Abortion for undocumented teen? Pro-life gov official thinks not

[GMDino]

(10-24-2017, 11:15 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: Is this the story of a pregnant illegal who came to the United States illegally then demanded an abortion and the the United States tax payer has to pay for it?

As to anything else, the law of the land says abortion is illegal after 20 weeks. 

How far along is she?
She is in Texas and has a legal guardian, that guardian gets to say what she can and can not do.

Look, I know the left creams themselves thinking and fantasizing about abortions, they cant help themselves thinking about dead minority babies being ripped apart, but the law says the guardian gets the last word and that guardian say "NO!". Not everyone on the left thinks like this though but I do wonder how many on this board has a chubby right now thinking about abortion?

Well we try to wait and do the secret dance after.... 

I think many on the left would prefer women not have abortions however they do have a right to them.  Different states have different rules.  In this case she is not at 20 weeks yet but if the good Lord has His way the courts can tie things up until she is and then that baby can have a wonderful life without a mother who will be deported.

I believe the interest in the story comes from all those variables and less from anyone wanting to rip babies apart.  Could just I wild guess on my part though.

[*bfine32*]

(10-24-2017, 11:19 PM)GMDino Wrote: Well we try to wait and do the secret dance after.... 

I think many on the left would prefer women not have abortions however they do have a right to them.  Different states have different rules.  In this case she is not at 20 weeks yet but if the good Lord has His way the courts can tie things up until she is and then that baby can have a wonderful life without a mother who will be deported.

I believe the interest in the story comes from all those variables and less from anyone wanting to rip babies apart.  Could just I wild guess on my part though.

Bet the baby would choose that over the alternative. 

Of all the reasons the Pro Choice folks give to support abortion. The "baby would have a rough life" is the most perverse.

[Dill]

(10-24-2017, 09:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not sure of the point of this post. It is Texas State Law that a minor requires parental consent for an abortion and the 10th covers state rights. So I ask again:

Isn't the cliff notes of this that the teen should not have to follow the State laws because she is not a citizen?

If yes, say yes, if no say no. If no is the answer please explain the issue without saying "it's creepy" and posting a bunch of words. 

And I wasn't sure of the point of your Cliff Notes post.

I posted this note because it describes a confluence of events which allowed a pro-lifer to legally (in the short term) use his office to impose his "family values" on total stranger in his custody. That is what I find creepy.

The bunch of words I posted amount to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution and a supreme court case which establish a woman's right to choose--federal law trumps state law, has trumped it in this case.

There are no parents in this case--just a pro-lifer doing his best to impose his values on someone else.  

[*bfine32*]

(10-25-2017, 12:42 AM)Dill Wrote: And I wasn't sure of the point of your Cliff Notes post.

I posted this note because it describes a confluence of events which allowed a pro-lifer to legally (in the short term) use his office to impose his "family values" on total stranger in his custody. That is what I find creepy.

The bunch of words I posted amount to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution and a supreme court case which establish a woman's right to choose--federal law trumps state law, has trumped it in this case.

There are no parents in this case--just a pro-lifer doing his best to impose his values on someone else.  

Isn't the cliff notes of this that the teen should not have to follow the State laws because she is not a citizen?


Still waiting

[Dill]

(10-24-2017, 11:15 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: Is this the story of a pregnant illegal who came to the United States illegally then demanded an abortion and the the United States tax payer has to pay for it?

As to anything else, the law of the land says abortion is illegal after 20 weeks. 

How far along is she?
She is in Texas and has a legal guardian, that guardian gets to say what she can and can not do.

Look, I know the left creams themselves thinking and fantasizing about abortions, they cant help themselves thinking about dead minority babies being ripped apart, but the law says the guardian gets the last word and that guardian say "NO!". Not everyone on the left thinks like this though but I do wonder how many on this board has a chubby right now thinking about abortion?

This is the story of a pregnant illegal who was ready to pay for her own abortion.

The law of the land says she has as right to an abortion.

But her pro-life "guardian"--a government official who doesn't even know her--keeps her locked up so she cannot.

Wonder how many rightists on this board have a chubby right now thinking of a pro-life Jailer getting the "last word" on what this imprisoned girl--someone else's daughter--can or cannot do with her body?

Maybe there is a video?

[Dill]

(10-25-2017, 12:47 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Isn't the cliff notes of this that the teen should not have to follow the State laws because she is not a citizen?

Still waiting

No.  Citizenship has nothing to do with this, other than that Jane Doe's lack thereof put her under control of a pro-lifer who uses his official position to impose his personal views on people under his control.

