[From the diaries by susanhbu.]
She is thirteen. She does not have a home. She does not have parents. She has been in and out of foster homes for years. She is pregnant. And if the state of Florida has its way, the Miami Herald reports, she will be forced to give birth against her will.
You can ask your medical professional about the physical and biological effects of pregnancy on a child’s body.
You can ask your mental health care professional about the advisability of heaping emotional and mental agony onto a budding life that has known little else.
But I think to really get inside this case, you will have to look at a thirteen year old girl. Maybe you have one of your own. If not, you can, like me, borrow one from a friend, or a neighbor. Just to look at her.
The one I chose lives on a tree lined street, in a brick house, small, but neat and filled with a loving family. She is at that “awkward” stage that novelists like to call “coltish.” All arms, and legs, and teeth, the latter adorned with braces that make her father grit his teeth every month when he pays the bill.
She is practicing her gymnastics, improbable contortions that involve standing on her hands and making old people like me think for a moment that she was born without joints. But no, she is just thirteen, fixing her brother’s bicycle now, brows drawn in concentration, triumphant smile that gives us just a glimpse of the woman she will become, then off to chase both brother and puppy, filling the street with the laugh that reminds us of the child that she will always be, if fate is kind to her.
If, God forbid, she should ever find herself in a predicament, she can sit down with her parents and tell them about it. She knows she can, and I know she can, because her older sister, now astonishing her professors at a prestigious university did just that. They are a good, intelligent couple who love each other and love their kids. And heaven help any man, woman or agency that would ever try to harm one of them, inflict harm on harm.
Little L.G. in Florida, I will repeat, does not have parents. Or a loving home, or anyone (except a few lawyers) to stand up for her right to grow into womanhood naturally, gently, performing strange contortions and fixing bicycles. her right to one day, when she is old enough to decide for herself, to make her own choices. About sex, about motherhood. Choices for a woman, not a child.
Even with all that against her, little L.G. has made her decision, the decision that nature has decreed is hers to make, even though she is a child. L.G. apparently has more sense than some adults. She knows she is a child, and she knows she has no business giving birth.
Unfortunately, she does not live in a society that considers her body her own property.
The Department of Children & Families, which has been responsible for the girl for many years, argued to a West Palm Beach judge Tuesday that the girl is too immature to decide for herself whether to carry the pregnancy to term.
Attorneys for the girl, who is identified in court papers only as L.G., told Judge Ronald Alvarez that Florida courts have consistently held that, under the state’s strongly worded privacy law, minors have a right to decide for themselves whether to continue or abort a pregnancy.
A spokeswoman for DCF, which provoked a firestorm in 2003 when officials sought to prevent a severely disabled Orlando woman, J.D.S., from terminating her pregnancy, declined to discuss the case at length.
”The Department of Children & Families is acting in accordance with what we believe is in the best interest of the child,” said Zoraya Suarez, a spokeswoman for Secretary Lucy Hadi. “If a child in our care requires any procedure that is prohibited by Florida statute, we cannot consent to that procedure.”
Florida law says that ”in no case shall the department [DCF] consent to a sterilization, abortion or termination of life support” on behalf of a client under department care.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida and the Legal Aid Society of Palm Beach County, which are representing the girl, insist that the Florida law is trumped by a 1989 Florida Supreme Court decision, called the T.W. case. Citing privacy rights, the high court struck down a state law that required the consent of parents before a minor could obtain an abortion.
L.G., whose parents were stripped of their rights to raise her, has been in foster care for several years. Though she is originally from Palm Beach County, sources say she was living in a group home in St. Petersburg when she became pregnant. She now lives in a licensed shelter home, records show.
About two weeks ago, L.G. learned she was pregnant following a medical examination, records show. ”Almost immediately after learning that she was pregnant, L.G. informed [her] DCF caseworker that she wished to terminate the pregnancy,” according to pleadings filed by her attorneys.
The abortion was scheduled for Tuesday. But early Tuesday morning, DCF attorneys, in an emergency motion, asked Alvarez to block the abortion. He agreed, temporarily, and ordered the girl be examined for mental competency.
In court papers, L.G.’s lawyers say the girl, ”though a longtime ward of the state,” was never determined to be incompetent, and was never placed in a mental institution for treatment — an action that is not uncommon for longtime foster children…. link
So, “the girl is too immature to decide for herself whether to carry the pregnancy to term,” and that means she is mature enough to carry the pregnancy to term.
Something makes absolutely no sense at all here.
You forget . . . Florida was a slave state. There’s nothing new about forcing slaves to breed . . .
That was my first thought also, Denver. Did you really expect anything to make sense though coming from Jebland?
No, but usually if you’re going to be flagrantly illogical, you kinda try to hide it.
But then I’ve noticed that the recent political climate has made it acceptible, and in some cases mandatory, to be blantantly stupid. The republicans have made life so much easier for the I.Q. challenged. They now can be proud of their dimness.
How much you wanna bet that these same people who deemed her to immature to decide on an abortion… will later deem her an unfit mother and take the child away and “sell” it to the highest adoption bidder!!!
