Court Declines to Review Abortion Law

[ginshun]

Beyond pointing out that you're arguing for judicial bypass, WHICH IS WHAT MOST STATES HAVE NOW, because NO surgical procedures can be done on minors without parental consent anyway...


And beyond my actually saying that this was an issue of men wishing to retain control over women and the family...well...if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.

I don't suppose you'd care to discuss the points I raised about WHY this issue is even coming up?

I don't think that any surgical procedure should be able to be done on a minor without the parents consent (baring a life threatening emergency), abortions included. All I want to know is why you think that we should separate abortion from the rest.

I personally don't see a 14 year old girl having to consult her parents before going in for an abortion surgery as a way for men to conrtol women. If that is how you see it, then fine I guess. I don't see the connection though.

 

[raedyn]

Right, because why should people have to deal with legislators that were actually elected to there positions, and you know people who actually have to go through a voting process to change laws?

Easier to just find a judge that agrees with their point of view and take it to him, seeing as how judges change laws as they see fit nowadays.

This is a common misconception. Anytime a group disagrees with a the descision of a court, they propogate this myth by belly-aching about so-called 'activist judges'. This point of view seems to demonstrate a lack of understanding about how our political system is designed to work.

The following is taught early in Political Science 100 (infact, I think it was introduced in High School)
In Western-Style Democracies there are 3 branches of government
- legislative branch: they make laws (US = House of Representatives & Senate, Canada = House of Commons)
- executive branch: they provide oversight of laws, sometimes called sober second thought (US = President & his Secretariat, Canada = Senate)
- judicial branch: they INTERPRET law

Judges don't write law. They don't decide "hey, I don't like this law, I'm gonna say it doesn't count". They can strike down laws or sections of laws when they conflict with other laws that take precedence. In both the US and Canada, the Constitution is the ultimate & overriding law and no laws can be made that conflict with the Constitution. The Constitution could be changed, but is much more difficult to change than any other laws requiring a significantly larger majority to pass amendments.

(that is all extremely simplified of course, but it's an intro to the concepts)
/thread-gank

 

[ginshun]

This is a common misconception. Anytime a group disagrees with a the descision of a court, they propogate this myth by belly-aching about so-called 'activist judges'. This point of view demonstrates a lack of understanding about how our political system works.

The following is taught early in Political Science 100 (infact, I think it was introduced in High School)
In Western-Style Democracies there are 3 branches of government
- legislative branch: they make laws (US = House of Representatives & Senate, Canada = House of Commons)
- executive branch: they provide oversight of laws, sometimes called sober second thought (US = President & his Secretariat, Canada = Senate)
- judicial branch: they INTERPRET law

Judges don't write law. They don't decide "hey, I don't like this law, I'm gonna say it doesn't count". They can strike down laws or sections of laws when they conflict with other laws that take precedence. In both the US and Canada, the Constitution is the ultimate & overriding law and no laws can be made that conflict with the Constitution. The Constitution could be changed, but is much more difficult to change than any other laws requiring a significantly larger majority to pass amendments.

(that is all extremely simplified of course, but it's an intro to the concepts)
/thread-gank

/off topic/

So basically, as long as a judges interpretation of a law doesn't go against the constitution, then he can do with that law as he sees fit. That is exactly what my point was. I think that we are seeing this right now with the whole gay marriage thing. Some judges say it is unconstitutinal some say its not. The whole thing is up in the air. Regardless of whether it is or not, it is the law right now that gay people do not have the right ot get married. Personally I think that is BS, and they should be able to. However, the right way to get the law changed is not to have a judge declare in unconstitutional, and then just disreguard it and do what you want. There is a legistlative process in getting laws changed, and last time I checked, having a judge say that he thinks the law is no good wasn't part of it.

They are fighting for the right thing, but going about it in the wrong way, because this way is easier.

That is my opinion anyway.


/sorry for going off topic/

 

[raedyn]

So basically, as long as a judges interpretation of a law doesn't go against the constitution, then he can do with that law as he sees fit.

No. The judge may determine that the law goes against the constitution and therefore rule it invalid or portions of it invalid. S/He is supposed to interpret the intent of the law makers.

the right way to get the law changed is not to have a judge declare in unconstitutional, and then just disreguard it and do what you want. There is a legistlative process in getting laws changed, and last time I checked, having a judge say that he thinks the law is no good wasn't part of it.

