|
|
Post by libtard on Aug 25, 2022 5:29:32 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by libtard on Aug 25, 2022 6:05:03 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by libtard on Aug 26, 2022 4:19:19 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by libtard on Aug 26, 2022 4:37:37 GMT
Turns out that states with forced birth laws are also those with the most restrictive access to postnatal care and support. Did you know that three times as many black women die from childbirth-related causes as white women (nothing to do with systemic racism, which we know doesn't exist), and that a third of all childbirth-related deaths occur in the postpartum period? I didn't know either until just now, but somehow it doesn't surprise me. www.axios.com/2022/08/25/abortion-economic-security-states |
|
|
|
Post by libtard on Aug 26, 2022 4:49:20 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by libtard on Aug 26, 2022 5:02:00 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Aug 29, 2022 11:50:01 GMT
Aight, I'll fire back on this one: All she needs is signed consent from a Parent or Legal Guardian. The article states she is "parentless", which could mean anything from "has parents but doesn't live with them" [1] to actually has no parents [2]. Lives with a relative (presumably a legal adult) and has an appointed guardian. Both the relative and guardian see no reason she shouldn't have an abortion, therefore neither constitute a Legal Guardian (otherwise they'd sign the papers and she'd go get her offspring murdered. This tells me there are parents involved, even if only tangentially, IE they exist but are not being allowed to be involved in this decision. In this case, depending on the reasons the parents aren't in her life, I can see siding with her. However the Judge, who is not an asshole, deemed her "not mature enough to make the decision on her own". That further suggests the circumstances of her parental non-involvement are not what one would normally assume. I think the law is a good one, in this case we're clearly not getting all the information. |
|
|
|
Post by Devoid on Aug 29, 2022 13:41:27 GMT
Aight, I'll fire back on this one: All she needs is signed consent from a Parent or Legal Guardian. The article states she is "parentless", which could mean anything from "has parents but doesn't live with them" [1] to actually has no parents [2]. Lives with a relative (presumably a legal adult) and has an appointed guardian. Both the relative and guardian see no reason she shouldn't have an abortion, therefore neither constitute a Legal Guardian (otherwise they'd sign the papers and she'd go get her offspring murdered. This tells me there are parents involved, even if only tangentially, IE they exist but are not being allowed to be involved in this decision. In this case, depending on the reasons the parents aren't in her life, I can see siding with her. However the Judge, who is not an asshole, deemed her "not mature enough to make the decision on her own". That further suggests the circumstances of her parental non-involvement are not what one would normally assume. I think the law is a good one, in this case we're clearly not getting all the information. This was the type of response I was looking for (one of substance and consideration, not of silence or a knee-jerk hot take). Thanks evileeyore.
Official ruling[1] for those interested in the details. I have not been able to locate any documentation from the original ruling. It seems that the majority opinion found that although section 390.01114 allows for a remand to the trial court with instructions for a further ruling, no such demand is warranted here.
The partial dissenting opinion acknowledges the previous ruling allows reconsideration--given enough time to recover from the extra stress due to a friend's death and express a keener understanding of the consequences of terminating a pregnancy (which the petitioner may not have before the 15-week deadline passes provided extra time may be required to schedule the abortion if the request is granted).
The crux of the matter is that the minor wrote that her guardian "was fine" with minor's decision; however, a written waiver from the guardian is required. It does not seem to be whether the appointed guardian was "legal," but that the guardian provides a written waiver. It might be that the guardian and the petitioning minor were unaware if this distinction, however in legal matters, it does. Because of this technical oversight, I don't know if the guardian could have provided consent to the court by verbally testifying to the judge or submitted the written waiver once the trial started. Aside from the written claim that the guardian "was fine", does the court know the direct, informal opinion of the guardian regarding this petition?
"The trial judge denied the petition but explicitly left open the availability of further proceedings by saying that the “Court finds [the minor] may be able, at a later date, to adequately articulate her request, and the Court may re-evaluate its decision at that time.” (Emphasis added). The emphasized language indicates the trial judge must have been contemplating that the minor—who was ten weeks pregnant at the time—would potentially be returning before long—given the statutory time constraints at play—to shore up any lingering doubt the trial court harbored.
