[aldo_14]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4510847.stm

A pregnant 13-year-old girl in Florida has been allowed to have an abortion after a legal battle over the issue.

The girl, known only as LG, was told last week she could not have an abortion, because she lacked the maturity to make such a decision.

But the same judge reversed the order late on Monday, after LG underwent a psychological evaluation.

"Legally speaking, it's not a difficult decision to make. Morally speaking, it's very difficult," the judge said.

"But I'm not here to make the moral decision. I'm here to make the legal decisions," Judge Ronald Alvarez said, according to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel newspaper.

Florida Governor Jeb Bush said the state would not fight the judge's decision, but expressed sadness about the situation.

"It's a tragedy that a 13-year-old child would be in a vulnerable position where she could be made pregnant and it's a tragedy that her baby will be lost.

"There's no good news in this at all," he said on Tuesday.

Florida's Department of Children and Families had sought to block the abortion, because LG is a ward of the state.

She learned last week she was three months pregnant.

It is not clear if she has had the abortion.

Florida state law specifically does not require a minor to seek parental consent before an abortion.

LG's lawyers argued that meant the state - as her legal guardian - could not block it.

Abortion is a deeply divisive issue in the US.

Um... I realise how the last thread ended, so maybe the admin will close this immediately. I'm not wishing another big stramash, this is simply for info.

 But that's the result of this case, anyways.  IMO it's legally correct (the morality is up to each individual to decide upon), and the psychological evaluation should (or was intended to) determine her ability to make the decision.

[StratComm]

That's also informative because it lays out the situation in which such a legal decision could even be up for consideration; being a ward of the state grants the state some additional leeway in the decision.  Thanks for the update aldo.  

[Unknown Target]

I'm just happy she got what she was entitled to under the law

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by StratComm
That's also informative because it lays out the situation in which such a legal decision could even be up for consideration; being a ward of the state grants the state some additional leeway in the decision.

I'm not sure it does; from what I understand, it means that the state has the same right as a parent to know about it and decide whether it goes ahead - i.e. none.  Presumably, the state can also not inderdict in similar situations where there are parents either.

Arguably, the right way to go ahead in these sorts of situations - i.e. with a young preganant girl - is to have a psychological evaluation to prove competence of judgement.  On the other side of the coin, it's probably (morally and ethically) biased to apply it only to those seeking abortion - but, at the same time, if a girl seeking to keep the baby was psychologically immature (in terms of being able to eat, behave, etc sensible when pregnant, for example), there's no way in hell the state would order an abortion.

So this is really a massive Pandoras Box; if the state gets involved, there's no way it can remain neutral and unbiased.  Whilst there are people who would applaud that (those who would agree with the state anyways), it (surely?) would raise massive issues over the seperation of church and state (as abortion opposition is often based upon religious beliefs).

'tis, quite frankly, an absolute bastard of an issue.