Posted on 11/12/2004 9:07:10 AM PST by cpforlife.org
To: National Desk
Contact: Amber Matchen of the American Life League, 540-903-9572 or amatchen@all.org
WASHINGTON, Nov. 11 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Judie Brown, president of American Life League, issued the following statement in response to news that White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales is being considered as the replacement for U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft:
"President Bush appears to be doing all that he can to downright ignore pro-life principles. There can be no other explanation for his recommendation of Alberto Gonzales as attorney general. Gonzales has a record, and that record is crystal clear.
"As a Texas Supreme Court justice, Gonzales' rulings implied he does not view abortion as a heinous crime. Choosing not to rule against abortion, in any situation, is the epitome of denying justice for an entire segment of the American population -- preborn babies in the womb.
"When asked if his own personal feelings about abortion would play a role in his decisions, Gonzales told the Los Angeles Times in 2001 that his 'own personal feelings about abortion don't matter... The question is, what is the law, what is the precedent, what is binding in rendering your decision. Sometimes, interpreting a statute, you may have to uphold a statute that you may find personally offensive. But as a judge, that's your job.' Gonzales' position is clear: the personhood of the preborn human being is secondary to technical points of law, and that is a deadly perspective for anyone to take.
"President Bush claims he wants to assist in bringing about a culture of life. Such a culture begins with total protection for every innocent human being from the moment that person's life begins. Within the short period of one week, the president has been silent on pro-abortion Sen. Arlen Specter's desire to chair the senate judiciary committee, and has spoken out in favor of a judge with a pro-abortion track record to lead the Justice Department.
"Why is President Bush betraying the babies? Justice begins with protecting the most vulnerable in our midst. Please, Mr. President -- just say no to the unjust views of Alberto Gonzales."
http://www.usnewswire.com/
-0-
texasflower you and I can keep telling each other the following lines:
"I'm strongly pro-life. Strongly.
And I think you are wrong about Gonzales."
I hope I am wrong about Gonzalas. 397 gives reason to think that I may be wrong. We won't know till time passes.
I am very glad that you are strongly Pro-Life. Let's not allow this disagreement to divide us on our cause. If you are Pro-Life we are on the same side.
We know you're disappointed, and we also know that you are wrong about Gonzales.
Take it up with World Net Daily. They wrote the piece.
Yet another lie.
The State of Texas' Parental Notification Act includes an exception to the statute. If the young woman can prove in a private hearing to a district judge that she is "mature and sufficiently well informed", the judge can grant her a waiver and the abortion may be performed without her parent's knowledge.
Gonzales did not circumvent the law at all.
Sorry, you can't post it, defend it, and then disown it that glibly.
Fair enough.
Here's some more:
To briefly summarize, Texas Family Code § 33.002 prohibits a physician from performing an abortion on a pregnant minor unless
- he or she gives at least 48 hours actual notice to a parent, a court-appointed managing conservator or legal guardian or
- the minor has obtained a court order to waive the notification pursuant to Texas Family Code § 33.003 or § 33.004.
The requirement of 48 hours notice may also be waived by an affidavit of the parent or guardian. Tex. Fam. Code § 33.002(c). In addition, the notice requirement is waived if an immediate abortion is necessary to avert death or a serious risk of substantial and irreparable harm to a major bodily function. Id. § 33.002(a)(3).
A minor who does not wish to have a parent or legal guardian notified that she intends to have an abortion must seek a judicial bypass hearing to determine:
if she is mature and sufficiently well informed to make the decision to have an abortion performed without notice to a parent or legal guardian,
if notification would not be in her best interest, or
if notification may lead to physical, sexual or emotional abuse.
Tex. Fam. Code § 33.003(i).
If any one of the above is found by the court, the court must enter an order authorizing the minor to consent to an abortion without the notification of a parent or legal guardian.
Well , he did that last time and caught hell for it.
