Replies

Owen was wrong in this case. >>

Was she? How so? So I guess she should't be trusted to be a justice of the SCOTUS.

The legislature passed a law mandating parental notification in TX leaving a back door open for judges, leaving nothing really spelled out in the law as to what instances can a child have an abortion without the parents knowing and the pro-abortion judges ruled in her favor and the pro-life judges ruled against her.

I'd say the judges that ruled in her favor are activist judges since the law was written to prevent young girls from having an abortion. She had an abortion, ergo, Gonzales is an activist judge.

"I'd say the judges that ruled in her favor are activist judges since the law was written to prevent young girls from having an abortion."

You are wrong yet again, you are projecting your activist sentiments unto the law.

The law was not written to "prevent young girls from having an abortion", had the legislature chosen to write such a law, they would have simply written a law which said "no minor will be able to have an abortion"...they did not.

The law was written so that no physician could give a minor an abortion without notifying the minor's parent or guardian at least 48 hours from performing the procedure. Note that the law does not establish "parental or guardian consent" as a standard, but simply notification.

The law also includes a mechanism where the minor may seek to obtain "judicial bypass" of the consent, it sets two qualifications as a standard for that bypass:

Maturity, and
being sufficiently well informed to make the decision

Here's the text of the Texas law:

"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."

Maturity was not an issue, even in Owen's dissent, and it would be difficult to argue that the legal age of consent in Texas does not set maturity at 17. The decision then was rendered on whether the individual was "sufficiently well informed to make the decision"...she was, thus she met the requirements of the law and was given a judicial bypass.

Owen's standards in all Jane Doe cases under the Texas Parental Act sought to re-write the standards for that judicial bypass to the point where no one would have been able to get one.

That's the essence of Judicial activism.

Now, you keep on insinuating that Owen was right, and Gonzales was wrong...prove your point within the text of the decision itself.