In this regard, the key if not sole factor for “re-evaluation” would apparently be the trial judge’s initial concern that the minor’s “evaluation of the benefits and consequences of her decision is wanting.” The detailed written order points out that the minor has evaluated the pros/cons in making her decision and the transcript reflects a similar mental process. Reading between the lines, it appears that the trial court wanted to give the minor, who was under extra stress due to a friend’s death, additional time to express a keener understanding of the consequences of terminating a pregnancy. This makes some sense given that the minor, at least at one point, says she was open to having a child, but later changed her view after considering her inability to care for a child in her current station in life."
...
The minor wrote that her guardian “was fine” with the minor’s decision. This statement was written in the section of the form petition related to whether it was in the “best interest of the minor” for a parent/guardian to not be notified, which was out of place on the form but not a basis to disregard the apparent possibility of guardian consent. If the minor’s guardian consents to the minor’s termination of her pregnancy, all that is required is a written waiver from the guardian. § 390.01114(4)(b)2., Fla. Stat. Such a written waiver would be self-executing, meaning that the minor need not invoke the judicial bypass procedure at all.
1 State of Florida, First District Court of Appeal, No. 1D22-2476 |
|
|
|
Post by libtard on Aug 29, 2022 17:36:22 GMT
I dug into Judge Frydrychowicz a little. She's on the board of Escambia Children's Trust, which is also suspiciously inhabited by Stephanie White - an evangelical attorney specializing in adoptions, Patty Hightower - another fundie, and Pastor Lonnie Wesley III - a fundie Baptist preacher. Gubernatorial appointees, all - of course.
This is sufficient to give me pause regarding any declared "nonpartisan" position.
Florida's asshole/Overton window is so far right it is no longer in the building.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Aug 29, 2022 19:25:40 GMT
I suppose that's who they meant, though I suspect what they want is a vitriolic response from 3cat. Though I also suspect that they would like to see a condemnation of the states that are preventing such uses. I have no interest in precipitating a vitriolic response from anyone. I am interested in the extent to which people can evade and dismiss the inevitable ramifications of the White Christofascism which threatens the US, and the false equivalences which they like to draw with regard to progressive activists. Example: One poster previously drew an equivalence between Marjorie Taylor Green and AOC, because in their mind a progressive liberal agenda and believing in Jewish space lasers are somehow equally crazy. The Right has completely lost its mind in the US. This is painfully apparent to everyone except the Right in the US. AOC's Green New Deal was as crazy as Space Lasers. The things she wanted to happen were so way out there that I was speechless for a few minutes while I digested the stupidity of it. |
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Aug 29, 2022 19:29:14 GMT
I dug into Judge Frydrychowicz a little. She's on the board of Escambia Children's Trust, which is also suspiciously inhabited by Stephanie White - an evangelical attorney specializing in adoptions, Patty Hightower - another fundie, and Pastor Lonnie Wesley III - a fundie Baptist preacher. Gubernatorial appointees, all - of course. This is sufficient to give me pause regarding any declared "nonpartisan" position. Florida's asshole/Overton window is so far right it is no longer in the building. I would think(I have no idea on the actual details) that if the guardian was okay with it, they wouldn't have needed to go to court in the first place. The guardian would have signed what was needed for a doctor to proceed. I would also think(no idea if this is true in Florida) that once the girl was required to go to court, she and the guardian would have figured out what to do and simply provided the doctor with the needed "okay" for it and the court case would have been dismissed since it at that point it wouldn't be necessary. There's a lot that doesn't add up in her case. |
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Aug 29, 2022 19:31:31 GMT
Silence. They have no defense. Or else some of us don't come here that often, since sometimes weeks or a month go by without a post. I check back in when I remember this place exists.  If you guys talked more, I'd be here more often!! |
|
|
|
Post by libtard on Aug 29, 2022 23:50:50 GMT
