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.

**MrDwhitey**

In some countries I hear their cultures involve a lot of sexism and being stoned for adultery.

Or something.

**Ratbarf**

The relative harm done by circumcision isn't exactly significant.

**MrDwhitey**

And yet you're still mutilating a baby without informed consent of said child.

Shrug.

**purplefood**

No but the decision taken to slice bits of your genitals off shouldn't be taken by anyone but the owner of said genitals.

**timetowaste85**

Psh, I've seen porn between a man and woman where the guy was uncircumcised: I thank my parents for making me slightly less ugly in the bed for the future Mrs. TTW.

**Ratbarf**

What makes genitals so special? My cousin was born with 11 toes. (True Story) They removed his 11th. In principle is it any different than removing a foreskin?

**purplefood**

Hey I think a person should decide whether they get toes removed as well.
I wouldn't want my toes or fingers being removed just because my parents thought it was unsightly.

**Ma55ter_fett**

Ratbarf wrote:
What makes genitals so special? My cousin was born with 11 toes. (True Story) They removed his 11th. In principle is it any different than removing a foreskin?

Or a tail for that matter.

But we are moving away from that glorious thing known as the topic.

**Ouze**

Well, we're getting well OT now, but I'd argue there's a clear difference between correcting a deformity, and inflicting one, yes?

**purplefood**

Ouze wrote:
Well, we're getting well OT now, but I'd argue there's a clear difference between correcting a deformity, and inflicting one, yes?

Yeah I guess.

**d-usa**

Kilkrazy wrote:
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.

One thing we have always been taught in Oklahoma (and I know that sometimes you get taught wrong things and that this is different from state to state) is that a pregnant minor becomes emancipated when it comes to medical decisions.

Legal guides for medical personal in Texas shows this snipped of law:

Sec. 32.003. CONSENT TO TREATMENT BY CHILD. (a) A child may consent to medical, dental, psychological, and surgical treatment for the child by a licensed physician or dentist if the child:
(1) is on active duty with the armed services of the United States of America;
(2) is:
(A) 16 years of age or older and resides separate and apart from the child's parents, managing conservator, or guardian, with or without the consent of the parents, managing conservator, or guardian and regardless of the duration of the residence; and
(B) managing the child's own financial affairs, regardless of the source of the income;
(3) consents to the diagnosis and treatment of an infectious, contagious, or communicable disease that is required by law or a rule to be reported by the licensed physician or dentist to a local health officer or the Texas Department of Health, including all diseases within the scope of Section 81.041, Health and Safety Code;
(4) is unmarried and pregnant and consents to hospital, medical, or surgical treatment, other than abortion, related to the pregnancy;

Now, knowing Texas I am 100% sure that the red section was included to prevent a child from getting an abortion without parental consent. The question now would be if that law can be used to force an abortion on her. Does not being able to consent to an abortion = not being able to give informed refusal of a procedure?

**Hordini**

Ratbarf wrote:
The relative harm done by circumcision isn't exactly significant.

Yeah, as long as there isn't a complication during the aftermath of the unnecessary surgery. And as long as they don't accidentally snip too much.

**sebster**

I don't really get the grounds for the lawsuit. I mean, she's living with her grandparents, so she's not suing for any kind of economic independance so as to be free of their coercion. In fact, the pressure from the parents seems fairly limited and completely failed, especially considering she's got the power to have formed this lawsuit.

So I mean, what does this lawsuit achieve? How does this differ if she'd just said 'screw you Mum & Dad, I'm living with Grandma and Grandpa and I'm having this baby'?

Not that I'm defending the actions of the parents, if true that's some despicable gak they got up to. But what does the lawsuit do?

**Cheesecat**

Ouze wrote:
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.

Yeah, but there is some benefits it's easier to clean.

**SoloFalcon1138**

Sorry, until she hits the age of consent in the state, or her parents' rights have been severed in one way or another, her medical choices can be under her parents' control.

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

What does this have to do with the discussion? You assume her father is the father of the child?

**d-usa**

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Sorry, until she hits the age of consent in the state, or her parents' rights have been severed in one way or another, her medical choices can be under her parents' control.

You sure about that? Wanna cite the laws on that? Because I am fairly certain that I posted the laws in the State of Texas that show otherwise. A pregnant non-married minor can make all decisions regarding her healthcare as it pertains to her pregnancy. The only think she cannot do is consent to an abortion. So the question before the law is that if she can't give informed consent, can she still give informed refusal?