You ask no questions in post #325.
What is a judicial bypass in Texas?
The minor is mature and sufficiently well informed
about her pregnancy options to make the decision
without a parent or legal guardian being involved.
It is not in the minor’s best interest for the parent or
legal guardian to be notified.
Notification of a parent or legal guardian could lead
to physical, sexual or emotional abuse of the minor .
Tex. Fam. Code § 33.003(i). For a good overview of the Texas Family Code, Chapter 33 you may want to visit this site: http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/rules/pnr/ch33.htm To download a copy of the application forms to print for use, click here for the version in Word Perfect or click here for the version in Microsoft Word.
(Note: You may receive a "Enter Network Password" message when trying to download these files. If this happens, simply select "Cancel" in the dialogue box, and the file will load)
Because it is a young law, the legal community has had to rely upon the majority opinions by the Texas Supreme Court for guidance. Thus far, twelve cases have been appealed to the Court, with six decisions released. You may want to read some of these decisions to understand why this new statute has become a controversial, challenging area of the law.
Jane Doe 1(I), No. 00-190, 19 S.W.3d 249 (Tex. Feb. 25, 2000); No. 00-224, 19 S.W.3d 300 (Mar. 10, 2000) (Hecht, J. dissenting from order reversing the court of appeals after remand); Jane Doe 1(II), No. 00-224, 19 S.W.3d 346 (Jun. 22, 2000)
Jane Doe 2, No. 00191, 19 S.W.3d 278 (Mar. 7, 2000)
Jane Doe 3, No. 00-193, 19 S.W.3d 300 (Mar. 10, 2000)
Jane Doe 4(I), No. 00-213, 19 S.W.3d 322 (Mar. 22, 2000); Jane Doe 4(II), No. 00-317, 19 S.W.3d 337 (Apr. 11, 2000)
Jane Doe 10 , 78 S.W. 3d 338 (April 19, 2002).
Jane Doe XI, No. 02-0933, 2002 92 S.W.3d 511 (Tex. Oct. 10, 2002
It is important when studying these decisions, that you know that the majority opinions are the ones that attorneys rely upon to interpret the expectations of the trial courts in considering judicial bypass applications. You should be able to read these opinions by viewing this site: http://www.supreme.courts.tx.us.
To read a summary of the interpretations of the provisions of Texas Family Code, Chapter 33 by the Texas Supreme Court, click here.
To read a summary of the history of the legal history that allows for judicial bypass of parental involvement laws in the United States, click here.
For attorneys, we also suggest you take the opportunity to read the recent South Texas Law Review article: "A Guide to Proceedings under the Texas Parental Notification Statutes and Rules" Vol.41:755 2000.
To download an updated copy of “Texas Parental Notification Rules and Forms” which discuss application, trail and appellate procedures,
click here for the version in Word Perfect or
click here for the version in Microsoft Word.
(Note: You may receive a "Enter Network Password" message when trying to download these files. If this happens, simply select "Cancel" in the dialogue box, and the file will load)
Click here to view and print a worksheet of questions a teenager applying for judicial bypass can use to be prepared for the hearing. It is available in English and Spanish.
Texas Supreme Court Undermines Parental Notification Law
It appears that the Texas law requiring that parents be notified prior to the performance of an abortion on a minor is being virtually nullified by the Texas Supreme Court.
On March 22, in a 6-3 decision, the Texas Supreme Court vacated a decision by an appellate court upholding a district court ruling that a 17 year-old girl is not mature enough to make an abortion decision without notifying her parents. The court said that the district court ruling occurred prior to the establishment by the Supreme Court of new guidelines that must be used to determine whether a minor can "bypass" parental notification. The majority ordered the lower court to reconsider their decision in light of the following new guidelines: 1) the girl’s emotional or physical needs; 2) the possibility of emotional or physical danger to the minor; 3) the stability of her home and whether notification "would cause serious and lasting harm to the family structure;" and 4) the effect of notification on the girl’s relationship with her parents.