Yes, by all means let’s bring another unwanted child for the welfare roles into the world. Jesus f’ing Christ(please excuse my language)this is a baby having a baby. She is smart enough to know she cannot take care of this UNWANTED child. Living in a group home? Who got this child pregnant in the first place. I am so angry. I turned 18 a monthafter I had my son and was no way equipped to mother a child. Oh, it all worked out in the long run. He is now a bright attorney, father and husband and flourishing, despite all my screw ups. BUT, I had a mother that helped me raise him and later a husband that adopted him. Who is going to help this baby be a mother? WHO? The judge? The caseworker? WHO?
Yet another political opportunity for Jeb.
what a country! (unto itself).
great story tape!
as usual…
for the heads up on the story, and her inspiration 🙂
how these people live with themselves. I really can’t… is it that they are so secure in their own little world of “I am right, and what’s more, I know what’s right for you even if it kills you” that they can’t grasp the fact that this is a child?
On the one hand telling children that they are not mature enough to have sex, and then on the other hand telling children that they must become child parents, or else.
Between this type of thing and the “Don’t let a pregnant teen on your bus” law, I’m sure we’ll be seeing more dead children, one way or another. Freaks.
I am afraid to ask, but tell me anyway.
Well, that’s what I call it. Sometimes ;).
The law you wrote about here, about parental consent and it being against the law to transport minors across state lines for the purposes of an abortion.
Democrats introduced amendments (which were voted down) to protect bus drivers and cab drivers, etc, from being prosecuted/sued under this law, if they (even unknowingly) transport a pregnant teen to somewhere where she could get an abortion.
No doubt if the law passes, young girls will have to have their bellies measured and present blood tests or something to prove negative for pregnancy before they can ride a bus that crosses state lines.
Thanks for clearing that up. But I bet we will see one about school buses before too long.
They’re talking about this issue right now on KUOW.org — I e-mailed them Ducty’s post.
I have to give props to the thirteen year old. With her background it would seem easy for her to fall into the trap of wanting to keep the baby thinking it would provide her with the unconditional love she has probably never known.
As for the people who are trying to force her to continue an unwanted pregnacy, well they are fucknuts indeed. Exactly what we do NOT need is another unwanted baby born to a less than wanted child who will likely end up in a similar situation in thirteen years.
is being paid to the fact that pregnancy and birth is not healthy for children.
In fact, if she did want to carry the pregnancy to term, I would support moving heaven and earth, including seeking legal redress, on medical grounds alone.
Yes, ethically, once she is pregnant, it is her decision. However, the appropriate medical treatment for a pregnant child is termination of the pregnancy.
That presents significantly less risk to her physical health, we won’t even go into emotional health, than going through a pregnancy.
And forcing anyone child or adult, to deliver a baby when they do not want to, is torture, period.
Making a child spend nine months being pregnant as you said is a prison sentence-physically and emotionally. To say nothing of the fact that this baby if she gives it up will be a lifelong reminder that there is a child out there who one day might seek her out ..another emotional hazard to look forward too along with numerous others forced onto her.
A child who has about as much chance as the girl herself to end up in a decent, loving home.
Maybe we should start a petition saying all lawmakers who are for these types of actions must adopt at least 2 children themselves…then again I wouldn’t want any kids living with these fucked up assholes.
So to you, it’s not even about her right to a “choice”. You think abortions should be legally mandated for anyone her age. I would say “that makes you just as bad as them” but in fact I think it makes you worse.
Ugh!!
Alan
Maverick Leftist
Awhat?
You should re-read the post and see if you can find where DTF said that abortions for children should be legally mandated.
Ethically, the decision to have the child or not is her decision, no matter how old she is. It is her body.
So since it is her body, does that mean that she also has the right to refuse medical treatment?
What if she has acute apendicitis? Diabetes?
In my opinion, she does not. Legally, she is not considered to have the right to smoke, to drink, nor can she legally consent to sexual activity. She is a child, and although it is her body, adults have a responsibility to protect that body so that it can reach adulthood, at which time she can claim her right to harm it.
If she had parents, I would support their right to have her broken bones set, her appendix removed, whether she wanted that done or not.
However, I would not support their right to withold that medical treatment, regardless of her wishes. Again, she is a child. If her parents, for whatever reason, religious or otherwise, would deny her medical treatment, that is where society’s responsibility kicks in. Just as it kicks in if they decide for whatever reason, to deny her food.
Pregnancy is a unique situation.
If she insists on having a child, no one has the right to force her to terminate the pregnancy.
However, here is where it gets tricky. In addition to being that unique situation, there is also the previously mentioned issue of her right to refuse medical treatment or otherwise harm her body.
Whether the two can be separated or not, whether it can be established that continuing the pregnancy carries a risk, and how much risk, of doing irreparable harm to her body, does not have a one size fits all answer.
The best you could do would be take it to court, where judge and jury could hear evidence relating both to statistical incidences as well as specifics related to that particular girl.
A minor, capable of making a coherent statement refusing medical treatment is in a pretty strong position. Saying this, there is a world of difference between ignoring the complaints of a small child who doesn’t want am injection (or even an appendectomy) and, for example using force to make a 13 year old girl submit to a nose job or a breast enlargement.
