In a 6-1 ruling, the Pennsylvania high court overruled a county judge's decision on "judicial bypass" of parental notification for an abortion of a 17-year-old girl, thus clarifying what it takes for a minor to have an abortion without the parents' knowledge.
-- From "Abortion opponents heartened by Pennsylvania high court ruling" by Bobby Kerlik, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review 12/24/11
Abortion opponents are hoping a state Supreme Court decision clarifying how minors can get judicial approval for abortions will encourage county judges to scrutinize such requests.
The court ruled on Thursday that a 17-year-old's decision not to ask her mother's permission for an abortion was not a valid reason for Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Philip Ignelzi to deny her the procedure in March 2010.
Although the court ruled that Ignelzi improperly denied the girl's request, in part, because there was no parental notification, the justices said county judges' decisions should be given deference. Statistics on how often judges grant abortions are not available because the cases typically are sealed.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Pa. court: Not telling parents isn't basis for judges to deny permission for girls' abortions" Mark Scolforo, Associated Press 12/22/11
The 1982 state law states that if a pregnant girl under 18 cannot get her parents' consent, or if she does not want to seek it, a judge can authorize an abortion after determining she is "mature and capable of giving informed consent."
[The pregnant minor] applied for the judicial bypass in March 2010, saying she was three months shy of turning 18, 10 weeks pregnant, and a high school senior with average grades who planned to go to college and hoped to become a lawyer.
She told the county judge she was concerned her mother would throw her out if she learned of the pregnancy, and that she had no relationship with her father.
The high court decision also ruled that appeals courts, when reviewing county court decisions on judicial bypass requests, should determine whether a judge abused his or her discretion.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Pennsylvania Court Rules on Rubber Stamp Teen Abortions" by Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com 12/26/11
Pro-life advocates have been concerned that the U.S. Supreme Court-mandated bypass provision has become a rubber stamp process by which courts allow virtually any teenager seeking to not inform their parents to get an abortion without them knowing — as opposed to the law’s intent, which is to allow that bypass only in cases when teenagers are genuinely concerned about physical abuse if their parents find out about the pregnancy.
Although the court ruled the judge did not properly deny the girl’s request for an abortion in the specific case, Randall Wenger, an attorney who represented pro-life groups Pennsylvania Family Institute and Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation, told the Pittsburgh newspaper he thinks the ruling is still helpful.
This is the first-ever review of the pro-life law by the state’s highest court and it received legal support from pro-life groups and state legislators who support the law protecting a parent’s right to be involved in their child’s decision regarding abortion.
The Pennsylvania law and others like it have already been upheld at the U.S. Supreme Court and pro-life groups argue that a Pennsylvania trial court judge applied the correct legal standard and legitimately exercised his legal authority under the statute when he rejected a minor girl’s request for a secret abortion, stating that she needed consent from at least one of her parents.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Showing posts with label minor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label minor. Show all posts
Monday, December 26, 2011
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
NH Gov. Vetoes Abortion Parental Notification
The New Hampshire Catholic bishop is appealing to the state legislature to override Gov. John Lynch's veto of a bill requiring abortionists to inform parents, or a judge (48 hours in advance), of the intention of any girl under age 18 to kill her unborn child.
UPDATE 6/23/11: Notification becomes law as House overrides veto by 266-102, Senate overrides by 17-7
-- From "NH gov vetoes bill requiring parental notification" by Norma Love, Associated Press 6/15/11
Exceptions existed if a doctor determined the female's life was at risk or if a delay would create "serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily organ."
The Democratic governor said he was prepared to sign a parental notification bill if it contained commonsense changes. He said a young woman should not be forced to involve the person who abused her in the decision.
He also noted that if doctors performed abortions and it was later determined to be the wrong decision, they would have faced criminal liability.
Four years ago, Lynch made New Hampshire the first state to repeal a law requiring parental notification for minors to get abortions. He said the unenforced law was unconstitutional because it failed to protect the safety of young women.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Bishop urges Legislature to overturn abortion notification veto" by Dan Tuohy, New Hampshire Union Leader 6/21/11
Bishop John B. McCormack . . . head of the Roman Catholic Church in the state, said the bill recognizes the importance of the constitutionally protected role that parents have in caring for their children.
“It would be a grave mistake to divest parents of meaningful input into the health care of their minor children,” he said in statement. “It is significant that in every other context of an adolescent’s life, the law assumes that parents are the natural guardians of their child’s health and best interests. Indeed, New Hampshire requires parental consent — not just parental notification — with respect to a long list of health care and non-health care matters, including tanning, body piercing, employment, and the possession and use of an asthma inhaler and epinephrine auto injectors.”