Four cases in which girls were denied a judicial bypass have reached the Texas Supreme Court. In each case, the girl was granted a second hearing before a district judge. In one additional case, according to The Houston Chronicle, 3/22/00, the high court gave another girl outright permission to have an abortion without her parents being notified.
Justice Nathan Hecht, who, along with Justice Greg Abbott, dissented from the ruling in which the new guidelines were issued, wrote a sharply dissenting opinion in the latest case. "Five or six justices in an Austin courthouse are ensuring that minors throughout the state, sight unseen, can obtain abortions without telling their parents," Judge Hecht wrote. "For the fifth time in less than a month the Court sets aside the denial of a minor’s application to have an abortion without telling her parents. The Court’s decisions are contrary to the legislature’s purposes in enacting the Parental Notification Act. In this case the Court holds that a minor need not tell her parents that she wants an abortion if she fears they may disapprove. The legislature did not set this low a standard for excluding parents from their children’s lives."
Joining Justice Hecht in the dissent were Justices Priscilla Owen and Greg Abbott, who was appointed to the bench by Governor Bush. (In Texas judges are elected. The Governor may fill a vacancy with an appointee to fill the unexpired term.) Justice Owen, in a separate dissent said, "The minor fell far short of meeting the statutory exceptions that would allow her to have an abortion without notifying either of her parents and this case should not have been remanded. Additionally, the statute does not authorize a court in the ‘best interest’ of a minor to withhold information from a parent in order to avoid parental disapproval even if that disapproval is withdrawal of support when the child becomes an adult." "A minor could simply sign an affidavit, send it to a court, and her application would be granted . . . . That is not what the Legislature intended," Justice Owen said.
All nine members of the Texas Supreme Court are Republicans. The majority of the court — led by Chief Justice Tom Phillips and joined by Justices Craig Enoch, James A. Baker, Deborah Hankinson, Harriet O’Neill and Alberto Gonzales — said the girl’s emotional well-being and the long-term family relationship needed to be considered.
Justice Hecht accused the majority, three of whom — Baker, Gonzales, and Hankinson — were appointed by Bush to fill vacancies, of exhibiting judicial activism and re-writing the Parental Notification Act and said that the majority’s decision is unprecedented and proof of "ideological motivations."
A legal consultant to RNC/Life told us today that what is happening in Texas is unheard of in American jurisprudence. It is now possible for one side (a minor daughter) to petition a court to deprive another party (the parents) of their rights to protect the health and welfare of their child, without their knowledge and in complete secrecy.
Governor Bush signed the Parental Notification Act into law, and refers to it frequently when addressing pro-life audiences on the campaign trail. However, when it was passed last year, he went along with the curious provision that assigned to the Supreme Court the authority to write the guidelines rather than spelling them out in the legislation. Bush told the Houston Chronicle through a spokeswoman, Linda Edwards, that he would support changing or strengthening the law, if necessary, to carry out his intent of reducing abortions in Texas and involving parents in their daughter’s decisions. It appears those changes will be necessary. The fact remains that, at the end of the day, it is the makeup of the court that will determine the outcome of how the law is applied.
Joe Kral, legislative director for Texas Right to Life, said his organization believes that the Supreme Court "is trying to dumb-down this legislation." He said the court is watering down the law and accomplishing what pro-abortion supporters were unable to do during the last legislative session. "I firmly believe that this is a good thing that we can elect our Supreme Court," Mr. Kral said. "I expect this to be a campaign issue." The Dallas Morning News, 3/23/00.
Texas Right to Life and its parent organization National Right to Life Committee have thrown their wholehearted support behind George W. Bush in his quest for the presidency, despite his refusal to commit to nominating pro-life judges. But, unlike the citizens of Texas, the American people cannot elect the U.S. Supreme Court, and are dependent upon the judgment of the President and the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate (which has confirmed all President Clinton’s liberal nominees) except one. Shouldn’t pro-life leaders and voters make the selection of federal and Supreme Court judges a campaign issue for Bush as well?
