaision of pregnancy is a true celebration.
I had little sense of that as a child, another child, and in the end there were seven, was simply cause for more violence and misery. I see now how my views were shaped by that.

I didn't want to be a woman. To be a woman meant to be vulnerable. I wanted independence. I wanted the independence of a man.

It seems to me that one failure of the women's movement is that rather than celebrating what it is that women can do that men can't as being of the greatest value, giving birth, we have emphasized equal rights and decided that really we should get paid as much for being lawyers, etc. And I think it is great that women can do anything they want and I never did become a mother but I love my neices and nephews...

I know that for many women who have made the choice to be mothers, to stay home with their children, has often caused them to be dismissed by other women as "just" a mother. That is so truly insulting to women. I am not surprised that many women dismiss the women's movement.
It appears the lack of respect is often mutual.

I wish we could learn to listen eachothers deepest concerns and cares.

This is the hard road for this child. May her clear intelligence help her survive a system that has no respect for her.

[ 14 May 2005: Message edited by: a citizen of winnipeg ]

[ 14 May 2005: Message edited by: a citizen of winnipeg ]

quote:

---

I am 50 now and as perhaps as some of you I saw my mother as a slave and a slave who lived in fear. I vowed that I would never allow that to happen to me.
I question the use of these terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice". As if the women who are prolife are the guardians of motherhood and the women "pro-choice" are casually having abortions because don't care about life.

---

I'm sorry that your life was so filled with those kinds of images and experiences.

And it is unfortunate that an image exists of women who are prochoice casually having abortions. For every person having an abortion there is probably a different degree of seriousness that is offered to the decision. It's unfair to frame it as a universally casual experience.

quote:

---

As a mature adult I know families where the occaision of pregnancy is a true celebration.
I had little sense of that as a child, another child, and in the end there were seven, was simply cause for more violence and misery. I see now how my views were shaped by that.

I didn't want to be a woman. To be a woman meant to be vulnerable. I wanted independence. I wanted the independence of a man.

---

My whole childhood pregnancy was such a celebration. We had a large family and there was always joy at another child being born. In my nuclear family I'm one of the younger ones so I don't remember that for my mother but I remember that with Auntie's and Uncles. Everyone was so filled with excitement over a baby.

For a child's birth to reinforce an already existing painful set of circumstances and complicate matters further has to be very sad and tragic. It's unfortunate that we, as a community, haven't done more to help people through struggles so they don't feel that sense of dread.

As much as I love being a woman and have a wealth of positive things to say about that whole experience and as much as I'd be so incredibly ill-suited to the whole image of a traditional man some of my greatest personal struggles - certain fears and my eating disorder - wouldn't be in place if I was male probably. It's an interesting thing now that I think about because as much as I love being a woman the things that have unsettled me the most in life only exist because I am.

I am not trying to compare that to your experience though. If you see women as targets of violence and inherent vulnerability in that role then that would far far outweigh anything i've seen or heard.

quote:

---

I wish we could learn to listen eachothers deepest concerns and cares.

---

I have seen first hand how "pro life" protesters treat women who are undergoing one of the most traumatic experiences any of us could ever imagine. If that is "christian love" you can push it up your left nostril. I have heard the ugliest words coming from the same lips who just moments before were singing about Jesus and God...

If you prefer not to have an abortion I will respect your decision.

If you choose an abortion I will respect your decision.

If you try to stop any of my kids from entering an abortion clinic I will go for your throat. You do not have the right to dictate to me, my kids, or anybody else what they will do or what choice they will make.

If you want to keep your kid, I'll do what I can to help. If you want to give your kid for adoption I will make you tea, give you tissues, hold you when you weep, and do whatever else I can to help you through the pain such a loving decision has surely got to cause.

I grew up in the home of a deeply religious mother with some rigid and fixed Christian ideas and ideals. The experience was such I no longer identify myself as a "christian person". I am a pagan.

If a woman wants to stay home with her kids, great. I do not know one single feminist (and virtually all of my friends are feminists) who has EVER in any way slagged a woman for wanting to be at home with her kids. Feminists are the ones who are in the front lines trying to get decent affordable day care, trying to get decent child allowance, and we are the ones who have said all along a family should not be punished in any way at all by having a stay-at-home mom. WE are the ones who say Never again an unwanted child.

Please take the time to find out what feminists are really all about before you start blethering on about how we see stay at home moms as second class citizens. We do not. We want all women to be able to CHOOSE and to do that a woman must have economic security. Women do not leave their interesting, loving, charming, sometimes snarly always complicated and challenging kids at home because they hate the little tykes. Women do not choose minimum wage jobs just because they do not want to be there when the baby learns to crawl. Women do not put in eight, nine, ten hour days at shit jobs for shit wages because they are disinterested in their children. We work at those lousy jobs so that our kids can have BETTER than this society has condescended to make available.

Why is it when someone is taking aim at feminists, particularly in any issue dealing with motherhood, they trot out the woman lawyer? I've met a couple. I know a couple. But I know far more women who are working at boring, underpaid, unappreciated and downright crappy jobs in order to improve the choices they can give their kids. And feminists are the ones who are doing what we can do to improve things for those moms and for those fortunate ones who can manage to stay at home and be there when the babble turns to words.

Last week my grand daughters were here. Joan is four , Emily is three. They picked me the biggest bouquet of dandelions I have ever received. I found jars, glasses, even a bowl, and we decorated the house. And I do not know one single feminist who would have said take those weeds away, nor do I know any mother, working or stay at home, who wouldn't consider those flowers as precious as orchids.

Come on, eh, we're slogging along doing the best we can. We're up against a male supremicist neo con headset that likes nothing better than to see or hear women slagging other women.

Let's not make their day! I don't agree with Hailey or her take on things but I know where she is coming from; I grew up surrounded by that Bible-belt mentality. It isn't easy to get past it. She is earnest, she is sincere, and she is at least trying to expand her awareness. Let's give her stuff to think about, to chew on, to mull. We're not going to do any of us any good if we blow her off or insult her.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
I do disagree that abortion or miscarriage are necessarily traumatic.

---

I had two powerful and wonderful grandmothers who loved me deeply and instilled in me a deep sense that women were and are profoundly important. In grade 8 I wrote a speech about Susan B. Anthony. All the research I had done in the library had not turned up one important Canadian woman which I remember being suspicious about. Like isn't there ONE interesting Canadian woman. I recall clearly my teacher, a woman, saying to me "that was a very good speech but why did you not choose a more interesting subject". I was puzzled that she didn't think women were interesting.

I didn't know it then but now I see that my teacher was just letting me know her reality.
"Women aren't that interesting". How did she arrive there ? And why should any woman think so little of not only herself but all other women.

In war, and this is a war, and we always have a war or to paraphrase Leonard Cohen, "there is a war between the ones who would have war and the ones who wouldn't". Women would appear to have had little choice in whether or not there is a war.

By that I mean the first place to stop the war is with the person in front of us.