I have no interest in precipitating a vitriolic response from anyone. I am interested in the extent to which people can evade and dismiss the inevitable ramifications of the White Christofascism which threatens the US, and the false equivalences which they like to draw with regard to progressive activists. Example: One poster previously drew an equivalence between Marjorie Taylor Green and AOC, because in their mind a progressive liberal agenda and believing in Jewish space lasers are somehow equally crazy. The Right has completely lost its mind in the US. This is painfully apparent to everyone except the Right in the US. AOC's Green New Deal was as crazy as Space Lasers. The things she wanted to happen were so way out there that I was speechless for a few minutes while I digested the stupidity of it. There is absolutely nothing radical about the Green New Deal. It is utterly prosaic and underwhelming compared to programs proposed or already extant within Europe, Canada, NZ, Japan, Australia and South Korea - which is to say, the developed world. The fact that you paint it as "crazy" merely demonstrates that you inhabit a slice of reality which is depressingly thin and blinkered. |
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Aug 30, 2022 1:02:03 GMT
AOC's Green New Deal was as crazy as Space Lasers. The things she wanted to happen were so way out there that I was speechless for a few minutes while I digested the stupidity of it. There is absolutely nothing radical about the Green New Deal. It is utterly prosaic and underwhelming compared to programs proposed or already extant within Europe, Canada, NZ, Japan, Australia and South Korea - which is to say, the developed world. The fact that you paint it as "crazy" merely demonstrates that you inhabit a slice of reality which is depressingly thin and blinkered. Um, she wanted to get rid of airplanes and get people to want to use trains instead. So first, the rail would have to be high speed. Normal speed is right out. Second, there would have to be dozens of tracks going in between every city in the country to compensate for number of flights being lost. Then you'd need to go in straight lines, which means leveling entire neighborhoods, going through wildlife preserves, farms, areas where animals are endangered, national parks, native american lands, mountains, etc. THEN, all that track needs to be made from ore that is mined, smelted, shaped, carried by truck and train, and laid by heavy machinery, all spewing increased amounts of pollution for decades as we build this stuff. But that's not all!! You have to build many more trucks and freight trains than we have to compensate for the increased usage, with all the raw materials mined, transported, etc. So yet more massive increases in pollution for decades. Then we get to her idea to bring every building in america to her green standard, which would be even an even more massive increase in pollution as we mine, manufacture and transport all that is needed for the hundreds of millions of buildings that need to be updated....................for more decades. And then there's the cost for all of that.  It was a stupidly insane idea. With the amount of increased pollution, she would have destroyed the earth to save it, and faster than we are doing now. |
|
|
|
Post by libtard on Aug 30, 2022 6:19:10 GMT
There is absolutely nothing radical about the Green New Deal. It is utterly prosaic and underwhelming compared to programs proposed or already extant within Europe, Canada, NZ, Japan, Australia and South Korea - which is to say, the developed world. The fact that you paint it as "crazy" merely demonstrates that you inhabit a slice of reality which is depressingly thin and blinkered. Um, she wanted to get rid of airplanes and get people to want to use trains instead. So first, the rail would have to be high speed. Normal speed is right out. Second, there would have to be dozens of tracks going in between every city in the country to compensate for number of flights being lost. Then you'd need to go in straight lines, which means leveling entire neighborhoods, going through wildlife preserves, farms, areas where animals are endangered, national parks, native american lands, mountains, etc. THEN, all that track needs to be made from ore that is mined, smelted, shaped, carried by truck and train, and laid by heavy machinery, all spewing increased amounts of pollution for decades as we build this stuff. But that's not all!! You have to build many more trucks and freight trains than we have to compensate for the increased usage, with all the raw materials mined, transported, etc. So yet more massive increases in pollution for decades. Then we get to her idea to bring every building in america to her green standard, which would be even an even more massive increase in pollution as we mine, manufacture and transport all that is needed for the hundreds of millions of buildings that need to be updated....................for more decades. And then there's the cost for all of that. It was a stupidly insane idea. With the amount of increased pollution, she would have destroyed the earth to save it, and faster than we are doing now. It would require ingenuity, decades, and around $100T dollars to accomplish. The generational benefits would be staggering - not necessarily AOC's plan specifically, in all of its details, but something equally ambitious. What America lacks is the political will to make any kind of investment in its infrastructure, its human capital, and its children's future. It's the same reason your education system sucks and your healthcare system is borked. |
|
