Nebraska’s Supreme Court Has Rejected a Foster Child’s Request for An Abortion

On Friday, the Nebraska Supreme Court refused a 16-year-old girl’s request for an abortion. The girl, who is a ward of the state after being taken away from her abusive parents, lacks a guardian who can provide the required parental consent, leaving her in a legal limbo.

Nebraska’s Supreme Court

According to the ruling, the judges voted 5-2 against her because she was unable to prove that “she is sufficiently mature and well informed to decide on her own whether to have an abortion.”

As Jos at Feministing put it, those justices believe a 16-year-old girl in foster care is old enough to have and raise a child… but not old enough to have an abortion.

Right…

One of the lower court judges, the “honorable” Peter C. Batallion, went so far as to tell this teen “when you have the abortion, it’s going to kill the child inside of you,” and asked her if she would “rather do that than risk problems with the foster care people.”

It’s just sickening what this girl is dealing with: Jump through loopholes to terminate the pregnancy so that she doesn’t jeopardize her placement in the foster system (or her own future), or keeping an unwanted ‘child inside of her’ and risk being thrown out by her admittedly conservative foster parents.

To paraphrase a commenter at Raw Story, this is a decision not based in common sense or the girl’s maturity level. It’s a religion-based ruling made by a predominantly male court.

She deserved a better outcome than this.

About Lauren Lane

Lauren Lane is the co-founder of Skepticon, the Midwest's largest skeptic student-run conference and remains a lead organizer today. She has not one, but TWO fancy art degrees and is not afraid to use them.

  • Guest

    Look she is certaibly old enough to provide a (presumably) white baby for the unregulated multi-billion adoption industry, which is endorsed by evangelicals, some of whom profit immensely by every baby sold. I mean that trades hands. Look it up. This is an outrageous situation.

  • http://www.holytape.etsy.com Holytape

    How about this? If a Christian, white, male is elected or appointed to the supreme court of the us or any state, there should be a five year waiting period. During which time, they must either undergo a sex reassignment procedure, or plastic surgery so that they resemble a minority, and must publicly identify as a different religion. Let them see how the other 60% of Americans live.

    (P.s. No need to make any live as a white male christian. Privilege doesn’t teach you much empathy. Speaking as a white male, former christian.)

  • Gitte

    If she isn’t mature enough to have an abortion then she certainly isn’t mature enough to have a child. Shame on those men, there is so much more to being pregnant that just popping a baby out at the end. I hate religious men who are anti women. Neither the foster parents nor the court are looking after the girls best interests and isn’t that what they are supposed to be doing?

    • Crazy Russian

      What’s more disgusting is that they are confident that they are doing the future child, the future mother, and the whole of humanity a huge favor here. I personally know a few people that would be high-fiving this decision right now. I’m not alone, either, I’m sure.

    • Randy Meyer

      It’s funny how ‘pro life’ only seems to matter when it is about the unborn. Their interest ends once the ‘child’ comes out of the birth canal.

      • Rwlawoffice

        That is such a crock. Pro aborttionists always say this but it is simply not true and it is only said to make them feel better. There will be plenty of people willing and able to adopt this child. The only choice is not to kill it.

        • RobMcCune

          Because the teenager in foster care would never have considered that.

        • Guest

          I am not saying that as a ‘pro abortionist.’ I am saying that more of a value has been put onto an unborn fetus than on the 16 year old child (let me repeat that… CHILD) that is carrying it. At no point in what I said did I declare myself ‘pro abortionist.

        • Randy Meyer

          At no point in what I said did I declare myself ‘pro abortionist.’ All I said was that in cases like this it always seems that the emphasis is always placed on the unborn fetus than on the children that carry them. Don’t they have a right to their childhood too?

          • Atheistiana

            Not to play devil’s advocate or anything because I agree with you but for the part about “their right to their childhood, too.” Did she not abandon at least SOME of her childhood by having sex? That’s not exactly having a tea party with her dolls. I think we sometimes forget that sexual intercourse is a very adult thing to do and requires far more emotional stability than 16 year olds have (I know, I was one once).

            I do think that if she isn’t mature enough to have an abortion, she certainly isn’t mature enough to have a child, adoption or no adoption. With either decision, though, she was screwed. No pun intended.

        • Miss_Beara

          “Pro Life” republicans are cutting – or wanting to cut – WIC and food stamps for millions of Americans. Cuts to education. Skyrocketing poverty. The fight against the ACA, even though it is already a law, that would give people, including children, healthcare.

          So, tell me how “pro lifers” help children after they are born?

          • Michaela Daniels

            if you can’t feed ‘em, don’t breed ‘em. that’s pretty simple. open up your sunday paper. you will find at least one couple that is unable to have children that wil gladly provide a home for your ‘unwanted’ baby. they will cover your prenatal care, post natal care, and maybe even provide a ‘scholarship’ for you to go back to school. there is almost never a medical reason to terminate a pregnancy. so it is a choice. it’s murder. that’s all there is to it. not having sex is also a choice…

        • MommaBear

          1. What about the nine months (or so) between now and when the baby comes out? Pregnancy can be hell (mine was and I wanted the kid, can’t imagine going through that if I hadn’t).

          2. What about if the baby is disabled? That cuts adoption chances by a whole hell of a lot. Or if the child is mixed race? Or unlucky? Or gets placed with an abusive family? Kid’s going to end up back in exactly the same foster system.

          3. Going back to the pregnancy, what if something goes wrong? What if the mother, after the birth, ends up with post-natal depression? Where the hell are the pro-life people going to be then, huh?

          • Miss_Beara

            Women should have thought about that before they got pregnant, duh!

            /sarcasm

            As potentially awful #1 can be, I would be most terrified about #3, personally. Having mental health problems since forever, I cannot imagine being pregnant and cutting back or completely eliminating my meds without a serious mental breakdown. Plus post partum, no thank you.

            Sometimes I think that people don’t take depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, etc. seriously.

            • allein

              I’m not on meds anymore but I would be concerned about that, too, just knowning myself and my personal and family history of depression/anxiety. Also severe morning sickness. My cousin was sick for 9 months straight, times 3 kids (this after having trouble conceiving in the first place to the point where her sister was considering being a surrogate). I’m already prone to motion sickness; I don’t know if that’s any indicator but the thought is frightening.

          • Michaela Daniels

            excuses, excuses, excuses… you make a choice to have sex without protection, you risk pregnancy. if a baby is born ‘disabled’ many states have safe haven laws for you to ‘abandon’ it….sick. it’s a CHILD for crying out loud!

        • Miss_Beara

          We are all still waiting to hear how anti choicers help after children, especially low income or disabled children, are born…

          We’ll wait.

