Reborn: I will assume by your comments that you are no longer a regular pioneer right?
Florida Plastic Surgery Ruling
by Yerusalyim 27 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Reborn2002
LOL @ Mary.
That assumption would be correct.
I am an agnostic/atheist if you really want to know.
-
RAYZORBLADE
Where are the parents in all of these scenarios?
That a 12 year old can non-chalantly walk in to a clinic and get either: plastic surgery, or, an abortion.
HELLO: MOM & DAD WHERE ARE YOU?
As far as religion and other items that have been debated, if parents are part of their children's lives, perhaps they wouldn't need to worry about plastic surgery, unless it is something truly needed as a result of an injury or congenital anomoly. Same with abortion, sex education. I have to wonder, when all the belly aching is done, where are the parents in all of this.
If parents are actively involved with their children, chances are slim to nil, their child is going to be experimenting with sex (aside from masturbation) or become pregnant or that their son has fathered a child. Open and frank discussions make a world of difference; talking about such items gives the child (smarter than you think) an open non-threatening environment for them to channel their questions, thoughts and opinions, with Mom & Dad as the moderators.
At 12. I say Mom & Dad have every right to know what is going on with their children, no matter what.
As for the 10 Commandments etc., if one wishes to share that with their children, I think right there at home is a good start. Afterall, are not children in some respects, a reflection of their parents and life at home?
Interesting topic. But 12? Good heavens!
-
Francois
I say that in the last national election, the Florida Supreme Court proved itself liberal to the core. You were expecting something maybe different in there from this bunch of bed-wtters?
-
Reborn2002
Why don't we get the facts and the rationale behind this ruling also before rushing to judgment. I am not necessarily saying I agree with the ruling of the court, only that I am attempting to make it known the other side of the story.
http://www.naplesnews.com/03/07/florida/d948866a.htm
Florida Supreme Court strikes down parental notice abortion law
Friday, July 11, 2003
Staff and wire reports
A Florida law requiring the notification of parents at least 48 hours before minors under the age of 18 can obtain abortions violates privacy rights guaranteed by the Florida Constitution, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday in Tallahassee.
The justices voted 5-1 to strike the law, which was passed in 1999 but never enforced pending resolution of the constitutional challenge. The high court reversed a decision of the 1st District Court of Appeal that had upheld the law.
The opinion reinforced and relied heavily on a similar Florida Supreme Court decision that overturned a parental consent abortion law in 1989.
Senior Justice Leander Shaw wrote for the majority that the court had to base its ruling on law rather than morality.
"We recognize that the legal issue of abortion has been one of the most gut-wrenching, emotionally laden issues of the past decades in Florida," Shaw wrote. "Sitting as a court, however, we cannot be ruled by emotion."
He also stressed that that state's privacy guarantee is stronger than rights provided by the U.S. Constitution. The majority found no compelling state interest to justify restricting the state's rights with a parental notification law, a finding lauded by abortion-rights proponents.
"The court recognized the harms that such laws impose on young women, including possible physical and emotional abuse, lack of access to confidential medical care, forced teen motherhood and delay in obtaining medical care," said Bebe Anderson, a lawyer for the New York City-based Center for Reproductive Law & Policy.
Anderson had argued the case on behalf of about a dozen abortion clinics, doctors and advocacy groups. She said the decision cannot be appealed to the federal level because it is grounded in the Florida Constitution, which also limits its value for setting a national precedent.
"It does have persuasive value in some other states" with privacy laws similar to Florida's, she said.
Mike McCarron, executive director of the Florida Catholic Conference, one of several groups on both sides that intervened on both sides of the issue, said the decision "is outrageous and terrible."
"It robs children of their parents' involvement in vital health decisions and it robs the parents of their right to raise and properly care for their children," McCarron said.
The ruling leaves parental notification advocates no recourse short of a dramatic change in the Supreme Court's membership or a constitutional amendment, said Howard Simon, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida.
Lawmakers passed a similar bill in 1998 but it was vetoed by Gov. Lawton Chiles. Gov. Jeb Bush signed the 1999 bill. He said he was disappointed by the decision.
"I think the balance should be going more toward parents," Bush said. "It's hard to imagine we live in a society where parents wouldn't be notified of an abortion."
