Posted on 08/05/2002 1:47:35 PM PDT by kattracks
(CNSNews.com) - The Pennsylvania judge who last week prevented a pregnant woman from having an abortion at the behest of the woman's ex-boyfriend has reversed himself.
The order, issued Monday by Luzerne County Judge Michael Conahan, effectively gives the woman the legal ability to proceed with her plans to abort her child.
In his ruling, Conahan admitted that his previous order, blocking the abortion, had "inflicted significant and extreme emotional distress" on Tanya Meyers, who is about ten weeks pregnant.
Conahan also cited several other legal precedents in writing that "neither an ex-boyfriend nor a fetus has standing to interfere with a woman's choice to terminate her pregnancy."
This reminds me of Norma McCovey of Roe vs. Wade. IIRC, by the time she won the right to an abortion it was too late and I think she gave birth and gave the baby up for adoption. Her case was used though to radically change society.
So what would the supreme court have to do with that regarding a woman's pregnancy? Sorry, you've lost me.
The only thing that I can think of, other than turning back time, is to loosen up our adoption laws, and assist in any way possible couples wanting to adopt. Jack
The problem is using the courts, which already have established law (Roe and Casey) and asking a judge to make law from the bench. This is a legislative matter, not a judicial matter. Once the laws are changed, I don't have any problem with it. My fear is other side of the coin--just as these judges enjoined her from getting an abortion, another activist judge could compel a mother to have an abortion if the father requests it. I don't want that door open.
But you're presuming a number of things: 1. that mothers get custody automatically. That's untrue. Fathers are getting custody much more frequently. 2. That all states compel payment of child support to 21 if the child's in school. Ours doesn't--child support is paid until the child is 19, or graduates from high school, whichever comes first. A judge cannot order payment of child support beyond that time. 3. that all unwed mothers go on welfare. That's also not true. However, a custodial parent (male or female) can request the assistance of the child support agency to establish paternity and child support and to enforce child support orders without being on welfare.
As far as adoption goes, three of my cousins are adopted, and I wish more parents would adopt, and I wish more parents would consider adoption as an option. However, in this case, the father said he wants full custody or shared custody. That's impossible to do while the child is still in her uterus, though, and unless they've found a way to do genetic testing in the first trimester, there's no way to establish paternity.
Me too. There was a case much like this in our area some time back, where the father pledged to take full custody of his child....and wanted nothing more from the mother than to just let the child live. She ended up sneaking off to abort the baby while the case was still in court.
I was volunteering at a local Republican site at the time, and I remember discussing the case with the folks there. The vocal ones were squarely on her side....with zero compassion for the father (or BABY). A lot of "it's her body" and "her choice" statements were flying about, and it made me feel as if I'd wandered into the wrong party headquarters....Kinda like I feel on FR with all the conservative *cough* pro-aborts (and their pro-life *cough* apologists) here.
Of course, what else would she say? Unproveable allegations and restraining order requests are women's best weapons in court.
Did you really expect her to say anything different?
Question? In your experience, have you ever been involved in a case where a Judge essentially reversed an order due to his impression of "the distress" the order caused one party? That seems very odd to me.
Are you sure about that? Its not what the article says:
In his ruling, Conahan admitted that his previous order, blocking the abortion, had "inflicted significant and extreme emotional distress" on Tanya Meyers, who is about ten weeks pregnant.
Does this article have it completely wrong(Iwouldn't doubt it)?
I know a case where the woman's mother never believed her son-in-law was good enough and told her daughter to abort both babies because she didn't like him --and they were married. They weren't aborted, the marriage didn't last but he's a good father to the kids.
Yes it can. There are two different prenatal methods for determining paternity. One can be done in the first trimester between the 10 and 13 week which is referred to as Chorionic Villi Sample and the other method (amniotic fluid) can be done early in the 2nd trimester anytime during the 14 to 24 week.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.