JUNEAU, Alaska - An Alaska judge on Tuesday ordered the lieutenant governor to rewrite ballot language for a proposed abortion initiative that critics challenged as misleading but stopped short of keeping the measure off the ballot this year.
The dispute stems from the language used in petition signature booklets for the proposed initiative. The measure would require parental notice or consent before a minor can have an abortion, with certain exceptions.
Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest and ACLU of Alaska argued the language used was misleading and that it didn't state the initiative would restrict existing rights or potentially subject doctors to penalties. A minor currently does not need to notify a parent before obtaining an abortion.
Superior Court Judge Frank Pfiffner ordered Lt. Gov. Craig Campbell to write an "accurate" summary making clear those two points, plus noting the proposed initiative "revalidates" a parental consent law struck down by the state Supreme Court as unconstitutional because it didn't provide the least restrictive impact on a minor's right to privacy.
"The critical point is that summaries can be inaccurate from omission, as well as commission," the judge in Anchorage wrote. "The problem in this case is not what the lieutenant governor said; it is what he didn't say."
Campbell was traveling Tuesday and not immediately available for comment. The executive director of ACLU of Alaska, Jeffrey Mittman, said his side is reviewing the ruling and deciding whether to appeal.
Jim Minnery, the chair of Alaskans for Parental Rights, called the lawsuit "a desperate attempt by Planned Parenthood to prevent this common sense issue from being voted on by Alaskans."
The Division of Elections last week reported verifying that the initiative's sponsors had gathered more than enough signatures to get the measure on the ballot.
Most young girls are impregnated by older boyfriends who are delighted by current laws regarding parental notification.
If Doris truly believes that a child mature enough to have sex is mature enough to make the decision to abort her fetus, then why not pursue legislation to reduce the age of consent to 12 years old?
Let me try this approach:
The law stipulates that minors, convicted of crimes, are held to a different set of standards, because they lack the maturity, understanding, and self control, to be punished the same as adults.
The law also forbids minors, to vote, enter into legal contracts, obtain drivers licenses, join the armed services, or even smoke cigarettes, and drink alcohol, all because again, they lack the maturity, understanding and control, to do so.
The law must be consistent. It can not be swayed and prodded by special interests in order to further an agenda.
The law cannot deny that the decision, as controversial as it is, to have an abortion, is a major one, that requires a great deal of wisdom, maturity and rational thought, to make. It carries the potential for a life time of guilt and depression as a result, from a hasty, and thoughtless act, that minors are apt and likely to make, without guidance.
Many young woman, would likely believe their parents would be very angry over the news of their child being pregnant. This fear can translate into a bad decision, simply out of fear for what they "think" may happen. In many cases, though a parent might be upset, the joy and love over a grandchild, and of the child, often mitigates the situation.
These are things a minor cannot hope to know or understand, until the conversation takes place. It is not for abortion rights activists, to help a child make this decision. It is the guardians who love the child, that are to decide what is best. If the family has dis-functionality, and the courts deem necessary, then it falls to a guardian ad-litem to counsel the minor of her options and ramifications. But SOMEONE has to give legal consent, for a minor have any medical procedure done of this magnitude.
One last note regarding privacy. If an adult picks up another persons computer, guesses the password and begins accessing the contents, there are laws that will punish that person. If on the other hand, a parent, does the same thing to their child's computer, no such law would punish the parents.
In no place, have I ever witnessed any situation that places the child's privacy OVER the rights of the parents to insure the child's safety and well-being.
It's based on this list of legal standards with regards to minors, that I'd have to argue to a court that any legal protections allowing minors to obtain abortions without parental consent, do not bear up to the consistency of legal standards set forth in all other laws regarding minors, and must therefore be abolished.
My name's Matthew Erickson.. I'm not a lawyer, but I've watched a few episodes of Law and Order, The Paper Chase, and Boston Legal.
I don't care what the law may say, I'd challenge it in court and sue the pants off any medical facility, and staff, who performed an abortion on my child without consent.
From a civil stand point, no minor can be legally bound by a contract, thus any medical releases signed, would be invalid.
You can't even join the armed forces, while a minor, without consent.
This is just insane!
This initiative does not even address the issue or parental consent. It simply requires that parents be notified prior to the performance of an abortion on a minor child.
Abortion is a major medical procedure that has a lasting effect on the mother of the baby. Clearly, parents have a right to be involved in such a major decision regarding such a serious matter.