Simon said the ruling, by reinforcing the 1989 consent law decision, may help the ACLU halt Bush's effort to get a court-appointed guardian for the fetus of a mentally rape victim in Orlando. A judge there rejected the governor's request before the consent law decision, but the state has appealed.
Officials with Planned Parenthood of Collier County applauded the court's decision even though it does not provide abortion services to any women regardless of age.
"While Planned Parenthood believes strongly that parents should be involved in the health decision of minors, this law would have wrongly punished young people who come from homes where physical violence, rape, incest or emotional abuse are prevalent," Char Wendel, president and chief executive officer, said. "We are very pleased that the Florida Supreme Court recognized this and that the right to privacy is non-negotiable."
Because there is no abortion clinic in Collier or physicians accepting referrals for the procedure, the local Planned Parenthood refers women to clinics in Lee County or on the state's east coast.
Officials with the Naples Pro-Life Council could not be reached for comment Thursday.
The abortion rate in Florida has been going up whereas the opposite is true nationwide, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute in New York, a not-for-profit organization for reproductive health research. That's despite that 70 percent of Florida counties had no abortion providers in 2000.
In Florida in 2000, the year most recent statewide data is available, 103,050 women had abortions for a rate of 31.9 abortions for every 1,000 women of reproductive age. That's a 4 percent rate increase since 1996.
Nationwide, 1.3 million American women had abortions in 2000, for a rate of 21.3 abortions for every 1,000 women of child-bearing age, according to the Guttmacher Institute. That's a 5 percent rate decline since 1996.
Wendel, of Collier's Planned Parenthood, had no figures for how many minors in the community get abortions.
"I had two 11-year-olds in here last month," she said, referring to the clinic, which provides counseling services. "One chose to abort and one chose to become a parent. I am shocked by that. Eleven is unbelievable. That is why this parental notification law was so scary for us."
At Southwest Florida Women's Clinic in North Fort Myers, which provides abortions, Dr. Ali Azima, said the court's decision was a good one.
"I admire the decision," he said.
If the parental notification law had been upheld and gone into effect, young women would go to another state to have the procedure, he said.
"People would go to an adjacent state, therefore it wasn't going to stop people from having an abortion," he said. "Why make it inconvenient? It makes no sense."
Chief Justice Harry Lee Anstead and Justices Peggy Quince and Barbara Pariente agreed with Shaw in the notification ruling, but each also wrote a separate concurring opinion. Justice R. Fred Lewis agreed with the majority's result but not its reasoning. Justice Charles Wells dissented. The opinions and dissents totaled 137 pages.
Lewis conceded the 1989 opinion set a proper precedent but contended the majority justices went too far by also finding the state had no compelling interest in protecting the health and welfare of minors for all manner of medical procedures.
Pariente and Anstead disagreed, writing Lewis had read too much into the majority opinion.
Wells argued the 1989 decision did not set a precedent because consent is much more restrictive than mere notification.
A Tallahassee trial judge in May 2000 ruled the law violated privacy rights, but the District Court overturned that decision last year.
The Associated Press and staff writer Liz Freeman contributed to this report.
-
Reborn2002
Further information on the ruling from down here in Florida.
http://www.reproductiverights.org/pr_02_0227flparental.html
TALLAHASSEE, Florida - On March 4, the Center for Reproductive Rights will present arguments before the Florida Supreme Court on why Florida's law requiring physicians to notify a parent or legal guardian of a young woman prior to an abortion procedure violates the Florida Constitution. In 1989, the Florida Supreme Court struck down a similar law that required written parental consent, finding it violated the right to privacy.
"The majority of young women choose to involve their parents in decisions about pregnancy. But government mandated communication will actually harm those young women who fear physical or emotional abuse by a parent," said Bebe Anderson, a staff attorney with the Center for Reproductive Rights who represents the plaintiffs.
In February 2001, the First District Court of Appeal found the state law requiring parental notification valid under the Florida Constitution, ignoring strong evidence presented at the trial court level attesting to the harmful impact the law would have on minors. Judge Terry P. Lewis ruled that the law was unconstitutional in May 2000, finding that it did not serve a compelling state interest and that it violated the explicit privacy clause in Florida’s constitution, which allows young women the same right to privacy as adult women. The parental notice law has been blocked since July 1999 when it was due to take effect.