Were I advising a doctor as to whether he should perform a procedure requested by parents or guardians, I would suggest he limit himself to life preserving actions or at least get clearance from a court prior to the proceedure.
As to parents who would prevent medical treatment of a child- short of immediately endagering the child’s life- parent may refuse medical treatment on religious or other grounds. For example, a child who suffered from some sort of easily reverible parlysis of a part of her body could be denied medical treatment in favor of faith healing until she became emancipated. I might not agree with this but it is the law.
Were I advising a doctor as to whether he should perform a non lifesaving but demonstrably beneficial proceedure on a minor despite the wishes of the parents, I would tell him that he would probably face de minimus liability for defying the parents wishes, but should realize that he would be wide open (without court approval) to malpractice liability because there would be a presumption against informed consent.
What does all this mean? That the girl’s legal strategy should be two pronged-
First, she should seek emancipated minor status, which would give her the authority to made medical decisions for herself (NB- I don’t know FL law in detail on this matter).
Second, she should assert a 13th amendment claim. Bearing children for the benefit of others is “servitude” (which can be supported by the legality of payments to surrogates). The state of FL, by forcing the girl to bear a child against her will for the benfit of others is creating an involuntary servitude. (I dunno if this thesis has any legs, I’d prefer to see abortion protected under the 13th anyway, it provides a clearer Constitutional basis for the right not to bear children than “privacy”.)
That is a great idea! I am sure that the state intends to “put the child up for adoption,” so it sounds like a winner!
And it makes me wonder, just as a hypothetical, just what the state would do if the little girl did want to have her baby, and keep it, and raise it…
Back to the question of minors and denying/refusing treatment, first of all, thanks for sharing your knowledge!
If I am understanding you correctly, the parent who says no to the emergency appendectomy will not be able to count on the law, but the parent who says no to filling a cavity or antibiotics for a throat infection is in the clear.
You don’t mention irreparable harm, or where endangering a child comes in, but it seems like at some point those have to kick in. For example, if a parent refuses to allow doctor’s to set a child’s broken leg – might not kill him immediately, but he may be unable to walk, or to walk only with difficulty. Does he have to wait until he attains his majority to have the leg rebroken and set, take his chances with damage to nerves, etc?
How about a parent who orders his child to do something that is unlikely to be fatal, but will almost certainly be harmful?
THe question of irreprable harm is an open one and basically boild down to how the local DA feels about prosecuting religious parents for denying medical treatment.
Most neglect and abuse statutes require either intent or reclessness as a componant of the charge. One can hardly say a parent fervently praying for a divine cure is “negligent”- stupid, but attentive. Child protective services is also very hesitant to go after parents under the theory that denial of treatment is tantamount to abuse.
Parents in Boston and Philadelphia (to my knowledge) have been prosecuted or had their parental rights revoked in somewhat similar situations to the ones you have described under the theory that allowing irreversible harm is tantamount to abuse.
However, IIRC, there are several cases where parents have refused theraputic treatment for hearing impairment in children, were subject to legal process and eventually triumphed in court- even though there are irreversible consequences to delaying such treatment.
In other words, as far as I know the law is pretty tangled in this area and final decisions usually rest with the executive branch of government, which displays a lot of sympathy toward “clean cut” parents who reject medical attention for religiously expressed reasons.
For another thing to consider, what about the parent who is cheap? Is considering cost in denying treatment to a child abuse?
I suspected as much. Thanks again for your thoughful commentary.
More insight on why the US (and Somalia) have elected not to become signatories to the Convention on the Rights of the Child
They are currently raising funds to help with the prenatal care of the girl, money to cover the birthing room and to make sure the young girl has help raising the child with adequate health care, diapers, housing, and nutrition for both mother and child.
They will also make sure she has the resources to help learn how to take care of a baby (since she is not mature enough to decide if she should be pregnant, surely they realize she is not mature enough to raise a child . . .
. . . What? What’s that you say? She will be left on her own?
Bastards.
It might be more along the lines of the Magdalen Sisters. They’ll force her to hand over the child for adoption and she goes back to the cruelty in some home for delinquent kids.
in the weirdness that is America, she may end up in a decent home because of the publicity.
We can only hope some caring adult will learn about and adopt her.
I mean adopt the 13-year-old, who could then have get permission for her abortion, if it’s not too late.
This is so sad. I have a 13-year-old daughter. How courageous and smart of this girl to want what’s best for her. Words cannot express how sickening it is to read about the government is doing to her.
another notch in the belt, for the preening of Jeb, just watch and see. I shudder at the thought of another 4-8yrs in the “Bush’s”
Not to touch the earth, not to see the sun…
The girl has made the decision, Jeb Bush should pay support if he wants this kid so badly. Every politician who gets involved in this way, or pro-life group should bear the cost of support.
If a pharmacists actions result in a pregnancy, high risk pregnancy, than they should pay support too.
The problem as I see it is that they will force her to give the child up, basically directing for her the entire process, without regard for her wishes at any step.
I am sick of the chronic sex-legislation, there must be a way to end this.
It is just too sick!!!! Poor kid!!!!!