          • Michaela Daniels

            it is not the ‘anti-choicers’ responsibility to raise a child they are not the parent OF. “the low income” people choose to make a baby, then it is their responsibility to raise the child, or place it for adoption so someone who is better able to provide for the child can do so. there are thousands of childless couples out there just waiting for that phone to ring… people need to be held accountable for their CHOICES. but to think that an option is to KILL a child? makes no sense to me. the “choicers” are hurting their own case. i love how they will point to a bad supreme court decision (Roe Vs wade) and forgot to mention SHE cHOSE TO HAVE THE CHILD. also, there is legal precedent out there giving the ‘unborn’ rights and standing in court. example: California vs Scott Peterson. Scott was found guilty of TWO murders. His wife, AND “their unborn son”. the media loves to point that out, but not realize the state of california has given the unborn rights, because how can you ‘murder’ the unborn, if a person doesn;t have legal rights until they ARE born? that is a slippery slope. So it is NOT OK for Scott to kill the unborn (let’s say he did not kill the host), but it IS ok if you choose to do so? so the so-called doctor that takes an oath to do no harm and performs murder for profit can do so, and you are an accomplice to murder…you pull up your pants, he washes his hands…no harm done…and you both go your own way? THAT is disturbing!

            • osiote

              If you are going to force someone to have a child they don’t want, you better be there to pick up the pieces, you idiot.

        • Kodie

          Wow, Rwfakelawyer. I KNEW it was a front for the adoption industry. Plenty of people want a brand-new infant. They are on waiting lists. Solving their missing puzzle piece problem is not my job!

          Why wasn’t the 16-year-old adopted by one of these loving families? Why is she in the foster system? They don’t really want to be parents, they want to pretend they had a baby. What about keeping babies with their mothers? Why are you so anti-life?

        • allein

          If there is only one “option,” that is not a choice.

        • jejune

          Is that why over 140k kids are stuck in the foster care system right now.

        • Miss_Beara

          Are we ever going to know how anti choicers are helping after birth? What about the children already waiting to be adopted?

          And like allein said, if there is only one “option”, it is not a choice.

          • Michaela Daniels

            WHY SHOULD ‘anti choicers’ help raise a child that is a result of someone ELSE’s poor choices? I don’t expect you to raise MY child because that is MY job when i decided to become a PARENT!

            • Miss_Beara

              So your compassion for a fetus ends at birth.

              Got it.

              • Fred

                It’s no longer a fetus anymore why should a fetus fetishist care about something when it no longer matters to them.

                Same thing with the Pregnant woman, once they’re no longer pregnant they might as well be MORE invisible than they were before.

            • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

              Because you refused to let the woman take care of the result of her poor choices (assuming it was poor choices, and not bad luck or any number of other things, but sure, we’ll let that enormous assumption in for now)? Because if you want to force a woman to be pregnant and have a baby, the least you can do is help her do the thing you forced her to do?

              And I feel terribly sorry for you if you think that you don’t deserve any help with child-rearing. Really, I do. It’s a big job, and everyone needs some help sometimes; there’s a reason the expression ‘it takes a village to raise a child’ exists.

            • osiote

              Sex isn’t a crime, you know.

        • baal

          Figures the shut down is stopping me from pulling up the relevant government records. Suffice it to say that every year orphans and other fostered kids age out of the system. There might be someone for most otherwise babies but that’s not the issue. The issue is that the right wingers and their predominately conservative christian supporters don’t like social welfare programs that help kids (not babies) in any context.

      • CottonBlimp

        Frankly, they don’t actually give a shit about the unborn, either. Obamacare is estimated to cut the number of abortions in the US by HALF by making birth control much easier to get. Are pro-lifers celebrating this president making a stand to save thousands of unborn babies? No, they’re hating Obama and trying to get the law overturned.

        It was never about babies. It was always, ALWAYS about women and sex.

        • Miss_Beara

          Ding ding! We have a winner!

          They cut prenatal care for low income women in Texas on top of closing multiple Planned Parenthood locations where they can obtain prenatal care as well.

          It was never about the fetus. It has always been about keeping women in line.

          • http://nomadwarriormonk.blogspot.com/ Cyrus Palmer

            It’s about having more and more babies being born into their religion, because that’s the only way to get more followers. Adults don’t usually convert to their nonsense. They don’t want BC for anybody because that makes it easier for their followers to get ahold of it, and limits the potential number of new followers.

        • Miss_Beara

          Oh, and don’t forget that many anti choicers think that birth control is actually an abortion pill.

          Pathetic, I know.

        • Michaela Daniels

          “…by making birth control much easier to get.”. are you kidding me? you can walk into any wal mart, any drug store, any gas station and there they are: CONDOMS. a lot of schools hand them out for free. You can’t get much easier to get than that (in either case). There is also abstinence and waiting for marriage (like i am doing). Obama is a a-hole. he thinks it is OK to suck an unborn child into a sink, and that partial-birth abortions are OK, and that if a child survies an abortion, it is OK to with hold medical treatment and let it DIE. “choicers” are disturbing and makes me sick!

          • CottonBlimp

            Condoms are essential for preventing the spread of STDs between casual sex partners. I buy ‘em because I fuck random men at the bathhouse.

            For committed long-term monogamous relationships, chemical birth control is much more reliable as a contraceptive – AND it can be used in addition to the condom, further minimizing the potential for abortion.

            Seriously, it doesn’t matter how easy you think it is to not get someone pregnant – and frankly, I agree with you, avoiding pregnancy is astoundingly easy with a little sex education (which pro-lifers generally fight).

            But, you know, if I could do something that would prevent HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF ABORTIONS I would. Why wouldn’t you?

            My guess is that you’ve made the very poor decision not to have sex before marriage, and you’re happy to kill countless unborn babies just to make you feel better about your personal life choices. How many babies have to die just so that you can feel better about cheating yourself out of youth’s best experiences?

  • beatonfam

    though she is apparently mature enough to take a case to the state supreme court.

  • Kevin Kirkpatrick

    Recent conversation w/ my 4 year-old daughter:
    Her: Will I have babies?
    Me: Not for a very long time – only grownups have bodies that can make babies.
    Her: I don’t want to have a baby. Never ever.
    Me: That will always be your choice, nobody can make you have a baby.

    I’m feeling a bit nauseated right now – seems like I may have been lying to my daughter.

    • Lord Knightyme

      To be fair to you and your daughter, you care, she has, will would have, the support of you, your spouse and likely extended family and friends. Which is more then this girl.

      You have not lied to your child on any aspect that you have some influence over. Governments can make rules and laws, but people can object hand have those rules changed. My only suggestion is to be sure to teach your child proper sex education, when she is old enough to understand, so that she is less likely to get pregnant until she chooses too.

      You seem like a good parent, continue the good work.

  • busterggi

    “those justices believe a 16-year-old girl in foster care is old enough to have and raise a child… but not old enough to have an abortion.”
    thank you religion for again demonstrating your followers are idiots.

  • Hertzey

    I’ve got the perfect idea. Five justices voted against this, each of them get to take care for the possible child for four years.

    • MariaO

      Even better: they must prove that they are regulairy giving blood, that they are in the bone marrow registry, that they are willing, nay eager, to donate one of thier kidneys while alive to a total stranger, and that they are giving all of their bodies to donations or research after death. If they do that, I am willing to believe they want to save all lives at all costs. If there is a “no” on any of this they have proven that they are eager to dictate on the uses of the bodies of women “for life” but not their own bodies!

