quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
Guess I'm kinda slow, but I didn't see anything about a judge ordering the abortion.


If you scroll down to the bottom you will see that you are reading the last of 4 pages. You can link back to the first where it talks about the court ordering abortions.
If you read the article carefully, it explains that the court orders are to allow a non-custodial parent or non-agreeing parent of a minor who wants an abortion to have one, hence the court order. The story was concentrated on a DHS in Philly's alleged pressuring its ward to have the abortion. The city paid for the abortions, not the state or the federal government since it was elective. The girl had to go to NJ since she was 24 weeks pregnant and PA cannot perform an elective abortion at that degree of pregnancy.

In effect the judge did not so much "order" anything, rather he allowed something in an order. That is very, very different from ordering as the Original Poster seems to indicate. A judge's "order" can be just permission for something to occur, not a mandate for a concrete action. Remember, this was all about a ward of the state and the rights of an individual and those of the non-custodial parent. In balance, the judge ruled what was the law, and allowed the 16 year old to decide.

Do I agree with the morality of it all? No, especially if a neutral party such as a DHS worker was pressuring in one direction, but the facts are the facts and matters of law, no matter how distasteful and objectionable they be.

Perhaps you should be riled with the NJ legislature and courts and Pennsylvania DHS and city funding of late term elective abortions than at the judge. Frankly, they really within the neutral eyes of the law ordered no actions, only permitted them under the language of the Roe v. Wade decision and subsequent statute and case law regarding minors and parental permission.
No, the state enabled her to the Nth degree. There is a difference. It ultimately involved an act of volition on the part of the teen. She could have said no at any point. The entire case was based on that: she had said no, then a social worker got involved, contacted her mother, and then she said "Yes" after mother said "No." This meant the courts got involved. The judge did not order anyone to perform an abortion on anyone. I do not necessarily like the way this law is written but that doesn't mean I can twist fact by ignited rhetoric and think that I am scoring a point for my cause. Twisting fact does and redefining terms does no cause good in the long run.
quote:
Originally posted by onepatriot7:
hey their posioning our food with gmo products many believe this is one way for the powers that be are using to keep the population down, i've read the the elite of the world want the population decreased to around 500 million within the next 50 years


This is off subject probably but research shows that Cass Sunstien and some others in Obama's mobster crew of "czars" have written numerous books, papers and such about population control via forced abortion and putting infertility stuff in what we eat. They are sinister. Morons...but powerful, sinister ones.

Add Reply

Likes (0)
Post

×
×
×
×