Neb. high court nixes teen's request for abortion

[Seedersandleechers]

Source: Associated Press

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — In a split decision released Friday, the Nebraska Supreme Court rejected a 16-year-old ward of the state's request to waive parental consent to get an abortion, saying the girl had not shown she is sufficiently mature and well-informed enough to decide on her own whether to have an abortion.

The girl, who is not named in the opinion, was living with foster parents this year when a juvenile court terminated the parental rights of her biological parents, who had physically abused and neglected her. In a closed hearing this summer, she told Douglas County District Judge Peter Bataillon she was 10 weeks pregnant and asked for a court order allowing an abortion. She said she would not be able to financially support a child and feared she might lose her foster placement if her foster parents, whom she described as having strong religious beliefs, learned of her pregnancy.

Her attorney, Catherine Mahern of Omaha, argued that the girl didn't need anyone's consent for an abortion under the regulations of the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, which states that "if a ward decides to have an abortion, the consent of the parent(s) or Department is not required," although notification of the parents of the abortion might be required.

Nebraska law was changed in 2011 from requiring minors to inform parents of an abortion to requiring them to get the written, notarized consent of a parent or guardian. Exceptions are limited to cases of abuse by the parent or guardian, medical emergencies and instances in which the minor is sufficiently mature and well-informed to decide whether to have an abortion.

Read more: http://www.chron.com/news/article/Neb-high-court-nixes-teen-s-request-for-abortion-4869315.php

---

[Hulk]

1. This is really tragic...

Personally, I am totally, 100% against an abortion; but then again, I'm a 65 year old male, so will probably never have to face that terrible decision in this life. But I am also for a woman's right to chose. Who am I? WTF do I really matter in this.

What is most tragic is the fact this has to be dragged through the courts. At 10 weeks of pregnancy, I am opposed to an abortion, because I see a bit of difference in the development of the fetus. At 12 weeks, it is considerably more developed, and then I get real bad feelings about it. At 14+ weeks, it just becomes more inhumane.

This has to be solved NOW. The child, being 16 years old, should have that right to make the decision. It is, after all, her life. She could have counsel, and she may have to deal with a most difficult decision at a way too early age. That's tragic, but the choices are just as tragic, or worse.

So, looks like the "right-to-lifers" win this battle. The longer they can put it off, the more difficult it will become to make a choice to abort. How sad...just really sad.

[EgyptianDentist]

2. Sad

Weird court decision

[Scootaloo]

3. Wait, what the fuck?

saying the girl had not shown she is sufficiently mature and well-informed enough to decide on her own whether to have an abortion.

But she is sufficiently mature and well-informed to become a parent?

The brainlessness of this argument is staggering.

[elleng]

5. Exactly!!!

[cosmicone]

7. +1,000,000

That struck me as idiotic as well.

[bobGandolf]

19. No kidding!

Great thinking from our courts......again.

[valerief]

4. Oppressive assholes. nt

[BlueJazz]

6. She's a female. She shouldn't have to ask anybody what she can do with her body...

...and CERTAINLY not a bunch of Men.

[alp227]

8. Why the HELL are a bunch of medically clueless MEN deciding on a girl's medical decisions?

And here's the Omaha World-Herald's report on this case: Court denies foster child's request to get abortion without adult consent

"Creepy Uncle Sam" does exist...in the form of Republican-packed courts.

[blkmusclmachine]

9. .

.

[SunSeeker]

10. Well I guess those nuts were right, we DO have Sharia law right here in the USA.

This girl is savagely treated like chattel, much like woman are in middle east theocracies.

[SoapBox]

12. + 100

[SoapBox]

11. So now she gets force fed and chained to a table to deliver?

Really...

Are these MEN going to maybe cut the baby out of her when it's ready?

Then what??

Then the baby goes up for auction, I guess.

[tblue]

13. Not mature enough to decide?

But plenty mature enough to endure a healthy pregnancy and give birth to a child? And after what she's already been through?

Where's the logic? Where's the humanity???

