[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
To the contrary, all but
one of these laws has a judicial bypass option, and (as the chart shows), in many states one is not limited to parents (let alone both of them). (In fact, I thought that some case held the lack of a bypass was unconstitutional, so I'm surprised Utah can do it, but maybe it was a circuit case.)
Quote:
|
But what you're really arguing is that these laws should have more exceptions for certain cases. What's the problem if it's paigow, with her greenwich upbringing and solid family situation? That we can presume a minor can informedly consent to abortion, but not other medical procedures (not to mention a presumed inability to enter into all sorts of other contractual arrangements affecting the person's life in less serious ways)?
|
No, I'm really arguing that government -- including courts -- should not intrude so heavily into private life as to tell a person what she must and must not tell her parents. The fact that a judge can grant an exception is not enough comfort in my view. Perhaps my level of trust on the elected state court judges who would handle this sort of thing is too low. Or my belief that requiring a 16 yo girl to initiate and go thru this process is too high.
Quote:
|
What if the law simply said there was mandatory counseling in lieu of parental consent (with specifics as to what the counseling consisted of)? Still too intrusive?
|
Not in my view, provided that the counseling is confidential. Obviously it depends on the specifics.