  • Renshia

    Ah religion, the only legitimate excuse for being bat shit crazy.

    • David Kopp

      It’s not legitimate. It’s only socially acceptable, which is unfortunate.

  • atheismFTW

    Where’s the logic of determining that a 16 year old is more equipped to raise a child than get an abortion? I suppose they want her to drop out of high school to make ends meet and reduce her ability to ever fully support herself and her child, hoping she’ll have to depend on churches and the promise of a better life in heaven. To these judges, it’s just another victory for God.

  • ElRay

    How many weeks along is the pregnancy? The decision could be appealed on a factual error because “it’s a child” is a religious belief and not a scientific/medical fact.

    • C.L. Honeycutt

      Any appeal will take far longer than the pregnancy will last. They know this. That’s why they feel safe abusing her.

    • baal

      It’s a State supreme court on a State law matter. There aren’t any more appeals. This is it. fin. done.

      • Spuddie

        Made even worse by the fact that SCOTUS upheld parental consent restrictions in Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992).

      • ElRay

        I mis-read the “bypass” line. I thought a state court declined to hear it, so they went to the federal courts.

      • Carmen

        But it implicates a federal right, so yes she could petition for certiorari in the US Supreme Court. But can she obtain relief at this point?

    • Carmen

      I’m an appellate lawyer and I think the court’s decision is unconstitutional and could be appealed to the US Supreme Court.

      The right to obtain an abortion is a federal fundamental, constitutional right under Roe v. Wade (though heavily curtailed over the years). The judicial bypass procedure is required to make a parental consent law constitutional – so the minor has some way of petitioning the state if her parents won’t consent. But this decision essentially says that foster girls have no right to an abortion. Pretty sure that is unconstitutional, though not sure how the current US Supreme Court would decide.

      The big problem here is timing. I don’t see how this could possibly be decided in time unless the US Supreme Court summarily orders the decision to be vacated. If I were her lawyer and there is still time to obtain an abortion, I’d be sending an emergency petition to the US Supreme Court tomorrow.

      • Spuddie

        Any attempt to go to Federal Court will be dead on arrival.

        Unfortunately such restrictions have already been before the Supreme Court and discussed at length. Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992) upheld parental consent restrictions to abortion.
        http://supreme.nolo.com/us/505/833/case.html

        “The statute’s parental consent provision is entirely consistent with
        this Court’s previous decisions involving such requirements. It is reasonably designed to further the State’s important and legitimate interest “in the welfare of its young citizens, whose immaturity, inexperience, and lack of judgment may sometimes impair their ability to exercise their rights wisely.”

        • Carmen

          However a judicial bypass procedure has always been required following Casey, I thought. I don’t recall any case upholding parental consent restrictions without a bypass procedure. (I’m really busy trying to finish other briefs and no time to research this, so if you can enlighten me please do).

          • Carmen

            OK I did a very quick Lexis search and yes, the Supreme Court has held that a judicial bypass procedure is absolutely required for a parental consent statute to be constitutional.

            There is a difference between parental NOTIFICATION statutes and parental CONSENT statutes. A state law that requires parental notice does not require a judicial bypass procedure, but one that requires parental consent does.

            Here is a 9th Circuit decision from 2005 discussing the law in this area:

            Minor women also possess a right to obtain an abortion. With regard to minors, however, the state has additional interests that may justify regulation of the manner in which they determine to undergo the procedure. Danforth, 428 U.S. at 74. In the interest of fostering family involvement in her decision whether to undergo an abortion, a state may require a minor to obtain a parent or guardian’s consent. Bellotti II, 443 U.S. at 643. It may not, however, supply the parent with an “absolute . . . veto,” but must instead provide some means by which a pregnant minor may bypass the consent requirement. Id. (quoting Danforth, 428 U.S. at 74). More specifically, the Constitution requires that a minor be able to bypass a parental consent requirement when she can establish that “either: (1) she is mature enough and well-informed enough to make her abortion decision . . . independently of her parents’ wishes; or (2) even if she is not able to make this decision independently, the desired abortion would be in her best interests.” Lawall I, 180 F.3d at 1027-28 (citing Bellotti II, 443 U.S. at 643);see also Ohio v. Akron Ctr. for Reproductive Health, 497 U.S. 502, 511, 111 L. Ed. 2d 405, 110 S. Ct. 2972 (1990) (Akron II). 12

            Planned Parenthood of Idaho, Inc. v. Wasden, 376 F.3d 908, 922 (9th Cir. Idaho 2004)

            I have to admit I haven’t yet read the actual Nebraska court decision and I suspect they found her not mature enough. That may be a problem for her though she could still argue that the abortion is clearly in her best interests. I’d have to read more to decide if she has a good shot or not, but overall it seems to me that this decision stands for the proposition that a foster child can never obtain an abortion in Nebraska. Seems clearly unconstitutional to me if that is the case.

            This is very ripe for review in the Supreme Court, especially if she is only 10 weeks pregnant and could realistically obtain an abortion if the court acts in time.

          • Spuddie

            To be honest I have to do research on it as well. Similar work issues keeping that from happening in the near future. If I find out in a reasonable time, I will post it.

  • KMR

    Poor kid. I know the answer according to conservatives would be for her to have the baby and give it up for adoption but that isn’t the rosy picture they try to make it out to be either. My heart goes out to her and yeah I agree this ruling makes no sense.

    • Alierias

      She’s a ward of the state, after being removed from an abusive home. WHAT makes these people believe that she’d do that to her own child — trust the “adoption system” ?

  • DougI

    If the courts can dictate whether or not a woman can have an abortion then why not dictate whether or not adults can have children? A lot of adults are too immature to have children (including the 16 year old’s parents who were abusive, hence the reason she’s in foster care). Perhaps the courts should ban people from having kids?

    If the “pro-lifers” who favor abortion bans think a ban on having children is against a person’s rights, then you are a hypocrite.

  • Kodie

    This is why I keep saying we need to stop talking about having an abortion as a life-changing decision that requires mature deliberation. Being pregnant and deciding what to do about it doesn’t have to be a huge crisis. Abortion is not a huge crisis that one has to be made to believe they have to live with consequences of the rest of their lives. HAVING A BABY IS. Not having a baby is not.

    If the situation is reversed, and say, all adults believe that a 16-year-old is not mature enough to have a child and must get an abortion, and she had to fight for her right to keep a child – I mean, just imagine it. Everyone is automatically assuming one decision is the right, non-life-altering decision, and you have to be absolutely certain you want to do the other thing, you have to be mature enough to make that decision, and if you are under age, you are not mature enough to make that decision to have a baby, and that choice is taken away from you.

    Ok? Is that wrong? Yes, taking away her choice is wrong. Adults cannot commit her to have an abortion against her will to save her future and make decisions for her that she’s not capable of having a child. They used to forcibly take the child away – which is what I suspect will happen in this case.

    Now, we go back to our reality, which is bizarro. Having a baby is difficult and life-changing, and she’s being committed to it by adults because they have determined she is not mature enough to handle the life-altering mature, deliberate certainty that she should end her pregnancy. What the fuck kind of messed up world do we live in?