At this point, we know what Gore will do — he will impose a pro-abortion requirement for judicial nominees. As for George W. Bush, unless he makes a pro-life commitment, voters can only speculate that his appointees to the highest court in the land will mirror those he has put on the Texas Supreme Court.
"Judicial Activist Gonzales" is probably why President Bush appointed him to the AG position instead of the SCOTUS, and will save the slot for Priscilla Owen.
Gonzales will have to enforce current laws in his position as AG so there probably won't be much of a problem with he being in this position, let's hope.
As I said, that's a lie.
Here's the text of the Texas Statute:
"In most cases, if the minor is seeking an abortion, you are prohibited from performing this procedure unless you provide at least 48 hours advance notice to the minor’s parent or guardian that you intend to perform this procedure. Minors who do not wish their parent or guardian to be notified about the abortion may petition for a "judicial bypass." Essentially, a minor must tell a court that she wishes to have an abortion without notification to her parent or guardian. The court may grant her request if the minor is able to establish she is mature and sufficiently well informed to make the decision to have the abortion without telling her parent or guardian. The court will also determine if it is in the minor’s best interest to have the abortion without notification of the child’s parent or guardian." -- Source
If you don't like the loop in the law, then work to get the State's legislature in closing it.
Gonzales opined strictly within the letter of the law.
If you don't like the loop in the law, then work to get the State's legislature in closing it.
Answer: PC trumps pro-life every time.
No, it appears the Texas Supreme Court went out of its way to define what a judicial bypass was and impose the definition on the state. That is judicial activism.
As AG he must enforce the laws not interpret them
Priscilla Owen's Rejection Says More About Al Gonzales Than It Does About Her
Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen's nomination for the Fifth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals was rejected on Thursday, September 5, 2002 on a partyline vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The ten Democrats on the committee once again played hardball, not allowing the highly qualified Owen, who received unanimous ``highly qualified'' approval from the American Bar Association, the opportunity to have her nomination voted up or down by the full Senate.
Of course, the issue was abortion. The liberal Democrats seem to care more about stopping any perceived threat to legal abortion, no matter how remote, than just about anything else. Notwithstanding the fact that nobody knows whether or not Priscilla Owen is prolife, the fact that she wrote a dissent in a Texas case in which a 17yearold minor seeking an abortion was denied a judicial bypass by the trial court and again by the appeals court was enough to put the proabortion lobby and their friends in the Senate into high gear. The Texas Supreme Court disagreed with the two lower courts and granted the bypass so the girl could get an abortion behind her parents' backs. Justice Owen and two other justices dissented, interpreting the intent of the Legislature in passing the Texas Parental Notification law as actually wanting parents to be notified of their minor daughter's intention to have an abortion, except in rare circumstances.
In her dissent, Justice Owen wrote that the majority of the Court "has usurped the role of the trial court, reweighed the evidence and drawn its own conclusion." She said, "Under wellsettled Texas law, the court may not disturb a trial judge's findings unless no reasonable person could have reached the same conclusion." "The question in this case is not," she wrote, "whether this court would have ruled differently when confronted with all the evidence that the trial court heard. The question is whether legally sufficient evidence supports the trial court's judgment. The answer to this latter question is yes."
Then, Owen's colleague on the Court, former justice and now White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales who had joined with the majority in the case, weighed in with a stinging response that was largely responsible for Justice Owen's defeat last week. According to a column by Terry Eastland in the Washington Times on July 23, 2002, Gonzales said, "To construe [the act] so narrowly as to eliminate bypasses, or to create hurdles that simply are not to be found in the words of the state, would be an unconscionable act of judicial activism" — one he said he wouldn't engage in. By implication, the dissenting justices advancing the narrower interpretation [of the Parental Notification Law] stood accused of just that.
