Pregnant Teen Wins Abortion Battle

[Dragonfly]

Pregnant Teen Wins Abortion Battle - Yahoo! News

A pregnant teen who sued her parents, claiming they were coercing her to have an abortion, will be able to give birth to her baby.

Attorneys representing the 16-year-old girl were granted a long-term injunction against the girl's parents in Texas family court on Monday, according to court documents.
The teen is 10 weeks pregnant and the injunction will last for the duration of her pregnancy.

As part of the order, the girl will be able to use her car to go to school, work and medical appointments. Her parents had taken away the use of the car as part of their effort to force an abortion, court papers stated.

The teen's parents will be liable for half of the hospital bill when she gives birth, unless she is married to the baby's 16-year-old father.

Wow. This is odd. Not the story I thought it was going to be for sure.

Not sure how I feel about this. Who is liable for the other half of the hospital bill?

I imagine the tension in that house must be pretty high.

Who has what rights here?
When a child, a minor, is giving birth who has the ultimate say over this situation?

Exactly what rights do the parents of the pregnant child have here?

 

[CanadaJohn]

This is only a story because the pro-choice crowd is appalled by her choice.

 

[Rainman05]

I think this is the wrong result.

A car is not her right. Did she pay for her car? No, she didn't. She has no right to it. I swear, the judge must have been either takin' a piss at the whole situation or was completely drunk.

Either way, this is a wrong ruling. It may be legal, I don't know the laws of Texas in this regard, but it sure as hell isn't a smart decision or a logical one.

But the law is the law.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Yeah, the hospital bill thing left my wondering as well. But I'm also a little concerned about whether she should continue living in their house under these circumstances. I don't think "tension" even begins to describe it, and I'm a little concerned about her safety.

I don't know about who owns what, but I am also not sure how or if they should be making her parents pay for this. Choice implies responsibility. This is a crappy situation, but she needs to accept hers.

This is only a story because the pro-choice crowd is appalled by her choice.

There's another thread about this, and you can see for yourself how plainly wrong you are. But I don't expect you to care about reality

 

[tessaesque]

The parents shouldn't be made to allow use of the car OR be forced to cover half of the medical expenses.

 

[roughdraft274]

This is only a story because the pro-choice crowd is appalled by her choice.

I'm pro choice and I fully support her being able to make her own decision and believe that her parents are in the wrong. Can you find me a single pro-choice person that has argued that the parents should be able to force her to get an abortion or that she shouldn't have the right to choose?

 

[CanadaJohn]

I think this is the wrong result.

A car is not her right. Did she pay for her car? No, she didn't. She has no right to it. I swear, the judge must have been either takin' a piss at the whole situation or was completely drunk.

Either way, this is a wrong ruling. It may be legal, I don't know the laws of Texas in this regard, but it sure as hell isn't a smart decision or a logical one.

But the law is the law.

I could be wrong but the court is probably ruling that the parents cannot punish their child simply because she chooses to keep her child. If the girl had a car before the pregnancy she should be able to retain its use after. It's a minor part of the issue, in any event.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Yeah, the hospital bill thing left my wondering as well. But I'm also a little concerned about whether she should continue living in their house under these circumstances. I don't think "tension" even begins to describe it, and I'm a little concerned about her safety.

I don't know about who owns what, but I am also not sure how or if they should be making her parents pay for this. Choice implies responsibility. This is a crappy situation, but she needs to accept hers.



There's another thread about this, and you can see for yourself how plainly wrong you are. But I don't expect you to care about reality

Of course, since you don't agree with me, I'm plainly wrong - why don't you educate me about parental responsibility for the health and safety of their children.

 

[Rainman05]

I could be wrong but the court is probably ruling that the parents cannot punish their child simply because she chooses to keep her child. If the girl had a car before the pregnancy she should be able to retain its use after. It's a minor part of the issue, in any event.

Its a minor part in regards to what? She having a child? Yes.

But its not a minor part in regards to property rights isn't it? The car isn't the girls' property. It's the parents. So is most of the things she owns, unless she paid for them.

 

[tessaesque]

I could be wrong but the court is probably ruling that the parents cannot punish their child simply because she chooses to keep her child. If the girl had a car before the pregnancy she should be able to retain its use after. It's a minor part of the issue, in any event.

It isn't the court's legal right to determine whether or not a child may be "punished" or what constitutes "punishment" unless and until such actions constitute clearly defined abuse.

Taking her car, which is likely not in her name and thus not her property, is absolutely within the parents' rights.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Of course, since you don't agree with me, I'm plainly wrong - why don't you educate me about parental responsibility for the health and safety of their children.

I said you were wrong that pro-choicers don't support her. You can look for yourself on the other thread on this topic. It's the anti-choicers who are really going after her, actually.

 

[sangha]

As part of the order, the girl will be able to use her car to go to school, work and medical appointments. Her parents had taken away the use of the car as part of their effort to force an abortion, court papers stated.