    • Rwlawoffice

      How very sad when you think that ending an innocent life is no big deal.

      • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

        Of course it isn’t a big deal. I eat cows and chickens and shrimp and carrots and peas and mushrooms- all of those are innocent life. I kill mice and ants and wasps around my house- they are all alive, and they have never intentionally done anything wrong because they simply haven’t the capacity for intentions. The fact that something is alive and innocent of intentional wrongdoing is not enough reason to avoid killing it.

        • paul

          Birds and mammals (and possibly shrimp?) absolutely do have the capacity for intentions. Animal cognition is a well-developed scientific field with extensive peer-reviewed research on animal intentions, memory, problem-solving, planning, personality, learning, communication, etc. Cows and chickens are actually some of the most common study species in this field, and they are quite cognitively complex.

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

            In the sense that rwlawoffice was speaking, though, they are all probably considered “innocent life”. I am aware that mammals especially are quite cognitively complex, and that the more we learn about them, the more complex their inner lives reveal themselves to be.

            Still, I highly doubt a mouse thinks to itself “I want to make Feminerd unhappy so I shall nest in her garage”. The mouse isn’t trying to be in the way. It’s just living its life. If I confronted it, it would get scared and either run away or bite me, but that’s not … intention in the way I meant. As far as I know, humanity and possibly dolphins and elephants and some of the great apes seem to be the only animals to have created morality.

      • islandbrewer

        I had a mole removed. I am guilty of ending innocent human life that is every bit as much a person as a fetus.

        • Michaela Daniels

          stupid argument. a mole, left undistrubed, would never become a child. you are comparing ‘apples’ to ‘automobiles’

          • islandbrewer

            And why does the “left undisturbed” part make one single bit of difference? Because it’s “natural” or “the way God intended” or some such magical nonsense?

            The point is that they are nothing more than cells. They don’t think or feel or do anything to which we ascribe the term “person.” They undergo mitosis, that’s about it. Moles, or undifferentiated epithelial cells are prime targets for making totipotent. You know all that “adult stem cell research” that anti-choicers like to tout as a viable alternative (it isn’t) to fetal stem cells? Most of those are epithelial.

            That one group of cells may need assistance to become a person, and another group relatively little, ought not make any difference in assigning them personhood.

            I’m comparing apples to undifferentiated Malus domestica cells in a culture, if you want to continue your ridiculous analogy.

          • osiote

            Potentiality is not actuality.

            And btw, every cell in your body has the potential to become a child you ignorant twit.

      • Miss_Beara

        4 years ago I had my 14 year old cat euthanized. I suppose I am guilty of ending an innocent life.

        • C.L. Honeycutt

          Living in a borderline suburban/rural area, I’ve had to put down a squirrel, a small deer, and a kitten, with no tools available or within reasonable distance (with what that implies). I had a baby mouse die in my hand while I tried to feed it (which can be done, but has a low success rate), and had a grown mouse break its own back trying to escape while I was getting it out of a glue trap*. Helping actual animals this way hurts badly, and for a long time.

          People don’t cry for weeks or even days over the decision to have an abortion unless they’re being shamed by family or religion, or want the baby and cannot afford the damage to health or finances or the fetus is unviable. I lost my tuxedo cat almost six years ago, and yesterday I imagined him tripping me up when I walked in the front door. Getting worked up over embryos and blastocysts is ridiculous.

          *Set straight anyone you see laying down a glue trap for rodents, please. The mouse’s eyeball was stuck to it. Live release, my ass.

          • Michaela Daniels

            “People don’t cry for weeks or even days over the decision to have an abortion unless they’re being shamed by family or religion…” they should cry for the rest of their lives for killing an innocent child because they (the would-be parent) made a bad choice….

            • osiote

              A microscopic embryo isn’t a child you dumbass.

      • Kodie

        Aw, you sentimental fool. You got sad. :(

      • C.L. Honeycutt

        Remember that sadness the next time you eat a cheeseburger and don’t rescue a shelter pet, or say anything when you see someone buy too much meat and have to throw some out, or buy a pet from a puppy mill.

      • jejune

        It really is no big deal.

        http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ls6w7phG8f1qi68z9.jpg

        It’s a clump of cells, not a baby.

      • Spuddie

        How sad it is that your consideration for the lives of others only extends to the unborn.

  • TnkAgn

    Old white men making a decision for a female, and if pregnant, a woman. She should, if possible, go to a state that will allow her to abort.

    • Anna

      I don’t know how she’d do that. She’d have to run away, wouldn’t she? Obviously, no adult in her life is willing to help her, and if someone did, wouldn’t they face criminal prosecution for transporting a minor across state lines?

    • baal

      I think there is a federal law that makes it illegal to assist a minor in crossing state lines to get an abortion.

      • Mario Strada

        She could take the bus.

        • Anna

          I think she’d be charged as a runaway or with delinquency. A 16-year-old isn’t allowed to leave home without permission. Since she’s already in foster care, a violation of that magnitude would probably result in her being placed in a group home, or even juvenile detention.

        • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

          Where would she get the money? She’d need several hundred dollars at a minimum, for bus, motel room (unless we assume she sleeps on the streets), and abortion procedure itself.

      • UWIR

        There also used to be laws against transporting a slave across state lines without permission from its owner.

      • TnkAgn

        I would be appalled to think that if a 16 year-old was taken by her parents, across state lines to get a legal abortion, that they might be charged with something. I cannot fathom that.

      • Anna

        I wonder if some brave person would be willing to risk jail to help her. It would certainly bring national attention to the issue.

        • paul

          It would be easy enough for a kind-hearted person to “lose their wallet” in her vicinity. And by that I mean a wallet with a bunch of cash and a bus ticket inside.

  • C Peterson

    Don’t they just look like a bunch of folks you’d want making life decisions on your behalf…

  • Brian

    Thats a great picture of the Nebraska SC. Since the ruling was 5-2, we can assume the lone woman was 1 of the 2, and now we can play a game of “guess which of those white guys voted as the second against 5.”

    • Gitte

      You can’t assume that at all, some women are just as anti abortion as the men.

      • nardo101

        Yeah, based on the linked document and the staff summary page, it was actually two of the male justices, McCormack and Connolly, dissenting.

  • Sven2547

    Right-wing huge-government strikes again.

    • Miss_Beara

      Small government for corporations. Huge government for women and gays.

  • smrnda

    When these white guys talk about ‘maturity’ in this context, it isn’t the way most of us mean it, since ‘not mature enough to get an abortion’ definitely implies ‘not mature enough to have a child.’ What it means in this case is ‘no matter how well you know what is good for you, because you are young and female you have to be prevented from making your own decisions and must have proper males make them for you.’

    Absolutely disgusting. It’s a case of someone stuck in a loophole that needs to be closed.