But all humans still have constitutional rights in the US, citizens or not, just as they still have to follow state laws, citizens or not. Hence the affirmation of Jane Doe's rights in this temporary restraining order, nothing about citizenship or state laws.

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/local/judges-order-in-abortion-case/2590/

[Dill]

(10-24-2017, 10:31 PM)GMDino Wrote: Nothing like playing with the life of a 17 year old girl to make a conservative dance with glee.

Especially when they can include illegals, denying abortion and forcing a child to have a child and letting the man make all the decisions.

LOL nail on the head.

[*bfine32*]

(10-25-2017, 01:21 AM)Dill Wrote: No.  Citizenship has nothing to do with this, other than that Jane Doe's lack thereof put her under control of a pro-lifer who uses his official position to impose his personal views on people under his control.

But all humans still have constitutional rights in the US, citizens or not, just as they still have to follow state laws, citizens or not. Hence the affirmation of Jane Doe's rights in this temporary restraining order, nothing about citizenship or state laws.

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/local/judges-order-in-abortion-case/2590/

Great. Citizenship has nothing to do with this. So just have her parents or legal guardian authorize the abortion. If they choose not to and accept responsibility then what's the problem? As Citizenship has nothing to do with case per your assertion.  Wonder why you brought it up in the title

[Dill]

(10-25-2017, 01:33 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Great. Citizenship has nothing to do with this. So just have her parents or legal guardian authorize the abortion. If they choose not to and accept responsibility then what's the problem? As Citizenship has nothing to do with case per your assertion.  Wonder why you brought it up in the title

As already explained, Jane Doe's undocumented status is what put her under control of a pro life jailer.  So lack of US citizenship has something to do with that.  And that is why I called her "undocumented" in the title.

And as already explained, lack of citizenship and state laws do not affect the question of basic rights. So that's why no "cliff notes" on states rights.

There is no problem. The judge has ordered Jane Doe be allowed to have an abortion because that is her right under US Law, citizen or no.

[Belsnickel]

(10-24-2017, 07:00 PM)Dill Wrote: Under normal circumstances, the Supremacy Clause would likely trump this.

If this winds up in the current Supreme Court, what are the chances we may see Roe vs Wade thrown out?

No. Roe v. Wade does not cover this. There is no federal statute at this time that would override the law that requires a minor receive permission.

[GMDino]

(10-24-2017, 11:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Bet the baby would choose that over the alternative. 

Of all the reasons the Pro Choice folks give to support abortion. The "baby would have a rough life" is the most perverse.

Again, I am anti-abortion.  I am also not making that decision for the woman (17 year old girl in this case).

That the child would have a rough life if it were born and then the mother was deported is true.  That is not a singular reason to have an abortion.  Perhaps I was unclear on that.

Also I might not have been clear that the pro-life crowd doesn't care what happens to the child AFTER it is born...just as long as it is.

[*bfine32*]

(10-25-2017, 02:13 AM)Dill Wrote: As already explained, Jane Doe's undocumented status is what put her under control of a pro life jailer.  So lack of US citizenship has something to do with that.  And that is why I called her "undocumented" in the title.

And as already explained, lack of citizenship and state laws do not affect the question of basic rights. So that's why no "cliff notes" on states rights.

There is no problem. The judge has ordered Jane Doe be allowed to have an abortion because that is her right under US Law, citizen or no.

She has the right to have an abortion; however, she must have parental consent.

I'll answer the cliff notes question as we've witnessed you do all you can to circumvent it.

Yes. The cliff notes to this situation is that a person should not be required to follow state law because they are an illegal immigrant.

You can argue the validity/rationale of the state law all you want; however, that does not change to essential matters in this case. If you truly disagree with this instead of simply posting a lot of words and using the bold feature arbitrarily. ask yourself: When was the last case in Texas that made National news because a 17 year old citizen's guardian did not concur with the girl's desire to abort her child.    

The 21st amendment lifted prohibition, does she have the right to drink

The 19th amendment granted women the right to vote. Could this girl vote even if she were a citizen?

If you answered no to either of these then ask your self one final question: Why did you answer no.

[*bfine32*]

(10-25-2017, 09:12 AM)GMDino Wrote: Again, I am anti-abortion.  I am also not making that decision for the woman (17 year old girl in this case).

That the child would have a rough life if it were born and then the mother was deported is true.  That is not a singular reason to have an abortion.  Perhaps I was unclear on that.

Also I might not have been clear that the pro-life crowd doesn't care what happens to the child AFTER it is born...just as long as it is.