The teen's parents will be liable for half of the hospital bill when she gives birth, unless she is married to the baby's 16-year-old father.

Sounds fair to me.

As parents, they have an obligation to care for their minor child, so they should provide transportation to school, a job (the parents shouldnt be allowed to not support the child's child *and* prevent her from doing so), and medical appt (doing so would constitute neglect)

And since the parents are responsible for the child health care, they should have to pay for the hospital bill, but I'm going to guess that the other half is either the responsibility of the girl, or the family of the boy that impregnated her.

 

[tessaesque]

Its a minor part in regards to what? She having a child? Yes.

But its not a minor part in regards to property rights isn't it? The car isn't the girls' property. It's the parents. So is most of the things she owns, unless she paid for them.

And what happens if she wrecks it and totals it? Are the parents legally obligated to pay those costs and replace the vehicle?

 

[CanadaJohn]

I'm pro choice and I fully support her being able to make her own decision and believe that her parents are in the wrong. Can you find me a single pro-choice person that has argued that the parents should be able to force her to get an abortion or that she shouldn't have the right to choose?

That's easy - her two parents.

 

[joko104]

The Court sure gave a reason for her and the father to not marry at least until after the birth.

I don't real problem with the decision other than don't agree about the car. Then all teens should be able to sue of parents try to take away car-rights.

Welcome to parenting.

 

[sangha]

Of course, since you don't agree with me, I'm plainly wrong - why don't you educate me about parental responsibility for the health and safety of their children.

No, it's because you offer absolutely nothing to support your obnoxious claim

 

[roughdraft274]

The parents shouldn't be made to allow use of the car OR be forced to cover half of the medical expenses.

It's their child, therefor her medical expenses are their cost. I agree with you on the car, but this is no different than you paying for any bills for anything else. You pay for medical bills on medically necessary procedures until that kid is 18 or is not yours anymore. The only way they shouldn't have to pay the bill is if 16 is the age of emancipation in their state. Now if they make the kid work off the money or pay them back, whatever, I don't care how they handle it, but it should be their responsibility.

 

[CanadaJohn]

It isn't the court's legal right to determine whether or not a child may be "punished" or what constitutes "punishment" unless and until such actions constitute clearly defined abuse.

Taking her car, which is likely not in her name and thus not her property, is absolutely within the parents' rights.

If you believe you're right, I suggest you assist the parents in an appeal of the court's ruling.

 

[sangha]

It isn't the court's legal right to determine whether or not a child may be "punished" or what constitutes "punishment" unless and until such actions constitute clearly defined abuse.

Taking her car, which is likely not in her name and thus not her property, is absolutely within the parents' rights.

Parents cannot decide to not provide their child with medical care, or an education (or food, clothes, housing, etc) simply because it involves the expenditure of their property.

 

[Rainman05]

And what happens if she wrecks it and totals it? Are the parents legally obligated to pay those costs and replace the vehicle?

Well, first off, it would be preferable if she didn't die if she wrecks the car.

Anyway, I guess, since it is the car the parents paid for and permitted her to use, that if she wrecks it, the parents are going to have to repair it if they ever want to have it again. Or they can sell it as junk. I don't know.

 

[sangha]

That's easy - her two parents.

Yes, that's true, but you said it was "pro-choice crowd" that was appalled by her choice. Two people do not make a crowd.

This is only a story because the pro-choice crowd is appalled by her choice.

 

[tessaesque]

Parents cannot decide to not provide their child with medical care, or an education (or food, clothes, housing, etc) simply because it involves the expenditure of their property.

Not having a car does not deny her an education.

As far as medical expenses...fine...whatever costs are directly related to the 16 year old and NOT to the baby? The parents can be held responsible...but all care costs for the baby? Not theirs.

 

[CanadaJohn]

And what happens if she wrecks it and totals it? Are the parents legally obligated to pay those costs and replace the vehicle?

Let's all get hysterically irrational, shall we - what happens if she lights a match in her bedroom and burns down the house? Are the parents legally obligated to pay the costs and replace the house?

 

[tessaesque]

Well, first off, it would be preferable if she didn't die if she wrecks the car.

Anyway, I guess, since it is the car the parents paid for and permitted her to use, that if she wrecks it, the parents are going to have to repair it if they ever want to have it again. Or they can sell it as junk. I don't know.

I never said anything about her dying. The assumption from my post was that she survives, hence the entire scenario of replacing the vehicle...so I'm really not sure where that statement even came from.

 

[tessaesque]

Let's all get hysterically irrational, shall we - what happens if she lights a match in her bedroom and burns down the house? Are the parents legally obligated to pay the costs and replace the house?

I hardly think the question is irrational. If they're required to provide her with a luxury item, what happens if she renders that item unusable during the course of the injunction? She's 16. Statistically it's very probable she'll wreck the car.