In what way does it make sense that a child cannot be given an aspirin by a school nurse without the consent of the parent,” McCormack said, “but that same child can have an abortion, serious surgery with life-changing consequences, without the parent even knowing that it has happened?”
The Republican-dominated Legislature appears to have strength to muster an override. The House passed the bill 256 to 102 and the Senate passed it 17 to 7.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Parental Notification Veto Not Likely The Last Word" by Josh Rogers, New Hampshire Public Radio 6/16/11
Parental notification has been a hot-button issue for as long as John Lynch has been Governor, and throughout Lynch’s almost 7 years in office his stance has been pretty consistent: He didn’t think a notice law was needed but did think that parents would ideally be involved in a minor's decision to have an abortion. Lynch’s veto message, though, says something a little different.
“I support parental notification. I think parents should be involved in decision of this significance, but I also recognize that are situation where parents can’t be involved, particularly where there are minors who are victims of rape and incest.”
Parental notification bills have historically had a hard time in Concord. The one passed in 2003 and later repealed after a legal battle that stretched all the way to the US Supreme Court cleared the state senate by just a single vote. But republican leaders made this bill a top priority, and it cleared both chambers more than 2 to 1 margins.
. . . 2/3rd votes in both chambers are required for an override. But neither the governor, nor lawmakers may have the final word. Diana Kasdan of an ACLU lawyer who monitors abortion issues nationwide. She says a court challenge would examine more than case law and statutory construction.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
UPDATE 6/23/11: Notification becomes law as House overrides veto by 266-102, Senate overrides by 17-7
-- From "NH gov vetoes bill requiring parental notification" by Norma Love, Associated Press 6/15/11
Exceptions existed if a doctor determined the female's life was at risk or if a delay would create "serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily organ."
The Democratic governor said he was prepared to sign a parental notification bill if it contained commonsense changes. He said a young woman should not be forced to involve the person who abused her in the decision.
He also noted that if doctors performed abortions and it was later determined to be the wrong decision, they would have faced criminal liability.
Four years ago, Lynch made New Hampshire the first state to repeal a law requiring parental notification for minors to get abortions. He said the unenforced law was unconstitutional because it failed to protect the safety of young women.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Bishop urges Legislature to overturn abortion notification veto" by Dan Tuohy, New Hampshire Union Leader 6/21/11
Bishop John B. McCormack . . . head of the Roman Catholic Church in the state, said the bill recognizes the importance of the constitutionally protected role that parents have in caring for their children.
“It would be a grave mistake to divest parents of meaningful input into the health care of their minor children,” he said in statement. “It is significant that in every other context of an adolescent’s life, the law assumes that parents are the natural guardians of their child’s health and best interests. Indeed, New Hampshire requires parental consent — not just parental notification — with respect to a long list of health care and non-health care matters, including tanning, body piercing, employment, and the possession and use of an asthma inhaler and epinephrine auto injectors.”
In what way does it make sense that a child cannot be given an aspirin by a school nurse without the consent of the parent,” McCormack said, “but that same child can have an abortion, serious surgery with life-changing consequences, without the parent even knowing that it has happened?”
The Republican-dominated Legislature appears to have strength to muster an override. The House passed the bill 256 to 102 and the Senate passed it 17 to 7.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Parental Notification Veto Not Likely The Last Word" by Josh Rogers, New Hampshire Public Radio 6/16/11
Parental notification has been a hot-button issue for as long as John Lynch has been Governor, and throughout Lynch’s almost 7 years in office his stance has been pretty consistent: He didn’t think a notice law was needed but did think that parents would ideally be involved in a minor's decision to have an abortion. Lynch’s veto message, though, says something a little different.
“I support parental notification. I think parents should be involved in decision of this significance, but I also recognize that are situation where parents can’t be involved, particularly where there are minors who are victims of rape and incest.”
Parental notification bills have historically had a hard time in Concord. The one passed in 2003 and later repealed after a legal battle that stretched all the way to the US Supreme Court cleared the state senate by just a single vote. But republican leaders made this bill a top priority, and it cleared both chambers more than 2 to 1 margins.
. . . 2/3rd votes in both chambers are required for an override. But neither the governor, nor lawmakers may have the final word. Diana Kasdan of an ACLU lawyer who monitors abortion issues nationwide. She says a court challenge would examine more than case law and statutory construction.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Children condemned to death and adults detained for years without charge
Thousands of prisoners in jail without charge, children sentenced to death and oppression of women. In a report issued on 17 February, a commission from Human Rights Watch (HRW) detailed serious violations of human rights in Saudi trials and prisons.
