Florida Supreme Court Denies Motion Overturning Abortion Notification Vote

[CornField]

http://www.lifenews.com/state839.html

The Florida Supreme Court has stopped a motion filed by abortion advocates seeking to overturn the amendment Florida residents approved in November requiring abortion facilities to inform parents when a teenager is considering an abortion.

The Florida high court on Thursday squashed the motion filed jointly by the ACLU and Planned Parenthood. They wanted to void the vote on the constitutional amendment that would allow the state legislature to approve a notification law.

Florida voters backed the constitutional amendment in November by a 65-35 margin.

The court, which previously did not issue an opinion in turning back a pre-vote lawsuit both groups filed seeking to take the amendment off the ballot, said it would craft a written ruling at a later date.

...

[Florida_Geek]

1. sounds fair to me

The Florida Voters voted this in as part of the Constitution. Like it or not the voters have spoken.

[flpeach]

2. Florida Geek . . .

As much as I disapprove of the amendment, I agree with you wholeheartedly. The voters should decide.

[Egalitariat]

3. You're right. It's the ultimate fallacy in a democracy

We tout democracy alot around here, but we all really want a representative republic -- with competent representatives.

This is an excellent example of the tyranny of the majority - mob rule.

[CornField]

4. I totally disagree

The statement I use during same-sex marriage discussions: Our rights as Americans do not depend on approval from others. We have those rights because we are Americans.

If the majority of Americans voted to give our military authority to use torture, would that make the torture proper or right?

[Florida_Geek]

5. lot of Dems voted for this

it is a "children" issue. And Dem mothers and fathers wanted control over their children.

[CornField]

7. Yes, I know , but that isn't the point

Thirty-some years ago, a majority of people in a majority of states voted to place a ban on mixed race marriages. It eventually took a Supreme Court ruling to call the ban what it was: discrimination.

[Florida_Geek]

8. Totally different

had they passed a Cont. Admend. against mixed race marriages like they are trying to do with gay marriage, it would then be the law of the land.

[CornField]

9. Oh, like prohibition?

Just because something is voted into law does not mean it will remain the law forever. Laws change. Also, just because a majority of Americans believe something does not make that something true or right.

[Florida_Geek]

24. Right but is it the law for

a point in time like prohibition. But I do not think this one will change because it is about moms and dads and kids.

[sandnsea]

11. It's actually a health issue

And the parents of Florida aren't going to figure that out until a whole bunch of little Suzies end up dead.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

18. Wow...who else's privacy should we abolish by popular demand?

[aquart]

6. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

[Southern Dem 2005]

10. No problem with this decision

The fact that a majority voted for it is compelling but not conclusive. Majority support doesn't always make something right (an example being Jim Crow laws). However, I have no problem with a law requiring a teen to notify a parent before they obtain an abortion. Have any of you who don't like this law ever had an abortion as a teen? I'm not sure that is a decision a teenager is equipped to make on their own.

[Mithras61]

12. Haven't had one, as I'm not properly equipped, but...

TX does have parental notification laws, and they have also included a Judicial Bypass clause. Somehow it dopesn't seem to work as envisioned. Look up Justice Priscilla Owens sometime (here's a quickie link: http://www.now.org/issues/legislat/nominees/owens.html)

[CornField]

13. I have a 13-yr-old daughter

If the choice was her tanking up on Vitamin C and various herbs behind my back -or- having an abortion performed by a medical professional behind my back... I'd choose the latter.

[baby_bear]

14. Believe me, it is a terrible decision

Been there. A minor female who has parents who would be, shall we say, unsympathetic, is in a bad enough position to begin with, then to have the court system compound it by limiting her options is unthinkable.

How nice to have parents who would be understanding and supportive. Quite another to have parents who would beat you, boot you out of the house, and worse.

And then you're still pregnant and 17.

This is not consistent with Democrats' compassion. It is consistent with Republicans' head-in-the-sand lack thereof, though.

b_b

[Eloriel]

19. And there's another MAJOR reason it's a bad, bad, bad thing

Let's face it. As you point out, if children have a decent relationship with their parents, they will already be going to those parent(s) in such a situation.

Sometimes the girl is pregnant due to incest -- her father or stepfather. You want this child to go to the person who sexually assaulted her for "permission" for the abortion? (Hint: saying NO to abortion may help keep you out of jail.) Or to the mother who isn't protecting her from same and may not believe her about the father anyway? Or who could also deny permission instead of wanting to face all these nasty realities?

How often does this happen? Difficult to know, but one in 4 girls are sexually abused as children. It's not something to ignore. Judicial bypass is the ONLY safe, sane, humane and compassionate way to have a law like this -- and frankly that's not so fool-proof either, as the link to Priscilla Owens points out.

[Megahurtz]

20. I totally agree

This is why it should NOT be required that parents be notified.
Most people are ignorant that situations like this happen as often as they do.

[Yupster]

21. So if the kid's a victim of incest,

she should have the abortion in private and go back to the same situation she came out of? That doesn't sound protecting to the kid to me.

I'd rather she went through the judicial bypass so at least there'd be the chance of the court protecting her.

As a father, I'm in favor of parental notification, with judicial bypass.

It's a medical decision in part. How can it be right to do surgery on a minor child without notifying the parent?

Also, if my child is being abused by a neighborhood boy who impregnates her, I want to know about it so I can protect her from a repeat of the situation. How can the parent protect their daughter if they're kept in the dark?

This is an easy call for me. You don't keep important information about sons and daughters secret from their parents.

[Mithras61]

22. I agree that I want to know about it, but...

there are too many Priscilla Owenses out there who will continuously try to tighten and restrict and deny under judicial bypass simply because THEY don't feel that abortions should be performed, regardless of the extenuating circumstances. If it was just a matter of people of good heart and generous mind, it wouldn't even be an issue.

FWIW, I expect that my daughter will not need to use the judicial bypass. I plan to have serious talks with her (as I've had several already with my 10-year old son) about sex & its consequences, and I also have a loving, trusting relationship with her that I plan to see extends into her young adulthood (and hopefully beyond that), so if the issue even arises, I expect to be part of the support team for her, regardless of how she decides.

[sandnsea]

16. Or to have sex either

Or to get birth control pills. Or to drink. Or to do 100 other things teens do that they aren't necessarily equipped to make decisions to do. If they're old enough to suffer adult consequences for crimes, they're old enough to decide about abortion. People need to make up their minds. Are these kids or adults.

[cally]

15. Abortion advocates????

:wtf: How's that for framing the debate? Why are you posting links to 'lifenews'?

[CornField]

17. oh, chill out

It's the only non-subscription link I could find.

[NashVegas]

23. non-subscription link here

http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/local/10638619.htm