This ruling appears to say otherwise.
Now, maybe it's because they went over the top (they took away her car and phone, made her drop out of school and get two jobs) that the judge made this ruling. I am curious, though: the judge ruled that the parents were attempting to "coerce" the girl into an abortion. I wonder... if she was pregnant and wanted to get an abortion (against their wishes), would such "coercion" (i.e. removing privileges) also be found illegal?
My recollection of the law is that parents have a fundamental right to govern their children's conduct, so that they can put (or could put) the kibosh on their minor child's obtaining an abortion. However, simultaneously, courts *had* ruled that because abortion was (after Roe, but before Casey) a fundamental right, that there had to be a mechanism to obtain the abortion. So, normally a writ-style petition could be made to the local court and, after a hearing, an injunction against the parents would issue, assuming the minor child wasn't incapable of rationally making the decision (and by that I mean honestly bonkers).
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.
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. Especially when it comes to important things (as in important to the parents). Thoughts?
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. That could've been avoided had the Boomers/Gen X reproduced at a respectable level. Now, their failure to do so is not totally their fault. They bought into the prevailing thought of the day: the Sexual Revolution, which, had for a long time been brewing and finally burst through the old edifice of Judeo-Christian values. Sadly, that means the burden to reproduce and create enough workers for the social safety nets, (amongst other things) which will at that time be burdened w/ protecting the Boomers/Gen X in their last years,will fall onto us Gen Y/Millennial people. Grand.
Author