Texas Teen sues parents for attempting to force her to have an abortion

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ouze**

This is kind of the opposite of how I thought it worked in Texas (??).

source

Pregnant Texas teen files suit against parents in abortion feud

A lawsuit filed by a 16-year-old girl against her parents alleges she is being coerced to have an abortion against her will. KPRC's Courtney Zavala reports.
By Matthew DeLuca, Staff Writer, NBC News
A pregnant Texas 16-year-old has gone to court to avoid having an abortion against her will, according to court documents.

Lawyers with the Texas Center for Defense of Life, a pro-life advocacy group, filed a petition on behalf of the teen plaintiff identified only by her initials in Harris County, Texas district court on Feb. 10. A judge granted a temporary restraining order in the case, according to local NBC affiliate Click2Houston.com.

"We were asking the judge to stop them physically forcing her to have an abortion," the plaintiff’s attorney Stephen Casey told Click2Houston.com. “They cannot drag her to get an abortion, force an abortion on our client.”

The eight-page petition alleges that the plaintiff’s parents, identified as Jeffrey Koen and Denise Watts Koen, attempted to force their daughter to act against her will "by coercing her to have an abortion with both verbal and physical threats and harassment."

The pregnant young woman has lived with her grandparents for the past seven months, the court document states, and is nine weeks pregnant.
After the plaintiff informed her parents that she was pregnant, her mother pushed for the termination of the pregnancy, according to the petition. The plaintiff’s father said that the plaintiff’s "only option was for her to have an abortion," the document states.
The plaintiff’s mother "invited the paternal grandparents to a bar for further discussion, where she suggested that she might slip R.E.K. an abortion pill through deception," according to the petition.

Lawyers argue that the teen has the right to choose to keep her baby under Roe v. Wade, the Supreme court case that legalized abortion.

**purplefood**

This seems perfectly reasonable.
The lawsuit. Not the forcing of an abortion.

**Frazzled**

Yea its weird.

**hotsauceman1**

Really, thats the only option? Abortion is the ONLY option?
Abortion is an option that is a last resort.

**whembly**

Uh... do parents own their daughter's womb?

**Ouze**

Can a parent make a child have an elective surgery, ever? Presumably no at 16, but hell, I honestly don't know.

**timetowaste85**

Good for the girl. She's too young (by law) to be having that kid, but as she's of high school age, she has a tough call to make and she chose a path that might not be easy, but more rewarding. Her parents want the easy way out. Good for her. Hope she wins.

**Kilkrazy**

Children below a certain age are not legally competent and cannot give consent to a procedure. This normally allows parents to refuse consent to a procedure, and presumably would allow a parent to "force" a child to be treated.

However there have been some cases where a child was made a ward of court in order to prevent the parents from stopping a medically advisable procedure. (In UK jurisdiction, anyway...)

Exactly where all that leaves things in this particular case I have no idea.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
Can a parent make a child have an elective surgery, ever? Presumably no at 16, but hell, I honestly don't know.

At that age... I can't imagine any professionals who would perform an abortion to an unwilling patient.

Opens up all kinds of litigation and bad optics.

**Sasori**

I wonder if this lawsuit will end up leadng to statutory rape charges for the father, since this is a major headline.

she has a tough call to make and she chose a path that might not be easy, but more rewarding.

This is rather subjective. My idea of rewarding, never included children early on. In fact, that would be the complete opposite of rewarding for me.

**Kilkrazy**

Anyone who thinks GW is an expensive HHHobby should have a child to put things in perspective.

**Ouze**

Kilkrazy wrote:
However there have been some cases where a child was made a ward of court in order to prevent the parents from stopping a medically advisable procedure. (In UK jurisdiction, anyway...)

I believe here in the Estado Unidos there is precedent for that, but more along the lines of when the parents refuse lifesaving measures (i.e. Jehovah's Witnesses refusing blood transfusions, refusing chemotherapy on otherwise survivable cancer, etc). I've never heard of parents being able to force elective procedures though.

**whembly**

Sasori wrote:
I wonder if this lawsuit will end up leadng to statutory rape charges for the father, since this is a major headline.

Not sure if that's possible... Age of Consent is 17 in Texas... but, there's also some stipulation that the age could be 16 if the father is no more than 3 yrs older? (or something like that?)

she has a tough call to make and she chose a path that might not be easy, but more rewarding.

This is rather subjective. My idea of rewarding, never included children early on. In fact, that would be the complete opposite of rewarding for me.

But you are not HER... what you (or the parent) thinks shouldn't have any bearing.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:
Anyone who thinks GW is an expensive HHHobby should have a child to put things in perspective.

No kidding! Having kidz is spendy...

**timetowaste85**

Hence me saying "might". Might be harder but more rewarding. My Spanish sentence structure education is a bit rusty, but in the English sentence structure, saying "might" only once is fine, and doing so a second time would be considered repetitive and unnecessary. Also, statutory would come down to age of consent in Texas. Some states it's 16, others 17, and a few 18. I don't know Texas ruling-never had a reason to.

**Mattman154**

Sasori wrote:
I wonder if this lawsuit will end up leadng to statutory rape charges for the father, since this is a major headline.

she has a tough call to make and she chose a path that might not be easy, but more rewarding.

This is rather subjective. My idea of rewarding, never included children early on. In fact, that would be the complete opposite of rewarding for me.

Ayup

**Ma55ter_fett**

Her womb her choice.

