April 30, 2005


Florida girl has abortion blocked (Jeremy Cooke, 4/30/05, BBC News)

A pregnant 13-year-old girl in Florida has been told she cannot have an abortion because she lacks the maturity to make such a decision.

A state court granted an injunction which prevents the girl from terminating her pregnancy.

She is three months pregnant and had planned to have an abortion on Tuesday of this week.

The American Civil Liberties Union says it will launch an urgent appeal against the ruling.

She can't buy cigarettes or alcohol, can't drive, can't go to many movies, can't legally have sex in most states, but she should be allowed to kill?

Posted by Orrin Judd at April 30, 2005 5:00 PM

What do her parents say about the matter and on some level shouldn't that be controlling? If I had a 13 year old who got herself 'in the family way'(and because of how I view sex and how one should engage in it that is, ahem, inconceivable) and the State barred her from getting an abortion, she and I would be on the first plane to some jurisdiction that would allow it.

If her parents are willing to let her smoke, drink or watch porn and they find an insurance company ready to insure her driving, why should the government get involved?

Posted by: bart at April 30, 2005 5:37 PM

No. It shouldn't. But she's a ward of the state.

Posted by: oj at April 30, 2005 5:44 PM

Parental rights were teminated. So much for Orrin's lauds to parenthood.

I don't know how wise or mature this little girl is, but of one thing we can be certain -- the people running Florida's child protective service have less, much less.

Florida has a record here.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at April 30, 2005 6:48 PM

Parental rights were teminated. So much for Orrin's lauds to parenthood.

I don't know how wise or mature this little girl is, but of one thing we can be certain -- the people running Florida's child protective service are less wise, less mature -- much less.

Florida has a record here.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at April 30, 2005 6:48 PM


OJ seems to have a disregard for individual liberties and a belief in the primacy of his moral judgments over those of others that would have Enver Hoxha all wet and horny. In OJWorld, people have the absolute freedom to do whatever they want so long as it comports with what OJ wants them to do.

What are the 'facts?' Is the girl living with her family or was she placed in foster care or an orphanage prior to the pregnancy? I am not in a position to comment on the quality of Florida's Child Protective Services, but,in NJ, the Division of Youth and Family Services has several deaths a year of kids intentionally starved to death by foster parents, so, like you, I am reticent to place the State's judgment above that of parents.

Posted by: bart at April 30, 2005 7:12 PM


Bureaucracy is incompetent so the kid has to die? You willing to have that standard applied to you?


It's not up to individuals who they get to kill. Doesn't seem an overly controversial standard.

Posted by: oj at April 30, 2005 7:21 PM


Don't be disingenous about stances you take about government's role to decide that we shouldn't be allowed to choose our own foodstuffs, for example. For you the hand of government in our private lives would be everywhere apparent.

Abortion remains legal in the US for now. Whether it should or should not be legal is not germane to this discussion. The only issue in front of us here is whether the 13 year old should be allowed to do something she would undoubtedly be allowed to do were she 18. Under normal circumstances, I think we should be asking what her parents want, unless she is an 'emancipated minor' in which case what she wants should control. Keep in mind that the procedure itself is legal.

Posted by: bart at April 30, 2005 8:28 PM

You should be able to eat whatever foodstuff you want so long as you pay for what it costs us.

Abortion isn't legal. Abortion under proscribed circumstances is. It doesn't matter what parents want if it's againstthe law.

Posted by: oj at April 30, 2005 8:33 PM

So is it against the law, or not? Per OJ's point, I'd say if the law lets her procure an abortion, parental consent or not, the law is an ass.

Posted by: Matt Murphy at May 1, 2005 1:30 AM

According to the pro-abortion Alan Guttmacher Institute, most women who have abortions are pressured into them by the man involved. So, kids, who's the guy who got this 13-year old knocked up, and wants to be rid of the evidence? And why are some of you so eager to help him beat the rap on the statutory rape charge?

NB: Planned Parenthood doesn't care about statutory rape one way or the other, except to the extent that it views every pregnant teen as an account receivable.

Posted by: Mike Morley at May 1, 2005 9:25 AM

I'm not taking a position on what the girl should do. I don't know enough and it's not by business.

I am saying that the intervenors have not got clean hands and cannot be assumed to have the girl's interests at heart.

Florida's record with children under its supervision is every bit as bad as New Jersey's. Or Hawaii's, for that matter.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at May 1, 2005 3:28 PM

"clean hands"? Who, besides you, has clean hands?

Posted by: oj at May 1, 2005 3:32 PM


Probably another teenager. We should be locking up 15 or 16 year olds for having sex with other teenagers for what reason? Biology will always trump theology.

Posted by: bart at May 1, 2005 5:22 PM


You don't need to lock them up, but should the male. You do need to stop them from killing.

Posted by: oj at May 1, 2005 5:27 PM


I happen to think OJ's World is the real world. Your world is La La Land.

Posted by: Vince at May 2, 2005 1:36 AM

A 13 year old pregnant girl anywhere, anytime is a tragedy by definition. I thought the way Terri Sciavo's putative "wishes" were used to condemn her to a painful and degrading death was the height of barbarism, but to talk about personal choice here borders on the obscene. However, given the reality of the debate and how the left will see this as a god-given publicity opportunity, soneone should be making sure everyone knows this baby will lack for nothing, including a celebration of his/her birth.

Posted by: Peter B at May 2, 2005 5:16 AM

OK, so you've asserted and convinced me that she's an immature irresponsible loser. Aren't these the kind of people we want to PREVENT procreating?

Certainly she can't do anything else right, so why entrust her with another life to [mess] up?

Posted by: Well Duh at May 2, 2005 6:50 PM


Darwinists would argue you should kill off the breed. We aren't.

Posted by: oj at May 2, 2005 7:29 PM