  • Fentwin

    I am tired of living in crazy land, and it seems there is nothing we can do to stem this tsunami of insanity. I am weary of this endless culture war. I am weary of the prideful ignorance in which many seem to wallow. I’m tired of people trying to stuff Jesus into every facet of our lives, from local to national levels. I’m tired of the obvious lies, half-truths and obfuscation. I’m just plain old tired of it all.
    Iceland? Norway? Titan?
    Hell I don’t know, but there has to be a sane country somewhere, a place where people are reasonable and not just plain old out right bat shit crazy.
    /rant
    With that said, I suggest that whomever voted to force this girl to carry to term, they should have an 8 pound bag of saline surgically placed into their pelvic cavity for nine months and told to just STFU!

    • C.L. Honeycutt

      And then be forced to push it out, intact, through whichever available hole or holes they might happen to possess.

      And then coddle it for half of each day for eighteen years.

      And give it $150,000.

      Perhaps while having it strapped to their neck to help simulate the headaches, screaming, and arguments.

      • Fentwin

        There aren’t enough “lolroflmao”s in the world to show how much I laughed at this;

        Sincerely, thanks for the gut buster. :)

  • SJH

    “those justices believe a 16-year-old girl in foster care is old enough to have and raise a child… but not old enough to have an abortion.”

    Raising a child at the age of 16 is not necessarily an unheard of thing. Although her circumstances will make it difficult, it is not impossible. I guarantee she can go to just about any church, especially Catholic church and she will be welcomed and cared for.
    On the other hand, murdering the “unwanted child inside of her” is something that she will have to live with and it has been shown that a significant number of women severely regret their decision. I would guess that far fewer women regret having a baby then regret having an abortion.

    • Spuddie

      So you think a woman who is being forced to bear a child after copious litigation through various courts is likely to be a loving and competent mother?

      Oh wait, you don’t give a crap about the mother or a born child.

      “On the other hand, murdering the “unwanted child inside of her” is
      something that she will have to live with and it has been shown that a
      significant number of women severely regret their decision.”

      But its her decision to make, not yours to evaluate. If it was in your body, such opinions might matter to the situation.

    • Tainda

      Some women may regret it but they had that CHOICE.

    • DavidMHart

      “I would guess that far fewer women regret having a baby then regret having an abortion.”

      Got any evidence at all for that? And bear in mind that “I wish that I could have been in a position to raise a child that time I got pregnant, but I wasn’t in a position to, so on balance, getting an abortion was the least worst choice” sort of regret is very different from ‘even though it would have totally derailed my life and forced me to put all my other plans on hold for a couple of decades, I still wish I’d kept the pregnancy” sort of regret.

      Do not try to equivocate these; they are very different.

      Also, the only sort of women who regret “murdering” an unwanted “child” (remember that a foetus is not a child in the same sort of way that a child is not an adult, and murder is unlawful killing of a person, so a legal abortion cannot be murder) are those women who have been brainwashed into believing that a non-sentient, or barely sentient, proto-organism is the moral equivalent of a fully sentient, fully conscious child or adults. And since anti-abortionists have never been able to provide any good evidence for that hypothsis, the problem is not the women having the abortions, the problem is the foetus-fetishists lying in order to bamboozle them into thinking that a foetus is morally equivalent to a fully sentient child or adult.

    • Kodie

      Why should she be made to regret having an abortion? It is all propaganda intended to prolong this situation as a crisis that she has to do “the right thing” which is have a baby she doesn’t want and can’t care for. It’s obviously not the right thing for her, and if you would stop trying to propagandize everyone into being so darn sentimental over something that isn’t a child inside of her, she could have done so rationally and unemotionally at an early stage with no regret. People do have abortions with no regret. People also have children they regret. Having a child is a big, expensive, and life-long effort, while having an abortion is really no big deal. Except if you want people to feel guilty, by spreading propaganda, they probably will. That’s what you want. You want people to pay for their actions one way or another, you don’t want anyone to feel good about being a responsible human being by having an early untraumatic, unemotional abortion.

    • UWIR

      A significant number of women regret getting confirmed into the Catholic Church. Funny how a thirteen year old girl is mature enough to commit to a religion, but not mature enough to decide to not have a baby.

      And it’s rather hard to regret having a baby. Even a woman whose child was conceived during a rape would, I’d imagine, be hard pressed to say “I wish my child didn’t exist”. That’s hardly an argument for rape. Unless you’re a sociopath or something.

    • LizBert

      Women who give children up for adoption experience higher rates of regret and PTSD than women who have abortions.

      • KMR

        Do you have documentation for this? I’ve heard the same but would love to read a study on it and can’t find one. I’ve also heard that those who are adopted experience higher suicide rates, depression, etc.

        • LizBert

          I do not. I read a lot about adoption and abortion a year or so ago and remember reading that, but I can’t recall where. I could do some digging around.

    • Carmelita Spats

      Oh. My. Yes. She should be sent to the fetid animal shelter that is the Roman Criminal Church where her child just might end up as a priest’s lubricated sex toy once he’s done fiddling with the altar boys and all chipmunks have been exhausted…and all this occurs BEFORE he consecrates the Eucharist with Astroglide. I’d rather have an abortion than know that my fetus will end up in the hands of a pedophile priest. Take care of them? You mean like the Magdalene Sisters in Ireland? Or the babies that were KIDNAPPED by the Roman Criminal Church in Spain?

      Magdalene Sisters’ Slaves:
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2273961/Ireland-says-sorry-10-000-women-slaves-Catholic-workhouses-locked-brutalised-nuns.html

      Catholic Church Kidnaps Children in Spain:
      http://www.vaticancrimes.us/2011/10/300000-kidnapped-by-catholic-church-in.html

      Some women may have regrets about giving up their child for adoption or having an abortion but so what? It was their CHOICE. I wear an IUD. According to YOUR filthy organization, the IUD KILLS tiny people because it does not allow implantation of a fertilized egg. The Roman Criminal Church claims that I’ve turned my uterus into a killing field, a Dachau-in-utero, because the IUD irritates the lining of my uterus and disallows implantation! I have NO idea how many “children” I slaughter with each menstrual cycle. I have a genocidal vulva…a vagina dentata! Should I cry myself silly and yank the IUD out with a grappling hook as I give the holy sacraments to my crotch? LOL!!!

      The Pill Kills:
      http://thepillkills.com/

      Pedophile Priests:
      http://www.bishop-accountability.org/

      Regrets about Adoption:
      http://www.shakesville.com/2009/03/breaking-silence-on-living-pro-lifers.html

      • C.L. Honeycutt

        I think I’ve made mention of a Kevin Smith movie character to you before. I really think you ought to be writing movies for him (which is intended as a compliment.)

        • Carmelita Spats

          Hehe…Thanks! Nothing sets me off like the Catholic Church in my native country and Southern Baptist politics in Texas where I currently live. I swear that in a past life I was a church lady! I’ve thought of starting a blog where I document crazy religion on both sides of the border since I travel back and forth. LOL!!!!

          • C.L. Honeycutt

            *gets down on knees*

            Please God, make Carmelita start a blog!

