Now, after Casey, and especially after Gonzales v. Carhart, abortion isn't a fundamental right any more. So, given that, which side wins? I don't think anyone's challenged it, however, I could see a court indicating that, in the balance, abortion loses over the parents' fundamental right to govern their child's conduct. Fundamental rights, after all, go above and beyond Constitutional rights, as they pre-exist them in our jurisprudential scheme.
However, this ruling seems to indicate the opposite: the minor child's choice will be honored, rather than the parents.
This is consistent with my understanding of the current state of law: there is no legislation (that I am aware of) that requires parental consent, only parental
notification. IANAL, but I believe the (constitutional) case law is fairly settled in determining that even minors have the right to make their own choice re: abortion, at least to a point where even the red states won't attempt to outright prohibit minor consent to abortion.
As for fundamental vs. constitutional rights, I am unaware of any case law in which established constitutional rights are overturned in favor of
fundamental rights, as you suggest.
I, obviously, like the ruling; however, I think the ruling is short-sighted. If a child now has some sort of compelling interest (like bringing an unborn baby to term, or going to school, or whatever) and is a minor, and their parents want to govern them in a way that is contrary to that compelling interest - can they still control their child? I would point at this ruling (and really, once its appealed, the ruling that affirms it on appeal) and say: "No." That may be problematic. I do *not* want courts to suddenly be able to stick their nose into what should be a solely parental decision.
That's the real problem, here. If the girl was the registered title holder of the car and the cellphone account holder, then fine; otherwise, it seems absurd in the extreme to say that the parents are forced to pay for the girl's car and cellphone when her conduct is unsatisfactory to them. If she wants to get emancipated (or enter foster care), I'm all for it, but otherwise, I'd say "my house, my rules" applies.
Furthermore, what happens when the baby is born? Are the parents then allowed to take away their daughter's car and cell phone, or does she get to keep the car and have them pay for the phone indefinitely? They forced her to drop out of school and take two jobs, but after the baby is born, are they required to provide financial support for the baby, or is she? If the latter, what if she needs to drop out of school to be able to afford the baby?
In addition, I applaud this little girl. She's doing her part. We're going to have a population crunch in the next 50 years, during which time our social safety nets may very well permanently fail.
The social safety nets of the richest nation on the planet (with the largest and most expensive military on the planet) will only fail if we choose to allow them to. Let's not divert this thread into a fiscal prioritization discussion.
However, I do find it interesting that you applaud this minor child (who is still in high school) for deciding to have a child on a population crunch basis. Are the much-reviled "welfare queens" also
doing their part to preserve the republic?
Author