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.
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.