            *eats a baby sacrament*

    • Gitte

      I would very strongly doubt that there are people out there, men included who have never made a decision that they regret. That’s life. However, having had five children myself, I can say that being forced to have a child I didn’t want would be considerable psychologically and physically more damaging to a child than having an abortion. In fact she may regret the necessity of having an abortion and not necessarily regret the abortion itself.

    • Kodie

      If having an abortion was the wrong decision, get pregnant again. It is really hard to put a whole baby back.

  • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

    “They have never been a 13-year-old girl”

    – Justice Ginsburg, speaking of her male SCOTUS peers’ indifference to a 13 year old girl being strip searched for ibuprofen.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/us/politics/04women.html

    • UWIR

      “Does the Fourth Amendment prohibit school officials from strip searching students suspected of possessing drugs in violation of school policy?”

      If I were a Supreme Court justice, I would have been tempted to write an opinion consisting of the single word “Yes”. The idea that this is a position that actually requires argumentation is rather disturbing.

  • anonymous

    US judical system is totally broken. The so-called “justices” are actually almost the most dangerous criminals.

  • Chuck Farley

    What, if anything, can be done for this poor girl? Can someone in Nebraska become her legal guardian?

  • Michael Harrison

    Ah, but if this were Montana, I’m sure she’d be considered mature for her age.

    Snarking aside, the judges ruled that a teenage girl who they don’t think is mature enough to be making decisions for herself should have a kid? That seems like exactly the opposite rule I would use to determine when someone should be a parent.

    • pagansister

      If she were in the deep south, she would have been considered mature for her age!

    • Spuddie

      In West Virginia, she would be a grandmother by now.

  • Remedial

    I’m disappointed at how quickly this story and discussion have been reduced to a rant about how “religion is crazy”. Y’all sound like a lynch mob. I don’t care whether you hate religion and old white men in Nebraska. Get past that, and show some critical thinking skills, people.

    • Spuddie

      Hey, the truth hurts.Don’t want to be considered crazy bible thumping rednecks, don’t act like them.

      Crazy old white men in Nebraska made a stupid decision which is only explained by religious nonsense. There is no rational argument to be made why a woman who would be considered unfit to raise a child is somehow fit to give birth to one.

      • Remedial

        “only explained by religious nonsense”
        Because clearly, there’s no possible way they had any other motives.

        Thanks for illustrating my point. Don’t let me get in the way of your rant.

        • Spuddie

          Unless you can show one, the answer is unequivocally YES there is no possible way they had other motives.

          Fetus worship is not a sane policy and if not for religious wingnuttery it would not be given the color of law as it is here.

          So cough something up to the contrary or go away.

          • Remedial

            @spuddie:disqus: Just because the Internet teaches you to be uncivil, doesn’t mean you have to believe it. Show some maturity.

            • jejune

              I see no lack of civility from spuddie.

              YOU grow up and stop acting like a 2 year old.

            • Spuddie

              So all you have is tone trolling. The door is open, feel free to go.

            • C.L. Honeycutt

              Good job of lying about having an argument, and trying to cover up the lie by whining about being asked to show your work.

              This sentence above? When you grind your teeth at night, wondering why you aren’t being bowed down before and why you get all the mean ol’ “persecution”, refer back to it. That’s why.

    • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

      So, what non-religious reasons are there to be against abortion, then? Especially an abortion for a pregnant teenager in foster care, who cares enough about not having a child to take her case all the way to the State Supreme Court?

      • Remedial

        First, thank you Feminerd. I appreciate the civil response.

        Granted, these justices probably do have religious views that impact their decisions. Also, because abortion would be a legal option for this girl if she was older, they are contradicting existing precedent, which I do not agree with.

        That said: we don’t know for sure what the rationale was. These justices could simply be of the general opinion that a fetus’ right to life supersedes the mother’s choice. That’s a stance that’s often, falsely, associated only with religion. I personally take that stance based on my understanding of how fetal development works.

        Either way, I agree that this case was neither the time nor place to take a stand, but I want people to recognize that pinning the entire pro-life argument to religious extremism is nothing but a straw man argument.

        • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

          The thing is, whenever I talk to pro-life people, I find that their understanding of fetal development is usually quite flawed and behind the most recent scientific understanding (you may well be the exception, as I do not know what you know about fetal development).

          I also find that most people who think life trumps bodily autonomy for fertile women don’t think that in any other circumstance, which troubles me greatly. We do not force anyone, parent, sibling, or stranger, to donate organs or blood or bone marrow or any other bodily piece, to another, even if that other person will die. We don’t even harvest corpses for organs without their permission from when they were alive, preferring to respect the corpse’s bodily autonomy over the rights of another to live. Even if a fetus is a full person, giving it a right to life that trumps a woman’s choice gives a fetus more rights than any born person has ever had. Why should a dead woman have more right to control her body and its organs than a living one?

          EDIT: You are right, not all pro-life people are religious or religious extremists. The vast majority of them are, though, so I don’t find it inaccurate or irresponsible to pin this abomination of a ruling on religion.

          • Remedial

            “The vast majority of them are, though, so I don’t find it inaccurate or irresponsible to pin this abomination of a ruling on religion.”

            Not to belabor the point, but isn’t this the argument for bigotry of every kind? Great talking points up until that.

            • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

              How is it bigotry to say that religion in this country has led to many abominable court rulings and other abominable acts, and has likely contributed to this one as well? Given that these State Supreme Court justices haven’t exactly hidden their religious beliefs, it seems likely they had at least some impact on the decision.

              • Remedial

                “Likely contributed” is a far cry different than your previous statement. I applaud the more measured revision.

                This is why I posted here today at all. The lack of civil discourse by an otherwise educated community made me sad.

                If we can move past stereotypes and sweeping generalizations, we can talk about the real issues.
                We can start to make right what is wrong with the world today simply by the way we choose to discuss ideas that we disagree with.

                • islandbrewer

                  You still have failed to show how making the assumption that the motivations were religious is somehow bigotry.

                • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                  I ask again: since we all know religion contributes greatly to pro-life sentiment, how is it stereotyping to indict religion for this court decision?

                  We have to agree about what is wrong with the world before we go about righting it. We probably do agree on many things, but I think the devaluation, denigration, and dehumanization of women is right up there as one of the most important problems to solve and would, not-so-incidentally, help fix a lot of other problems were it solved. Getting rid of pro-life sentiment is way up there as a way to fix the devaluation, denigration, and dehumanization of women (see above for why pro-life in fact means valuing women only as incubators/vessels with less bodily autonomy rights than corpses).

                • Kodie

                  So why don’t you quit whining about stereotypes and attempt to state your case rationally?

                  ?????

            • C.L. Honeycutt

              When these people stop dominating the public, political and ethical discussions and lawmaking at all levels, those who finally stood up and refused to be counted with them can then look into complaining about stereotyping. Until then, they should get comfy in that bed they made.

              • Remedial

                Synopsis: stereotyping is okay as long as it’s not a minority or as long as they did something to deserve it. Sorry, not buying it.

                • C.L. Honeycutt

                  Synopsis: Try again, preferably while actually being bright enough to grasp the concept.

