|
|
|
|
"Judicial
Discretion" and Pennsylvania's Abortion Control Act
Part Two of Three By Dave Andrusko Say this for pro-abortionists. Just as we try to save every life, they are equally determined that none--not one-- escape their lethal clutches. A reader was kind enough to forward a story from the Morning Call, a Pennsylvania newspaper. The case is known as In re Jane Doe, and in a nutshell pro-abortionists are furious that one judge refused one girl a judicial bypass. Under the Abortion Control Act, minor girls 17 and under are supposed to get the consent of one parent (or a guardian) before having an abortion. According to the Morning Call, if the parent refuses (or is unavailable), the juvenile can go to a judge and make that case that she is mature enough to make this life-and-death decision on her own, or that having an abortion is in her "best interests." Backed by the ACLU, the lawyers for this is unidentified girl (all records are sealed to protect the identity of girls and women seeking an abortion) are taking the refusal all the way to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. How often does this happen? "The Jane Doe case is apparently the first time the state Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal involving a judge's denial of such a request," the Morning Call's Peter Hall reports. "Since 1994, the Superior Court has heard only four appeals of decisions under the Abortion Control Act, according to the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts. Jennifer Boulanger, executive director of the Allentown Women's Center, which counsels women seeking abortions, said she has never seen a judge deny a minor's permission to seek an abortion." Hall reports that the girl's lawyers "argue the appeals court should have reached its own conclusions on the girl's maturity and ability to consent to such a procedure, rather than simply review the county judge's legal process." Supporters of the law (which was litigated by the United States Supreme Court in the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey) say this amounts to a demand that judges rubberstamp the requests of minor girls. "If judges' decisions don't matter and exceptions to the parental consent requirements are granted with no real scrutiny. it would undermine the Legislature's goal of encouraging parents to be involved in the decision as to whether their daughter should have an abortion, said Randall Wenger, who represents the Pennsylvania Family Institute and the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation," Hall writes. Wenger told Hall, "We want the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to communicate to the trial judges that they have a level of discretion to be able to use their common sense and to be able to say 'no' in an appropriate circumstance." Another pro-life lawyer told Hall that "giving judges the latitude to weigh facts and assess a minor's maturity is the only way the Legislature's intent in passing the Abortion Control Act can be fulfilled." Denis Brenan said, "I don't think the Legislature wanted a rubber stamp," adding "Otherwise, why go through the charade? According to the newspaper, the chief clerk of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Irene Bizzoso, said "it is unclear whether the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case" and that "the court has not decided whether it will publish its opinion in the case." Please send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com. If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/daveha. |