You have zero idea what kind of life the child would live if born and the mother deported. Very easily could be put up for adoption and taken in by a very affluent family. Hell, maybe even one that would consent to it having an abortion as a child. You know, the "non-creepy" "non-decision making" type. 

[GMDino]

(10-25-2017, 09:28 AM)bfine32 Wrote: You have zero idea what kind of life the child would live if born and the mother deported.

Well, no one does.

(10-25-2017, 09:28 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Very easily could be put up for adoption and taken in by a very affluent family.

Or sent from foster home to foster home where they are abused. Anyone can make up any scenario.

(10-25-2017, 09:28 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Hell, maybe even one that would consent to it having an abortion as a child. You know, the "non-creepy" "non-decision making" type. 

I can certainly see that abortion upsets you. Understandable. I do not like them either.

But, as you say, she is a child. While I understand the need for parental/guardian consent in that case the thought of a child having a child is also disturbing...at least to me. And, again, without knowing under what circumstances she ended up pregnant I am withholding judgment on her for wanting the procedure and not assuming she just thinks it will be neat-o keen.

[Belsnickel]

Look, I am anti-abortion but pro-choice, I've made my position clear. I know the full panel reversed the 3 judge panel decision and now Jane Doe is clear to get her abortion, so the point is now moot, but the Texas law saying that a minor must have parent or guardian position is a constitutional law with the current state of things. This may end up being a challenge to that, who knows? But our rights and liberties are not without limits, and age restrictions are put on plenty of other things. You may not agree with the law in Texas, I don't, but it is the law, and it is not unconstitutional as it stands presently.

[GMDino]

(10-25-2017, 09:39 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Look, I am anti-abortion but pro-choice, I've made my position clear. I know the full panel reversed the 3 judge panel decision and now Jane Doe is clear to get her abortion, so the point is now moot, but the Texas law saying that a minor must have parent or guardian position is a constitutional law with the current state of things. This may end up being a challenge to that, who knows? But our rights and liberties are not without limits, and age restrictions are put on plenty of other things. You may not agree with the law in Texas, I don't, but it is the law, and it is not unconstitutional as it stands presently.

And as I said earlier that is why this kind of story gets so much attention.  So many variables.  So much for both "sides" to like and dislike.

In the end it comes down to the law, not our individual feelings.

As you say: There may be a challenge to it down the line and things could change too.

[Belsnickel]

(10-25-2017, 09:33 AM)GMDino Wrote: But, as you say, she is a child. While I understand the need for parental/guardian consent in that case the thought of a child having a child is also disturbing...at least to me. And, again, without knowing under what circumstances she ended up pregnant I am withholding judgment on her for wanting the procedure and not assuming she just thinks it will be neat-o keen.

I find that we draw this line at 18 to be a fascinating thing. What makes her still a child? We place this very arbitrary rule in place as to when you reach the age of adulthood. It's something that I often think of when there is discussion of pedophilia, especially when it is someone who is an adult that has sex with a teenager that has gone through puberty.

But that is a tangential thing. Just thinking and typing.

[*bfine32*]

An interesting point after reading an article on the ruling:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-immigrant-teen-abortion-20171024-story.html

Apparently she came to this country pregnant from a country where abortion is illegal. Do we still think her immigration status is not the most essential matter in this particular case?

[GMDino]

(10-25-2017, 09:42 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I find that we draw this line at 18 to be a fascinating thing. What makes her still a child? We place this very arbitrary rule in place as to when you reach the age of adulthood. It's something that I often think of when there is discussion of pedophilia, especially when it is someone who is an adult that has sex with a teenager that has gone through puberty.

But that is a tangential thing. Just thinking and typing.

As the father of two I get what you are saying.

I have a soon to be 20 year old who is still a "child" sometimes!  LOL!

But my reference was more a comment on anyone having children younger that their mid-20's!  LMAO!

I know people who had children at 14-15 and people who had them in the 30's.  Nothing is for sure in any scenario but the younger ones are the ones that worry me more personally.  I always tell our kids that if I had had children with who I was dating at 19-21 I'd probably never had made it.  But that doesn't mean they can't.

The "legal age" would be a good "mental maturbation" thought game in another thread.

[GMDino]

(10-25-2017, 09:54 AM)bfine32 Wrote: An interesting point after reading an article on the ruling:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-immigrant-teen-abortion-20171024-story.html

Apparently she came to this country pregnant from a country where abortion is illegal. Do we still think her immigration status is not the most essential matter in this particular case?

Quote:She learned she was pregnant shortly after crossing the border.where she was detained.

According to the story she didn't know she was pregnant until after she crossed.