                  You keep complaining about being more rational than those people and not being given credit for it, yet you continually fail to demonstrate an argument for that alleged rationality. Sorry, not buying your whiny martyr complex.

          • C.L. Honeycutt

            I find that their understanding of fetal development is usually quite
            flawed and behind the most recent scientific understanding

            Hell, they can’t even grasp epigenetics, even though it’s as simple as saying, “You don’t choose to be left-handed.” In that context, it seems silly to expect them to know that women don’t grow miniature men (and women, but who cares) in their stomachs like homunculi.

        • Carmelita Spats

          Legally obligating a raped nine-year-old girl in Brazil to birth is sadistic and the product of a depraved mind. A THIRD-GRADER’S BODY is not equipped to go through a pregnancy and a C-section. I am not civil when it comes to child molestation so fuck you.

          http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1883598,00.html

        • Spuddie

          So in other words, you are just guessing that their rationale was based on something other than religion. The fact of the matter is the state can’t ban abortion entirely. However, parental consent restrictions are still considered legal.

          “I want people to recognize that pinning the entire pro-life argument to religious extremism is nothing but a straw man argument.”

          And you are still wrong. Because the idea of a fetus’s right to life only comes from a religious rationale. One which considers a fetus innocent life but a woman with an unwanted pregnancy to be an impure pariah.

          It is scarcely rational to claim a fetus can have greater rights than the sole human being on the planet which keeps it alive. Smoothed over religious dogma is what justifies such a position.

          • C.L. Honeycutt

            So in other words, you are just guessing that their rationale was based on something other than religion, in direct contradiction of all available history and data on the subject.

      • Rwlawoffice

        Protecting innocent life does not have to be religious based at all. It could be a very humanist position.

        • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

          1) Fetuses aren’t people. Humanists are concerned with people.

          2) The humanist position posits that people are to be free from slavery, and what is forced pregnancy but the stealing of a person’s body and labor for the use of another?

          3) The humanist position posits that people must give enthusiastic consent to, well, everything, and that consent that cannot be revoked is no consent at all. This applies to everything involving one’s body- sex and pregnancy are among the most intimate things we can do with our bodies, so of course the necessity of enthusiastic and continuing consent applies even more strongly.

          4) What does innocence have to do with anything?

          5) I shall repeat myself from below: I also find that most people who think life trumps bodily autonomy for fertile women don’t think that in any other circumstance. We do not force anyone, parent, sibling, or stranger, to donate organs or blood or bone marrow or any other bodily piece, to another, even if that other person will die. We don’t even harvest corpses for organs without their permission from when they were alive, preferring to respect the corpse’s bodily autonomy over the rights of another to live. Even if a fetus is a full person, giving it a right to life that trumps a woman’s choice gives a fetus more rights than any born person has ever had. Why should a dead woman have more right to control her body and its organs than a living one?

          • Miss_Beara

            We don’t even harvest corpses for organs without their permission from when they were alive, preferring to respect the corpse’s bodily autonomy over the rights of another to live.

            But… but… but… BAYBEEEEZZZ!

            Seriously though, I have never heard a reasonable argument on why it is not ok to use organs of a corpse without his/her consent before death but it is ok to force women to stay pregnant whether they like it or not.

            The organs of a corpse could save multiple men, women and children from death and prolong their lives. But if the person said no before death, those wishes are honored because of bodily autonomy.

            These forced birthers view women as less than a corpse.

            • Remedial

              This argument is a potentially false comparison of ownership. It is commonly accepted that a person owns their organs. However, it can be reasonably argued that a fetus is not owned by the mother, but is a separate organism with its own ownership.

              The “less than a corpse” comparison is emotional rhetoric that does not promote intelligent discussion.

              • allein

                So you agree the pregnant woman owns her body/organs and has the right to deny their use to any other person. If you are going to insist that a fetus is a person, then it follows she has the right to deny that fetus/person the use of her body.

              • islandbrewer

                The “less than a corpse” comparison is emotional rhetoric that does not promote intelligent discussion.

                So, you’d agree that one shouldn’t make emotion-targeted pleas about “unborn babies” when we’re talking about a fetus, right?

                However, the comparison she made is valid. Would you support forced kidney or liver donations to save a life? Even if it’s from a cadaver?

              • baal

                “omparison is emotional rhetoric” And the pro-life bill boards that have 1 year old infants as the model of a fetus? That isn’t emotional rhetoric?

              • Miss_Beara

                The fetus is in the woman. The fetus uses her organs for survival. The woman owns her organs. She decides if a fetus can use them as well for 9 months.

                And it is not “emotional rhetoric.” You are saying that a woman does not own her own organs once she becomes pregnant, that the fetus takes priority over the woman. A corpse owns his/her organs, even after death and that person could have said no to donation, even if it were to save many people. Do you see how you are minimizing the bodily autonomy of women over the bodily autonomy of a corpse?

              • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

                I brought up the argument originally, and fleshed it out. I suspect you should consider it more deeply. Miss_Beara put it very well, as did allein. If a person owns hir own organs, no other person can use them against hir will. If a fetus is a person, it can’t use another person’s organs against hir will either. A woman doesn’t magically cease to be a person when she becomes pregnant. I’ll also repeat what I said before:

                I find that most people who think life trumps bodily autonomy for fertile women don’t think that in any other circumstance. We do not force anyone, parent, sibling, or stranger, to donate organs or blood or bone marrow or any other bodily piece, to another, even if that other person will die. We don’t even harvest corpses for organs without their permission from when they were alive, preferring to respect the corpse’s bodily autonomy over the rights of another to live. Even if a fetus is a full person, giving it a right to life that trumps a woman’s choice gives a fetus more rights than any born person has ever had. Why should a dead woman have more right to control her body and its organs than a living one?

              • C.L. Honeycutt

                The “less than a corpse” comparison is emotional rhetoric that does not promote intelligent discussion.

                Projection and sexist paternalism by insinuation.

              • Kodie

                Exactly what is your issue? We have a dead corpse laying on a surgical table with viable healthy organs. They have to give express permission prior to death to allow their organs to be harvested to save another life. Maybe if we had another way – where your organs are taken unless expressly denied prior to death. The question of choice here is, when in doubt, let the corpse keep her organs.

                What if it were the other way around, and doctors routinely took the organs, unless expressly denied? What if your driver’s license had a notation that forbids the harvest of your organs when you die, instead of permission to take them?

                It is not a false comparison. We do give more rights to corpses.

                You say:

                However, it can be reasonably argued that a fetus is not owned by
                the mother, but is a separate organism with its own ownership.

                The “less than a corpse” comparison is emotional rhetoric that does not promote intelligent discussion.

                and I hear:

                “I am making an unsupported claim. I say it can be reasonably argued, but I’m not going to reasonably argue it. I am dodging the question instead by waving my hands and calling it emotional and unintelligent.”

                Are we caught up?

              • Spuddie

                Why does a person own their organs inside them and a pregnant woman not own the fetus insider her?

                Because the distinction is bullshit.

                The right to privacy and personal autonomy are exactly the same in both situations. As long as a fetus depends on the mother to survive, it cannot be treated any differently than an organ or any other part of her.