**Kovnik Obama**

Ratbarf wrote:
In Canada your parents have control over your body for medical purposes until you are 16 years old.

In a case like this, the C.C.Q art. 34 authorize a Québec tribunal to hear any request concerning the well-being and interest of the child, even from the very child, if his age and expression allows him to do so. The tribunals used to respect the old 'age of reason' of 7, but they've listened to kids younger.

**Ratbarf**

I ignore Quebec law when I talk about Canadian law in general because it isn't the same as the rest of the nation. In addition, the Quebecois have some rather interesting ideas that the rest of Canada ridicules them for. So they're not exactly a good baseline.

**Ouze**

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Sasori wrote:
I wonder if this lawsuit will end up leadng to statutory rape charges for the father, since this is a major headline.

What does this have to do with the discussion? You assume her father is the father of the child?

The father of the unborn fetus, since he impregnated a minor child. Not the girls father.

**Ratbarf**

Though if they are one and the same this has Maury written all over it.

**Ouze**

Yeah, he'd be all

**Frazzled**

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Sorry, until she hits the age of consent in the state, or her parents' rights have been severed in one way or another, her medical choices can be under her parents' control.

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

What does this have to do with the discussion? You assume her father is the father of the child?

Not when it comes to abortion boyo. I suggest you look up the relevant case and statutory law.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:
Yeah, he'd be all

Ok that meme is epic.

**Polonius**

the law, common law in particular, is often less idiotic than you think. When it comes to minors with children, it tends to treat them as adults, at least in a parent/child type decisions.

The idea is simple: unless shown otherwise, a biological parent (with varying bias towards mothers) should have custody of a child, and care for it. Most things with child require a parent's consent. So, either we take away every child from a minor parent, or we simply promote a pregnant teen to adulthood.

On top of that, you have medical ethics. Yes, the law allows for the state to authorize a medical procedure, against the parent's wishes, for minors. But a 16 year old, while a minor, has at least some ability to grant or refuse consent. Show me a provider willing to perform an abortion on a unwilling minor, and I'll show you a provider that is about to lose his license.

**Frazzled**

Polonius wrote:
the law, common law in particular, is often less idiotic than you think. When it comes to minors with children, it tends to treat them as adults, at least in a parent/child type decisions.

The idea is simple: unless shown otherwise, a biological parent (with varying bias towards mothers) should have custody of a child, and care for it. Most things with child require a parent's consent. So, either we take away every child from a minor parent, or we simply promote a pregnant teen to adulthood.

On top of that, you have medical ethics. Yes, the law allows for the state to authorize a medical procedure, against the parent's wishes, for minors. But a 16 year old, while a minor, has at least some ability to grant or refuse consent. Show me a provider willing to perform an abortion on a unwilling minor, and I'll show you a provider that is about to lose his license.

Additionally this is not just a medical procedure, full enrhouded in all the law, cases, and political stuff around it. Just as a minor can have an abortion without parental consent, a minor can refuse an abortion without parental consent. Frankly, it screams violation of the Hyppocratic Oath and Fascism to force an abortion for no medical reason.
No court in the United States is going to force a medically nonnecessary abortion. I'm not sure any court COULD enforce one that was medically necessary, much less this instance.

**Kilkrazy**

Then I don't understand is the basis on which she is suing.

Is it a kind of alleged assault situation? I mean, if she could not have been legally required to have an abortion, then extra-legal means would need to be in the frame. Surely that would imply a criminal charge?

**Frazzled**

Because suing beats shooting your own parents to protect your baby.

**Polonius**

Frazzled wrote:
I'm not sure any court COULD enforce one that was medically necessary, much less this instance.

The only time I can think of that could come close would be when a minor has a life threatening pregnancy. If she wanted to keep the pregnancy, while her parents wanted an abortion to help save her lift, that would be an ugly battle. Even then, I'm imaging it would come down to a competency hearing, and if the minor is judge competent, its her choice.

**whembly**

There's gotta be more to this story...

**Frazzled**

Polonius wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
I'm not sure any court COULD enforce one that was medically necessary, much less this instance.

The only time I can think of that could come close would be when a minor has a life threatening pregnancy. If she wanted to keep the pregnancy, while her parents wanted an abortion to help save her lift, that would be an ugly battle. Even then, I'm imaging it would come down to a competency hearing, and if the minor is judge competent, its her choice.

Agreed. I imagine at this point she's probably suing to be declared independent or at least switch managing conservatorship to the grandparents.

**KalashnikovMarine**

whembly wrote:
There's gotta be more to this story...

Agreed, something is missing here