Posted on 05/03/2005 7:33:22 AM PDT by areafiftyone
WEST PALM BEACH - A 13-year-old at the center of an abortion fight with the state was given permission Monday to terminate her pregnancy, but it was unclear whether she immediately underwent the procedure.
Attorneys for the girl, known only as L.G. in court papers, said the abortion was scheduled for later Monday. However, the state Department of Children and Families appealed the decision, according to Maxine Williams, one of the teen's attorneys.
"Since this is still in litigation, I can't speak to what's going on in court," DCF spokeswoman Marilyn Munoz said.
Palm Beach Juvenile Judge Ronald Alvarez issued an order last week temporarily stopping the teen, who lives in a state shelter, from having the abortion. DCF argued she was too young and immature to decide for herself and state law prohibited the agency from consenting to an abortion.
Alvarez held up the abortion until a psychological evaluation was completed, but he ruled Monday that the teen would not be physically or emotionally harmed by the abortion.
"Legally speaking, it's not a difficult decision to make," Alvarez was quoted as saying by the South Florida Sun-Sentinel. "Morally speaking, it's a very difficult decision for this court to make. ... But I'm not here to make the moral decision. I'm here to make the legal decisions."
"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 branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, which helped represent the girl. The judge also declared "her right to act on that decision is also in her best interest," Simon said.
The teen, who was more than 14 weeks pregnant, has been in DCF care for at least four years.
Her attorneys say Florida law protects a minor's right to choose an abortion.
Florida's high court cited state privacy rights in 1989 when it tossed out a law that would have required parental consent for a minor's abortion.
Evil triumphs, but only for a season
Justice lies down in the dust
Hell's jaws upward hungry thrust
Demons laugh, so evil, fey
Sinking fangs in helpless prey
Come to steal, destroy and kill
Doing Satan's craven will
But in the end they'll pay the cost
In endless fires forever lost
EV
This is funny considering you were pro-death for Schiavo.
Quit acting like you're pro-life when you're not.
I'd suggest you stick to Slavic topics and refrain from posting Dem talking points on FR.
Parenting in an ideal situation, a classic family unit, is seldom a bed of roses. I'll stick with the less lethal thorns.
I've said it before, I'll say it again--if the girl has her baby, she will most likely (and quickly) lose her parental rights.
This girl needs help. Abortion is NOT going to help her.
Fouled Up Beyond Repair -- which is what I call FUBR. Other people only know foul words other than the word foul for this acronym.
Back in the 1970's, computer programmers started using the variable foobar -- because an important computer was the result of a military project (Project MAC and the computer Multics).
Well, we wouldn't want anyone to suffer for nine months, so just kill the baby.
LOL that's not the one I was thinking of...
CF
Okay, you are out of control.
Read my lips:
A 13 year old having a child is bad.
A 13 year old having an abortion is bad.
Bad, Bad, Bad.
Abortion. Not good.
Baby with teen mother. Not good.
Adoption good.
I'm not saying the abortion will help her!!!!!!
Some of you cannot even admit that her having a child is not a good thing. Even if she places it for adoption, the best thing would have been that she never got pregnant in the first place. This situation is bad for her--do you not agree with that?
The deed is done now, meaning she is pregnant, and there is no alternate reality. But you do not bemoan the circumstances?
It's not fair. You only think some babies shoud be killed, not all of them!
So aborting the chidren means that they won't "suffer."
HAHAHAHA!!!
Do you really think being killed is painless?
The "something" Jeb could do is appeal the decision to SCOFLA.
Do you think it's worth the trouble? Seriously?
If I'm not mistaken, I have done so a few times on this thread.
Some of you cannot even admit that her having a child is not a good thing.
This becomes the gray area I avoid like the plague. Having a child is not a good thing or a bad thing. It is not a thing at all. It is life. Nobody can pigeon-hole life, not poets, not pro-lifers, nobody. So, no, I cannot even admit that her having a child is not a good thing. Cannot, will not.
As for her having an abortion, you know where I stand.
This is supposed to make the case for the pre-emptive strike? Kill them because they might suffer? Nice.
Multics was an Operating System, not a computer.
A question -- can you think of a good reason to kill a born infant?
Why don't you just go sit through a few hundred juvenile court hearings like I have and see what's going on with all of these parents and kids. You'll change your tune.
So your argument is that carrying the child to term MAY be dangerous for the mom, so we should kill the child.
I want to tell you this because you seem ignorant about the subject.
Foriegn adoptions have the same BS redtape crap that domestic adoptions do. You still need a home study and all the other bells and whistles. Foreign adoptions aren't cheap or easy.
True. True. True. It ran on a modified GE635 (modified as I recall by an MIT student). GE decided to sell the computer division to Honeywell, so Multics ran on the Honeywell 6000 series computer. Then they all seemed to vanish into the Pentagon and the CIA...
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.