You misunderstood my post. One right way to get a law changed IS to have a judge declare it unconstitutional. That is the entire purpose of the supreme court. That is why they exist. In the US, they usually strike down state law. It's very rarely than they rule against federal law. There are many checks and balances so that no arm can get too much power. While Judges can rule one way or another, they have no powers of enforcement. This falls to the executive.* There are ways lawmakers could reverse the descions made by the courts. Like change the laws that the judges were interpreting. If a judge says law X is unconstitutional, all the legislators have to do is change the constitution, then the other law can stand. But it's difficult to change the Constitution. On purpose.

(In Canada, governments have the option to use a (very rarely used) clause in the Constitution called the Notwithstanding Clause that allows them to override the Constitution in certain circumstances.)

* ps I realized I made a mistake in my earlier post. In Canada, the Senate is part of the legislative branch, and the executive branch is the Prime Minister and his(her) Cabinet. Mea Culpa.
/sidebar

 

[ginshun]

There are many checks and balances so that no arm can get too much power. While Judges can rule one way or another, they have no powers of enforcement. This falls to the executive.* There are ways lawmakers could reverse the descions made by the courts. Like change the laws that the judges were interpreting. If a judge says law X is unconstitutional, all the legislators have to do is change the constitution, then the other law can stand. But it's difficult to change the Constitution. On purpose.

I agree with all this, and I think we are pretty much in agreement overall. The problem comes in, (especially with the gay marraige thing) when people figure that as soon as the judge makes a ruling against a current law, then that law is immediately not valid and so they don't have to follow it anymore.

Sorry, but that isn't how it works.

Sorry again for going off topic. Raeydn, I will be happy to discuss this further if you want, but maybe best that we do it through PM's instead of bogging down and already bogged down tread.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

or a separate thread?

 

[ginshun]

or a separate thread?

Feel free to make one.

 

[raedyn]

To relate these sidebars back to the original topic:

The Supreme Court rejected an appeal Monday to reinstate a state law requiring girls under age 18 to get parental consent for abortions except under the most dire of medical emergencies.

[size=-1]Without comment, justices let stand a lower court ruling that struck down the Idaho law because its provisions on emergency abortions were too strict.[/size]
[size=-1]
At issue was whether the Idaho law was unduly burdensome on young mothers by limiting abortions without consent to "sudden and unexpected" instances of physical complications.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said yes, saying there was no reasonable explanation for the restriction. Other emergency medical procedures are allowed on minors without parental permission that do not fit the "sudden and unexpected" category, it said.

The court said the rest of the law could not be salvaged because the emergency provisions were too important.
...

Other states also provide for parental consent for abortions in many situations, but Idaho's is considered more stringent than most.

So to summarize: The Supreme Court wouldn't hear the case because there was no error in the previous ruling. The previous ruling said that other emergency medical procedures are done on minors without parental consent, and there is no reason this procedure should be treated differently. The law as written in Idaho put an undue burden on the pregnant teen. The Idaho government could enact another law that says abortions cannot be performed on minors without parental consent, but it must be re-written to be less burdensome on the patient. The judiciary struck down the law, and the legislators have an opportunity to make a new one, but it must work around the challenges identified by the court.[/size]

 

[raedyn]

I agree with all this, and I think we are pretty much in agreement overall. The problem comes in, (especially with the gay marraige thing) when people figure that as soon as the judge makes a ruling against a current law, then that law is immediately not valid and so they don't have to follow it anymore.

Sorry, but that isn't how it works.

That's EXACTLY how it works, if the judges rule the entire law is invalid. But they have the ability to make other choices. Like say only certain sections are invalid. In this case, the court ruled that the entire law became void without the sections that were deemed 'unduly burdensome'. At other times the courts will do things like deliver a judgement, but suspend the consequences of it for X period of time to allow lawmakers time to react to the decsion. IIRC, This is what Canada's Supreme Court did when it said the denying Marijuana to certain people who could medically benefit from it was unconstitutional. They ruled that the government must allow certain medical patients access to the drug, but allowed the government time to come up with policy and processes for how they would apply this ruling.

It DOES work that way, but if you don't think it SHOULD work that way, what alternate arrangement do you propose? How could citizens challenge unjust laws? It's not a perfect system, but it has stood the test of time pretty well.

 

[shesulsa]

It still irks me that (robert, stay with me here) no one wants to talk about the boy!

How about this?

If we are going to force underage girls to get parental consent for abortion, some parents will not give that consent and force the girl to have the child. I think that, if the child is going to be born and kept by the girl or the family then the boy should be immediately placed on GPS tracking and trained for and entered into the military or other Federal job, his wages automatically garnished for child support and insurance benefits garnished for the child and mother.

Why don't we do that? Huh? Sure would ease the burden on welfare.

 

[Tgace]

Well, I would think that if a family decides to "force" the child to carry to term that they intend to help support the baby afterwards. If I was in that situation I would look into the legal process of making the father or his family financially responsible as well.