" . . . an unconscionable act of judicial activism." Those words killed Priscilla Owen's nomination before her hearing ever commenced. The Democrats seized on it like dogs on a bone.
Alberto Gonzales has been frequently mentioned Priscilla Owen as a possible Bush nominee to a federal bench or even the Supreme Court, should an opening occur. Prolife Americans should not forget his role in both the Texas Supreme Court case and Priscilla Owen's ordeal. It is not known whether Priscilla Owen believes the right to life of unborn children should be respected and protected or whether she approached the parental notification bill as purely a parental rights issue. We do know where Alberto Gonzales stands. If President Bush nominates Gonzales to a federal bench or the high Court, prolife, profamily, and proparentalrights conservatives have ample reason to oppose his nomination.
What exactly did they base their decision on the maturity of the girl?
What does the law say?
Well, for one thing...in Texas the age of consent is 17, so it's absurd to argue that one can legally consent to having sex at the age of 17, but one is not mature enough to deal with the consequences of the act.
"Five or six justices in an Austin courthouse are ensuring that minors throughout the state, sight unseen, can obtain abortions without telling their parents,"
"Sight unseen"?
"On March 22, in a 6-3 decision, the Texas Supreme Court vacated a decision by an appellate court upholding a district court ruling "
Hardly "sight unseen."
"For the fifth time in less than a month the Court sets aside the denial of a minor’s application to have an abortion without telling her parents. The Court’s decisions are contrary to the legislature’s purposes in enacting the Parental Notification Act. In this case the Court holds that a minor need not tell her parents that she wants an abortion if she fears they may disapprove. The legislature did not set this low a standard for excluding parents from their children’s lives."
The Legislature wrote into law the ability of a minor to seek "judicial bypass" of the Texas Parental Act, the only thing that the Judges are asked to consider is whether the individual's request for that "judicial bypass" pass muster under the letter of the law or not.
"The minor fell far short of meeting the statutory exceptions that would allow her to have an abortion without notifying either of her parents"
What exactly are those "statutory exceptions"?
"The court may grant her request if the minor is able to establish she is mature and sufficiently well informed to make the decision to have the abortion without telling her parent or guardian." -- Source
The young woman was A) sufficiently mature to pursue the matter in the Court system, and just shy of legal age, and B) was "sufficiently well informed to make the decision to have the abortion without telling her parent or guardian.
Gonzales is not only NOT an activist, but an excellent Judge, the activism was evident in the dissents where the entire argument was stated as "The legislature did not set this low a standard for excluding parents from their children’s lives."
An Judge interpreting what the legislature clearly said, and basing his opinion on what he believed they INTENDED to say.
Legislatures write laws, and laws are to be judged only against their specific, self-evident wording, and the specific, self-evident wording of the Constitution and nothing further.
Most definitely NOT on where a Judge considers that the Legislature has set the standard.
THAT is the essence of Judicial activism.
Since the Dems will surely regroup and present a better than Kerry candidate in 2008, and win, perhaps, now is the time to open the floodgates and criticize the President into submission. If that's possible.
Don't get me wrong, I love the President, but there are a lot of voices out there and he is no more exempt from listening to them than anyone else.
From the Opinion:
B. Maturity
Doe does not have the burden of proving in this Court that she is mature. That is because, as we explain below, a minor such as Doe, who is appealing the denial of her application under the first prong of the statute, only needs to conclusively refute the trial court's actual findings. Because the trial court found as fact that Doe was not sufficiently well informed, for us to grant her application the record must establish the converse as a matter of law. But the trial court's failure to find that Doe was not mature does not require her to conclusively establish her maturity to prevail on appeal. This distinction is, perhaps, unique to proceedings under this statute, but the statutory scheme in place requires it, as well as the Parental Notification Rules this Court adopted under the statute.
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.