I'd say the same if it was her wanting to have the abortion and the parents were trying to stop it.

**Sasori**

timetowaste85 wrote:
Hence me saying "might". Might be harder but more rewarding. My Spanish sentence structure education is a bit rusty, but in the English sentence structure, saying "might" only once is fine, and doing so a second time would be considered repetitive and unnecessary. Also, statutory would come down to age of consent in Texas. Some states it's 16, others 17, and a few 18. I don't know Texas ruling-never had a reason to.

The age of consent in Texas is 17.
The way you used might in your sentence read to me as it "Might be harder" and then separated the rewarding part with a "but". Would that not indicate that "Might" was only supposed to be an adjective for "harder" I'm not an English language expert, so I don't know of that is correct syntax or not. It' s not the way I read it though.

**Polonius**

This is really bizarre, but I've learned that bizarre law suits always have a ton of back story. Even more so when all you have is one party's complaint.

I mean, she'd been living with her grandparents for months prior to the pregnancy. The story is light on details about the coercion.

I'm not calilng this BS or anything, but keep in mind that a petition like this presents one sides view of carefully selected facts.

**purplefood**

whembly wrote:
Sasori wrote:

she has a tough call to make and she chose a path that might not be easy, but more rewarding.

This is rather subjective. My idea of rewarding, never included children early on. In fact, that would be the complete opposite of rewarding for me.

But you are not HER... what you (or the parent) thinks shouldn't have any bearing.

I don't think he is stating his opinion in a way where he thinks she should conform to it.
EDIT: Messed the quotes up.

**BlapBlapBlap**

I see no problems with this case.

Although the mother seems a bit ignorant. There is no magical abortion pill.

**Sasori**

purplefood wrote:
whembly wrote:
Sasori wrote:

she has a tough call to make and she chose a path that might not be easy, but more rewarding.

This is rather subjective. My idea of rewarding, never included children early on. In fact, that would be the complete opposite of rewarding for me.

But you are not HER... what you (or the parent) thinks shouldn't have any bearing.

I don't think he is stating his opinion in a way where he thinks she should conform to it.
EDIT: Messed the quotes up.

That's correct. I personally believe she should have the choice on what to do with the baby. After all, she is going to have to deal with the outcome of that decision for the rest of her life. The decision will also have the biggest impact on her life, much more so than her parents.

I was just stating, that having a kid early one for me, would not be rewarding at all.

**timetowaste85**

Sasori wrote:
timetowaste85 wrote:
Hence me saying "might". Might be harder but more rewarding. My Spanish sentence structure education is a bit rusty, but in the English sentence structure, saying "might" only once is fine, and doing so a second time would be considered repetitive and unnecessary. Also, statutory would come down to age of consent in Texas. Some states it's 16, others 17, and a few 18. I don't know Texas ruling-never had a reason to.

The age of consent in Texas is 17.
The way you used might in your sentence read to me as it "Might be harder" and then separated the rewarding part with a "but". Would that not indicate that "Might" was only supposed to be an adjective for "harder" I'm not an English language expert, so I don't know of that is correct syntax or not. It' s not the way I read it though.

Yup, it stands as "alright" for syntax. Handed to a senior year English teacher, if it was written as "might be harder but might be more rewarding," the teacher would likely give it a red mark saying "awkward" or "repetitive". Trust me-it's what I went to school for. But I didn't know what AoC was in Texas-so thank you for the info. And I wasn't trying to call you out. Just explaining, if anyone else has trouble with it.

**MrDwhitey**

Ouze wrote:
Can a parent make a child have an elective surgery, ever? Presumably no at 16, but hell, I honestly don't know.

Have you been circumcised?

**whembly**

Sasori wrote:
purplefood wrote:
whembly wrote:
Sasori wrote:

she has a tough call to make and she chose a path that might not be easy, but more rewarding.

This is rather subjective. My idea of rewarding, never included children early on. In fact, that would be the complete opposite of rewarding for me.

But you are not HER... what you (or the parent) thinks shouldn't have any bearing.

I don't think he is stating his opinion in a way where he thinks she should conform to it.
EDIT: Messed the quotes up.

That's correct. I personally believe she should have the choice on what to do with the baby. After all, she is going to have to deal with the outcome of that decision for the rest of her life. The decision will also have the biggest impact on her life, much more so than her parents.

I was just stating, that having a kid early one for me, would not be rewarding at all.

Oops... my bad.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

MrDwhitey wrote:
Ouze wrote:
Can a parent make a child have an elective surgery, ever? Presumably no at 16, but hell, I honestly don't know.

Have you been circumcised?

**Ratbarf**

This will be interesting. In Canada your parents have control over your body for medical purposes until you are 16 years old. I would assume it's the same for Texas, though the age might be different. If it wasn't how could you ever get your child to go to the dentist to have teeth pulled or braces put on? Seeing as they could sue you for forcing them to undergo a painful elective surgery.

**Ouze**

MrDwhitey wrote:
Ouze wrote:
Can a parent make a child have an elective surgery, ever? Presumably no at 16, but hell, I honestly don't know.

Have you been circumcised?

Good point - I had forgotten that genital mutilation is legal in this country, for boys.

**purplefood**

That's pretty sexist...

**Ratbarf**

Eh, culture is culture.

**MrDwhitey**

purplefood wrote:
That's pretty sexist...

Indeed, I vote females get mutilated too.

**purplefood**

Ratbarf wrote:
Eh, culture is culture.

Yeah but stupid culture is still stupid.