 

[ginshun]

It still irks me that (robert, stay with me here) no one wants to talk about the boy!

How about this?

If we are going to force underage girls to get parental consent for abortion, some parents will not give that consent and force the girl to have the child. I think that, if the child is going to be born and kept by the girl or the family then the boy should be immediately placed on GPS tracking and trained for and entered into the military or other Federal job, his wages automatically garnished for child support and insurance benefits garnished for the child and mother.

Why don't we do that? Huh? Sure would ease the burden on welfare.

What world do to people live in!?!?

We DO do that! How the heck do you think child support works? Its not like most guys do it for fun. I am sure that if you offered half of those guys nice paying, good benefit government jobs they wouldn't turn there nose up at them. Not to mention the fact that child support is 17% of your gross, but is taken out of your net. You can argue about this all day, but that fact is that guys get screwed on the deal if they have a kid and are not together with the mother. Believe me, I know.

Insurance benefits are not payed for the mother, but it really makes no difference for the father, as pretty much all companies have either single or family plans. My daughter and I only on my insurance costs me the same as if I had a wife and 10 kids.

As for the GPS tracking, I am not really sure what the purpose of that is. It goes to show your state of mind though, in the fact that in your mind, once the child is born, the mother should have to pay for nothing, while the father should have to take care of the money, the insurance, and be tracked 24-7 to boot. Yup totally fair system you have worked out there.

 

[FearlessFreep]

Out of curiosity I did a real quick search and found out that in Britain at least the law is that sex with a girl under the 'age of consent' can be tried as statuatory rape, even if she claims she consented and regardless of the age of the male. I wouldn't be surprised that if the parents of a girl who became pregnant want to, they could have the boy charged legally with something.

I'm surprised that alimony or child support laws are not used here. I don't know if they are only applied to divorces or not but if the law can require a man to pay child support for his children, then it should be applicable to minors as well, with the added burden on the parents of the boy because he his a minor. If child support laws do not apply in non-marraiges for adults, then it's hard to bring legal pressure for support against minors, in which case unfortunately it's back to just the girl and her parents.

There are a *lot* of cases where we do not allow minors to make life-altering decisions without parental permission. Such as credit obligations and military service. Medical procedures in non-life threatening situations is just one of many cases where the consequences are far reaching and abortion is just one of many such medical procedures. If the law does not allow for persuit of the boy to live with the consequences of his actions, that's bad and should be changed. However, I don't think that even if that's the case, it should be allowed as a special circumstance to the laws concerning minors and their parent's responsibilites in just about every other legal, medical, employment, and financial situation.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

What world do to people live in!?!?

We DO do that! How the heck do you think child support works? Its not like most guys do it for fun. I am sure that if you offered half of those guys nice paying, good benefit government jobs they wouldn't turn there nose up at them. Not to mention the fact that child support is 17% of your gross, but is taken out of your net. You can argue about this all day, but that fact is that guys get screwed on the deal if they have a kid and are not together with the mother. Believe me, I know.

Insurance benefits are not payed for the mother, but it really makes no difference for the father, as pretty much all companies have either single or family plans. My daughter and I only on my insurance costs me the same as if I had a wife and 10 kids.

As for the GPS tracking, I am not really sure what the purpose of that is. It goes to show your state of mind though, in the fact that in your mind, once the child is born, the mother should have to pay for nothing, while the father should have to take care of the money, the insurance, and be tracked 24-7 to boot. Yup totally fair system you have worked out there.

Excuse me if I'm wrong, but mothers *do* pay for the care of their children. "Child support" is supposed to help them help support the child. And, of course, the time and energy you put into that child is not counted in a money-only system.

As far as the actual cases I've seen where a couple are not together, and one pays child-support, the person who usually "gets screwed" is the person actually doing the day-to-day, often totally thankless task of raising the child. Not all people who are supposed to pay child support do, or pay the full amount. And just because you have a check in the mail doesn't make parenting a breeze.

Since a portion of the above conversations focused on "if the girl decides to have sex, she should understand she may get pregnant", or at least contained that kind of sentiment in the messages. shesulsa was pointing out that it takes two - and young boys (or older skeezy men preying on little girls) are not held to the same level of accountability as a young woman is. If the law is going to *force* her to have a child, shouldn't the young man involved be *forced* to be a parent, too? (Including 2 am feedings)

ETA: True, the guy in question could be sued for statuatory rape.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Uh-oh, somebody actually looked up the Idaho law under question--which certainly says some things I hadn't known about, but which also makes it clear that this law has nothing to do with "protecting," anybody, but with CONTROLLING what girls and women do with their own bodies.