[happyslug]

15. Read the decision, the Court Rule the 17 year old NEVER made that argument.

I posted the decsion below, the Court found that the 17 year old NEVER claimed an abortion was in her best interest and thus not part of the appeal.

[happyslug]

14. Actual Court Opinion

http://www.supremecourt.ne.gov/sites/supremecourt.ne.gov/files/sc/opinions/s13-510009.pdf

I suspect bad lawyering:

Petitioner does not argue on appeal that an abortion without the consent of a parent or a guardian is in her best interests. Thus, we limit our consideration to whether petitioner established evidence of abuse or neglect within the meaning of the statute.


The Dissent points out that the Child was the one who filed the Petition then an lawyer was assigned,. Thus how can the court hold the Child to her own petition when it was NOT prepared by a Lawyer? It is a way to avoid the issue of the best interest of the 16 year old.

[sakabatou]

17. So this is due to her making the petition by herself instead of her parents?

[happyslug]

21. Remember she is in foster care.

Last edited Sun Oct 6, 2013, 03:16 AM - Edit history (1)

The Court clearly points that out. She has NO parents for her natural parents parental rights were terminated and she has NOT been adopted by anyone. Thus the closest thing she has to a parent is the State. Thus she had to request permission of the Court to get an abortion.

The procedure in such cases appear to be she writes a petition to the court, the court sets a trial date and assign a lawyer to the 17 year old. At trial the bases for the request remains the petition was written by the 17 year old. Given the nature of such cases, her lawyer may not be even able to ask for a delay to prepare for the trial. Given the nature of such cases, I suspect the Local Legal Aid Office has to provide the lawyer (I operate under a similar law in Pennsylvania, fortunately I have NEVER had to do such a case). Thus a day or two before the hearing the lawyer is informed of the hearing, maybe talk to his client once just before the hearing and the hearing is held.

Now, this is made worse by the burden of proof. In such cases it is "Clear and Convincing Evidence", which is about half way between "Preponderance of Evidence" of most Civil Cases and "Beyond a reasonable doubt" of Criminal cases. Thus you had a lawyer that was assigned the case just days before the hearing, may be meets his client once, for he has other cases to handle, then when he lost had to file an appeal within days for that is how the law is written. Then based on that appeal and the transcript the State Supreme Court reviews the decision of the trial Judge.

Thus you have a lawyer who has no time to fix what is probably a bad petition, trying to win based on that petition that he or she did NOT prepare and then file an appeal, which has as its foundation a bad petition.

The dissent does a much better job pointing out the problems and saying it would rule that the law the majority is using is not applicable in this case for that law reflects a teenager who lives with her parents and thus can ask them for permission to get an abortion. In such cases the Judicial fall back is just that a fall back if the parents say no. In this case they is no parents to ask, thus the court is the people who are most like a parent in a normal situation. Worse, it appears the State deferrers such decisions to the 17 year old by regulations, thus I suspect the Lawyers argument was that the State HAD given Permission and the Petition to request such an abortion under the Act cited should NOT have been filed, instead a special request to the Court to grant permission under the State's Welfare Regulations was all that was needed.

Thus the problem was the original petition, I suspect it should NOT have been filed, instead a Rule to Show Cause should have been filed why the State can NOT give such permission OR that the Child is emancipated for this purpose for the State has policy of deferring to such 17 year olds on the issue of abortion when no parent exists.

Thus this decision is based on a case which should NOT have been filled as it was, but we are stuck with what was filed. Bad lawyering, through I suspect NOT by the lawyer who did try to fix the problems with the petition but could not given the time constraints.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

16. Was this an immaculate conception?

I don't see any reference as to who got the girl pregnant. It would seem only fair to have him stand before the court and explain how he plans to support his child.

Actually, this sounds like one of those "love the fetus, hate the child" situations "pro-lifers" love so much.

[GeorgeGist]

18. Idiots aren't mature enough to judge a dog and pony show.

[warrant46]

20. These Judges (term used loosely) must be dragged out of the 12th Century