                You have no more right to ask for my organs than you do to ask a woman to keep the fetus inside her. If its your body, its nobody else’s business.

        • baal

          And yet humanist groups don’t picket Planned Parenthood. They are also some of the most moral and intentionally ethical people out there. It’s almost like if you take religion out of the equation, the ethical stance is to allow pregnant women the choice for themselves instead of telling them what to do.

          EDIT: fixed spelling for C.L.

          • C.L. Honeycutt

            I don’t like bringing up typos – gawd knows I make them – but “picked” is a slightly confusing one.

            • allein

              I’m guessing it was supposed to be “picket”?

        • Glasofruix

          So, what happens when that fetus pops out? Are prolifers going to protect him/her?

          • Kodie

            It’s like a lottery who gets to, in fact!

            • C.L. Honeycutt

              The sarcasm, it burrrrrrnnnns!

        • Kodie

          Pro-forced-birth propaganda. It’s a blob.

        • nullhogarth

          The evil of forcing a 16-year-old girl to have a child she does not want is beyond the capability of words to express.

        • Spuddie

          But if that life is somehow “guilty” like some 16 year old who got pregnant, it is not worthy of any consideration. She was probably some dirty slut for getting pregnant in the first place and deserves to be punished for it.

          A very right wing religious right position indeed.

        • http://nomadwarriormonk.blogspot.com/ Cyrus Palmer

          Don’t like abortions? Don’t have one. Now STFU.

    • C.L. Honeycutt

      Your hypocritical exploitation of the suffering of blacks is noted. Not to mention your semi-hysterical dishonesty and equivocation.

      And you wonder why your arguments have no credibility here…

      EDIT: I apologized to Remedial. DISQUS was attributing his comment to a slimeball below.

    • C.L. Honeycutt

      My apologies. DISQUS was showing your comment as coming from “rwlawoffice”, who would rate that particular response.

    • nullhogarth

      Well, religion IS crazy, so there’s that…

  • Bill Santagata

    Hopefully this is appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

  • jamiejones455

    Why are a bunch of OLD OLD OLD men allowed to make such decisions?? Let this girl make her own choices!! How dare they be allowed to decide what she is mature enough to handle??

  • Whitney

    And people wonder why women grow up with psychiatric issues. A 16 year old abuse victim is unlikely to make good decisions when parenting, so the cycle is just going to go on, and on, and on.

  • WillBell

    Could she be adopted and then the adoptive parent could allow her to make the decision to have an abortion? Or am I missing something in the way US law works? I realize that adoption is a huge commitment but still, if she was adopted?

    • Anna

      I don’t think so. Even if she is legally free for adoption, the pregnancy would be long over by the time it could be completed.

      • WillBell

        That’s too bad. :/

  • Corinna

    So, now that the state has decided this minor is to be forced to carry the pregnancy to term I expect the state is going to take full financial responsibility for the child until it reaches maturity, right?

    Right?

    Yeah, I know – just kidding…

  • jejune

    This is state sponsored slavery.

  • jejune

    Over on Rh Reality Check we had a creep argue that an 11 year old victim of rape should be denied an abortion because she doesn’t understand that she would be ‘murdering her baby’

    An besides, the rape pregnancy is a ‘gift’ – she will have a child and she should be HAPPY!

  • osiote
  • Carmen

    Because some here said they thought there is a law that prohibits taking minors across state lines for an abortion, I decided to look that up. There does not appear to be any such law, though there have been many attempts at it.

    Google the “Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act”

    Here is the status of the current bill introduced earlier this year: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr732

    • Carmen

      I just realized that the govtrack website has a list of all abortion-related bills introduced this year….there are 43 separate bills related to abortion:

      http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/subjects/abortion/5897?congress=113

      And some of the names:
      “Life at Conception Act”
      “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act”
      “Sanctity of LIfe Act”
      etc

      Now we know what Congress was up to this year.

  • osiote

    You’re not a human being. You’re an ignorant monster.

  • Kevin R. Cross

    Sorry, Joseph, but I can’t see anything human or humane in focing a child to bear a child.

    • Kevin R. Cross

      Everyone is responsible for their actions – to themselves. Not to anyone or anything else. This girl is being forced to do something with her body against her will. That can never be right.

      • osiote

        You’re the fucknut who thinks that there is nothing morally wrong with raping a little girl to death.

      • Kevin R. Cross

        It cannot be murder. Murder is a finding of a court – killing an unborn is not a crime. It IS killing – but since it’s her body that’s being used, and she has the right to say, “no, I won’t allow that”, it’s perfectly legal. And perfectly moral.

        • Kevin R. Cross

          Clearly it isn’t undeniable, because I deny it. And do not imagine that your morality is in any way shared by others – morality IS a choice. I believe a universal morality, based on ethics, sense and enlightened self interest is possible – but even then, choosing to follow it is a personal choice. You don’t like what someone else does with their body? Too bad, as neither of us gets a say.
          Oh, and “murder” very specifically means “unlawful killing”. Abortion is not unlawful, so murder is not a valid description.

          • Kevin R. Cross

            Well, no, it isn’t. The correct term would be “Foeticide” – again, infant has a specific meaning, that of a born child below the age of one year.
            And your self-evidence is only self evident to yourself. To me, and the many people who agree with my position, you are absolutely and totally wrong. And given that my position is based upon logical inference, the rights of the individual and demonstratable ethics, I feel very confortable dismissing your argument as unworthy of consideration. Your position simultaneously raises the unborn to a position unproven and unreasonable while denigrating both the rights and aspect of the mother – the only actual viable individual in this argument, and the only person who has the standing to make any decision at all regarding it’s outcome.

    • Miss_Beara

      Can’t take organs from a corpse because of bodily autonomy but it is perfectly ok to force women to stay pregnant against their will?

      If I ever get pregnant, I will have an abortion since a pregnancy will more than likely kill me.

      • baal

        JOP, have you heard of ectopic pregnancy?

        also
        Cum sit enim proprium viro sapienti supra petram ponere sedem fundamenti

        • baal

          Like the young girl in the OP, the ectopic pregnancy case is one where the life and well being of the potential mother is at extreme risk. Neither should be required to die or suffer fertility loss for you religion joe.

          • baal

            I don’t care if the pope’s daughters agree with you, I’m not clicking your venerial links. One (or many!) women’s willingness to risk death for your mystery cult doesn’t support a general law that all women must risk death for your mystery cult.

            The fact that I’m willing to take certain risks with my health doesn’t mean that everyone else must be required to take the same risks because my god says so.

            (that’d be naked orgies in swamps in case you’re keeping track; Gloriantur et letantur in melle dulcedinis, qui conantur, ut utantur premio Cupidinis: simus jussu Cypridis gloriantes et letantes pares esse Paridis.)

            • baal

              Joe, you’re the narcissist and I have no idea how that’s relevant.

              salit cetus avium

            • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

              Does Love obligate God?

            • osiote

              You’re a narcissist, arent’ you?

              A dumb one, at that.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X