During a four-week mission in December, the team observed trials and visited jails, even if under 24-hour “surveillance” and with several limitations. It was able to ascertain that the secret police held thousands of detainees without trial for political reasons, without bringing them before a court, although Article 114 of the Criminal Procedure Code requires that detention without charge cannot exceed six months. The accused often do not have a lawyer and even if they do, it is difficult for the defence to have access to their charge sheet. Trials are usually held behind closed doors although Article 155 of the Code stipulates they should be public. The court of Jiddah did not allow the commission to observe trials. HRW said many sentences were based on minimal evidence and judges often did not write the verdict down, as happened in the political trials of those charged with revolting in Najran in 2000.
Children are jailed for minor offences, even for violating "morals". In prison they are beaten and kept in solitary confinement. Thirteen-year-old children have been sentenced to death because they were considered to be “mature”. But HRW was unable to discover what they had done. Worse still was the situation of women, often subject to constant male guardianship.
Read the entire article at AsiaNews.it
Italy: Judge and Parents Force Girl to Undergo Abortion
TURIN, Italy, February 19, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - An Italian judge ordered a 13 year-old girl to undergo an abortion, despite the girl's pleas to let her keep her child reports the Italian news agency, La Stampa.
The girl, Valentina, had become pregnant by her 15 year-old boyfriend, however rather than let her choose to keep her child, her parents demanded she have an abortion on the grounds that she was ruining her life by becoming a mother.
"You cannot hold this child ... you must abort, and father will never have to know,” Valentina's mother told her, saying that she did not have the money to support the child.
Despite Valentina's repeated attempts to make her parents understand she wanted to choose to keep her baby, the case went to the Court of Minors. Judge Giuseppe Cocilovo then issued the ruling to abort Valentina's child.
Under Italian law, a minor may not decide whether to keep or abort her child, and may be forced by her guardians or parents to undergo an abortion.
However, the abortion has meant nothing less than disaster for Valentina, who was confined to the psychiatric unit of Regina Margherita children's hospital in Turin after the abortion for wanting to commit suicide.
“You have made me kill, and now I kill myself, I kill myself”, cried Valentina. "I do not want here to be," Valentina repeated. "I am not crazy, I am only evil like a dog for what my parents and the judges have obliged to make to me."
The case of Valentina is an egregious case of forced abortion in Italy, where one would expect that a woman‘s “right to choose” would mean the possibility of choosing life. However, the silence of purportedly "pro-choice" feminist groups has been deafening thus far over 13 year-old Valentina's forced abortion, despite her very own choice that her body should carry life.
To respectfully protest the Italian authorities:
Italian Embassy in U.S.
3000 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C., 20008
Tel (202) 612-4400
Fax (202) 518-2154
Italian Embassy in Ottawa
The girl, Valentina, had become pregnant by her 15 year-old boyfriend, however rather than let her choose to keep her child, her parents demanded she have an abortion on the grounds that she was ruining her life by becoming a mother.
"You cannot hold this child ... you must abort, and father will never have to know,” Valentina's mother told her, saying that she did not have the money to support the child.
Despite Valentina's repeated attempts to make her parents understand she wanted to choose to keep her baby, the case went to the Court of Minors. Judge Giuseppe Cocilovo then issued the ruling to abort Valentina's child.
Under Italian law, a minor may not decide whether to keep or abort her child, and may be forced by her guardians or parents to undergo an abortion.
However, the abortion has meant nothing less than disaster for Valentina, who was confined to the psychiatric unit of Regina Margherita children's hospital in Turin after the abortion for wanting to commit suicide.
“You have made me kill, and now I kill myself, I kill myself”, cried Valentina. "I do not want here to be," Valentina repeated. "I am not crazy, I am only evil like a dog for what my parents and the judges have obliged to make to me."
The case of Valentina is an egregious case of forced abortion in Italy, where one would expect that a woman‘s “right to choose” would mean the possibility of choosing life. However, the silence of purportedly "pro-choice" feminist groups has been deafening thus far over 13 year-old Valentina's forced abortion, despite her very own choice that her body should carry life.
To respectfully protest the Italian authorities:
Italian Embassy in U.S.
3000 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C., 20008
Tel (202) 612-4400
Fax (202) 518-2154
Italian Embassy in Ottawa
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
