[Luis Gonzalez]

Let's discuss Jane Doe 5...the decision you found.

Texas law requires physicians to notify parents of a minor's decision to undergo an abortion at least 48 hours prior to performing the procedure.

Parental consent is not required, just notification.

Texas law also allows a minor to seek a judicial bypass of that notification, the qualifications are rather simple:

The minor must be "mature and sufficiently well informed" to reach the decision on her own.

Jane Doe was 17, which is also the legal age of consent in Texas, and had consulted a physician about the procedure.

Alberto Gonzales crafted his decision on written Texas law, he commented that the decision troubled him personally as a parent, but the law is the law.

We need two things in this country, and Alberto Gonzales is one of them.

We need Judges who adjudicate according to the strict and self-evident letter of the law, in spite of their "feelings" about the issue, and we need legislators who write better laws than the Parental Notification Act in Texas.

Some have argued that Gonzales' judgment in Jane Doe 5 should have reflected his feelings on abortion, rather than his interpretation of the letter of the law, but I can't see how a Judge can both render judgment based on how he feels about the letter of the law, and be a strict constructionist at the same time.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Perhaps Gonzales is an advocate of judicial restraint on abortion but, as the University of Michigan case shows, he supports judicial activism to mandate via the courts "diversity" rather than merit in college admissions. That is more than enough to put him beyond the pale here, IMHO./

[FITZ]

Some have argued that Gonzales' judgment in Jane Doe 5 should have reflected his feelings on abortion, rather than his interpretation of the letter of the law

What about the 3 judges who did not rule for the pro-abort side --- abortion of minors against their parents will or without their knowledge mind you --- were they not interpreting the law? Would you claim they were out of control judges or something like that? How could 3 decide another way but Gonzalez took the pro-abort side if he isn't in favor of minor children being given abortions without parental notification?

[pepperdog]

"Some have argued that Gonzales' judgment in Jane Doe 5 should have reflected his feelings on abortion, rather than his interpretation of the letter of the law"

I come late to this discussion and don't know the whole story but this one statement makes me know what I think of the man. He read the LAW, that is what he is supposed to do. If we the people don't like the law we should take action to change it, but the last thing we need are more judges who make decisions based on their "feelings". Those who would criticize him need to remember the 2000 election and the judges that ruled with their feelings (in Florida) and even some in our Supreme Court. We must have honest, law abiding men leading our country.