Which is precisely the point raised about dragging the boys up to the bar, or even installing GPS trackers on 'em. The very fact that this appears ridiculous to the guys demonstrates my original point: this is all about controlling the wimmins, and thus any idea that men should be dragged in physically becomes utterly unthinkable, an idea that can only be derided--it's outside the mindset of patriarchy.

By the way, it's my understanding that a primary reason for the unquestionable fact that the majority of the poor in this country are women and children is the pervasiveness of the deadbeat dad. And speaking of, "beat," the fact that the overwhelming majority of domestic violence in this country is carried out by men remains, as far as I'm concerned, simply the extreme limit of the desire to keep women in their God-given place.

No, whomping on somebody is not the same thing as denying them abortion rights. However, both--so far as I'm concerned, anyway--are styles of violence against women.

 

[Flatlander]

There's nothing quite like hearing Dad ***** about paying child support to make a child feel like an unwanted mistake.

 

[Tgace]

Uh-oh, somebody actually looked up the Idaho law under question--which certainly says some things I hadn't known about, but which also makes it clear that this law has nothing to do with "protecting," anybody, but with CONTROLLING what girls and women do with their own bodies.

Which is precisely the point raised about dragging the boys up to the bar, or even installing GPS trackers on 'em. The very fact that this appears ridiculous to the guys demonstrates my original point: this is all about controlling the wimmins, and thus any idea that men should be dragged in physically becomes utterly unthinkable, an idea that can only be derided--it's outside the mindset of patriarchy.

By the way, it's my understanding that a primary reason for the unquestionable fact that the majority of the poor in this country are women and children is the pervasiveness of the deadbeat dad. And speaking of, "beat," the fact that the overwhelming majority of domestic violence in this country is carried out by men remains, as far as I'm concerned, simply the extreme limit of the desire to keep women in their God-given place.

No, whomping on somebody is not the same thing as denying them abortion rights. However, both--so far as I'm concerned, anyway--are styles of violence against women.

How do you explain "pro-life" women?

 

[Feisty Mouse]

How do you explain "pro-life" women?

They think that women deserve whatever lousy hand they're dealt??

OK, that was flip. My answer: women (just like men) can want to control what other people do, and feel that certain things are just evil, no matter what.

What's interesting to watch is a pro-life woman who's just realized that she's been chatting with another woman (or women) who are pro-choice. Suddenly the latter become monsters.

 

[shesulsa]

We DO do that! How the heck do you think child support works? Its not like most guys do it for fun. I am sure that if you offered half of those guys nice paying, good benefit government jobs they wouldn't turn there nose up at them.

Well, it sounds like you don't identify with all the non-custodial parents out there who don't pay their child support. And, NO, we don't automatically garnish wages, that must be petitioned for and approved by the judge in each case.

You can argue about this all day, but that fact is that guys get screwed on the deal if they have a kid and are not together with the mother. Believe me, I know.

As do I. Really, am I screwed? Hmmm... Disneyland, the Happiest Place on Earth is one employer who refuses to release their employment records to support enforcement. How do I know? My ex works there - and does not pay child support. In fact, he hasn't in ... oh ... 10 years now. Oh, and he HAD a government job - and quit it when I left him. So I have had to provide the insurance, the food, the clothing, the parenting, everything for these children, but ... I'm not screwed? Actually, I'm not screwed - the kids are.

As for the GPS tracking, I am not really sure what the purpose of that is.

That would serve the purpose of finding him when he runs and works for cash under the table and rents a room from a friend so he doesn't have to pay support. If you think this is a rarity, think again. Here's some statistics from one site for you, if that matters.

It goes to show your state of mind though, in the fact that in your mind, once the child is born, the mother should have to pay for nothing, while the father should have to take care of the money, the insurance, and be tracked 24-7 to boot. Yup totally fair system you have worked out there.

The mother has to pay for nothing? Where did I say that? Do you honestly think that child support payments support chidlren 100%? Do you think it's enough to feed children and clothe them and provide school supplies and pay for medical bills and dental bills and vision care bills? Think it's going to pay for their braces? Midnight trips to the emergency room?

And do you think payment only comes from your wallet? This is the most revealing misconception of the responsibility of pregancy and child-rearing yet. KIDS ARE NOT FOR RENT!! They are not little animals you can hole up and toss scraps to.

Parenting is a tough, thankless, gut-wrenching job if it's done right - and that means more than the $250 per month some non-custodial parents pay in support.

 

[raedyn]

Not only men pay child support. My step-mom, for instance, pays child support. And she shares in the parenting responsibilty (the kids move back and forth between mom's house & dad's house).