Amicus briefs were filed on behalf of the plaintiffs by the American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, Society for Adolescent Medicine, and the Women's Law Project.
The argument is expected to be broadcast live on the internet by WFSU-TV at http://wfsu.org/gavel2gavel.
Plaintiffs in North Florida Women’s Health & Counseling Services, Inc., et al. v. State of Florida, et al. (Case No: SC01-843) include 9 abortion providers and clinics, as well as women’s rights groups from across Florida. They are represented by Bebe Anderson and Jody Ratner of the Center for Reproductive Rights, Richard E. Johnson of Tallahassee, and Dara Klassel of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
-
StinkyPantz
Well, I'm going to go against the majority on this one. While I DO think that it is totally ridiculous for a 12 year old to get plastic surgery (since they are still growing), I am not against a 12 year old seeking an abortion without parental consent. But I wonder, how do they get to the clinic? They can't even drive.
I'm about to go eat, but I will elaborate later.
-
crownboy
I agree with the decision. Before I even read Reborn's most recent post, I had already concluded that certain groups of young women (those raped by their guardians, etc.) would need a law like this simply because parental notification in those cases would be detrimental to their well being. Not every pregnant teen is some media influenced, over sexed young woman who wants to "grow up too fast", and "gave it up" to some guy she barely knew in a moment of pure irresponsible teenaged erotic emotionalism, and now that girl is ashamed to confront her very concerned and good natured parents because of the dissappointment they would feel toward their daughter. But even in a case like that, the privacy rights of the teen should supercede those of the parents, since the decision to carry a child to full term is a decision that should be made by the one carrying the child, and not the parent(s) of the one carrying the child. I strongly suspect that in alot of cases the opinion a person takes on this issue has a lot to do with whether they are for or against abortion, than with "parental rights", but certainly that's not absolutely the case, because I'm sure most pro-choice parents would like to know if their teen was having an abortion, even if they were totally sympathetic to this ruling. The notification seems more like a ploy by anti-abortion groups to curtail abortions by teens, and therefore further their anti-abortion agenda, even if it means some kid has to bring her father's child to term, etc.
Of course, it would be great if teenagers didn't get pregnant and all that stuff, and hence we wouldn't have to be in this situation. That's where comprehensive sex education would come into play (i.e.: not just abstinance only). Denying the sexual nature of teens seems to be very silly to me, but obviously with sex comes the possibility of pregnancy, and unfortunately this society was not particularly set up for pregnant teens to succeed. However, we do know that comprehensive sex-ed reduces the amount of teenagers who eventually get pregnant, and hence the numbers of those who need abortions. Western Eurpean countries have great working models of this concept. Not only are teens less likely to get pregnant there, but they start having sex at a later age than American teens (most likely because sex doesn't have the air of mystery and unrealistic romanticism it does here). But somehow, I'm pretty sure the groups that opposed this ruling would be most against that kind of comprehensive sex-ed in schools .
And as a total aside, there isn't a great deal of public benefit in having kids learn the ten commandments. About half of the commandments are overtly religious (the Hindu kid realizes he is breaking commandment one ). The not cheating, stealing, killing, etc. need not be taught in a religious context, or at least acknowledge that most religions already have this in their text, or that such things were taught even before Moses came.
-
crownboy
Oh, I forgot about the plastic surgery one. I guess StinkyPantz and I are of like mind here (didn't see the post since I was writing the reply), since I largely disagree with the plastic surgery for teens. It's not so much about not getting parental consent, as it is about the health of a child. I would make it so, that even if a parent did consent to such surgery, that the kid go through some sort of physcological and physical test, to ensure that the surgery should be happening. Carrying a child to term that will totally affect the rest of your life (at the whim of your parents, nontheless), and getting surgery for bigger boobs to attract Jimmy from the 10th grade (whose baby your parents will force you to carry ), deal with two separate situations.
-
Euphemism
The abortion consent law actually applied to anyone up to the age of 18.
I think we can trust doctors to apply a level of reasonableness. If a 17-year-old goes to the doctor by themselves, that's a pretty normal thing, whether they're getting an abortion or just getting a checkup.
If a 12-year-old goes to the doctor by herself, that would be pretty weird, and I would hope that the doctor would have the common sense to ask some questions.
If there is a law requiring parental consent, it should be a general one covering all medical treatment, not specifcally singling out abortions.