Parental Notification: What Really Happens
Sam Heldman writes about a case in Alabama:
The undisputed facts here show a minor who is, for her age, quite mature: she has sought out information and advice from various counselors and adults as to what to do, and has decided that a pregnancy at this point would interfere with her plans to get a college education and have a career in health care. Again, this is all undisputed. And she could have waited just a few weeks til she was 18, and then gone and had the abortion without asking or telling anyone -- but she decided that it was better to do it in the first trimester, and so needed the judge's approval since her parents had told her that they would cut her off financially if she ever got pregnant.
The judge denied her petition, stating in his decision:
The legislature, in its infinite wisdom, has determined that an unborn child who never has had even the ability to do any wrong, could be put to death so that his mother can play [sports]. ...
"Ah, but this young woman has more ambition than to play [sports]. Her possible ... scholarship is but the means to the end of her becoming a [health--care provider]. But what is the duty of a [health--care provider]? To save lives. Should her child die so that, possibly, she might later save other lives?
"There may be physical complications to an abortion. There may be psychological complications or consequences. She said that she does not believe that abortion is wrong, so, apparently, in spite of her church attendance, there won't be spiritual consequences, at least for the present."
The young lady challenged the judge's decision and the Court of Civil Appeals found in her favor. Heldman observes, though, that we don't hear much of a "backlash" against conservative judges who ignore the law in order to impose their values on others:
Does anyone expect that the trial judge will suffer political backlash for having elevated his own moral beliefs over an adherence to the statute? I sure don't. I've never seen conservative politics suffer any political backlash from conservative judicial rulings in my lifetime. If progressive are suffering that sort of backlash, I think it's the fault of the political leaders rather than the lawyers or the judges.
It's difficult to think of any definition of "judicial activism" that would not apply to this judge's decision. Is this the sort of "judicial activism" that religious conservatives complain about? Of course not. They may say that they don't like it when a judge ignores the law in order to create new laws based upon personal values, but it appears that what they really mean is that they don't like it when a judge ignores conservative, evangelical Christianity and rules in a manner inconsistent with it's religious principles.
This judge ignored the law, but adhered to the principles of conservative, evangelical Christianity. Therefore, what he did wasn't "wrong" by the apparent standards of many religious conservatives.
Read More:
Comments
No comments yet. Leave a Comment