Shhhhhhh. Don't tell anyone, we won't.

[coyotes_geek]

I couldn't find much on the actual ruling. I would have loved to read the judges opinions on the case. The only thing I found was some passing verbiage that explains the basis of the ruling:
"Because the cons utional rights of minors are coextensive with the cons utional rights of adults, a minor's privacy right to an abortion cannot be subjected to an absolute parental veto" - State vs Koome, 530 P.2d 260 (1975)

From here

Thanks for the link Nono. After reading the bolded, I'm still left with the question of how one reconciles minors having a cons utional right to privacy about abortions yet the cons utionality of denying minors the right to consent to sex is never questioned. Not that I'm asking you specifically for an answer Nono. It's just goofy to me.

[ElNono]

Thanks for the link Nono. After reading the bolded, I'm still left with the question of how one reconciles minors having a cons utional right to privacy about abortions yet the cons utionality of denying minors the right to consent to sex is never questioned. Not that I'm asking you specifically for an answer Nono. It's just goofy to me.

The age of consent in Washington state is determined by the penalization of sexual conduct with a minor (RCW 9A.44.096). It's basically 16 years old, with a couple of exceptions at 18 years old.

So basically, one is criminalized and the other isn't. That's about it.

[Duff McCartney]

What's even more disturbing than this story is all the people on this forum who have no problem with it. This country is going to ...

Holy hyperbole Batman!

She's 15 years old. If it's okay to give fifteen year old children life in prison and tried as adults, then it should be okay for a 15 year old to get an abortion without her parents.

[jack sommerset]

Holy hyperbole Batman!

She's 15 years old. If it's okay to give fifteen year old children life in prison and tried as adults, then it should be okay for a 15 year old to get an abortion without her parents.

I don't think that is ok either.

[Duff McCartney]

I don't think that is ok either.

I do think it's okay. Because I know exactly what I was doing at 15 years old. Nobody is as smart as they are gonna be at 15 but it's old enough to make decisions. She's old enough to decide to have unprotected sex, and she's old enough to decide to have an abortion.

[spursncowboys]

I do think it's okay. Because I know exactly what I was doing at 15 years old. Nobody is as smart as they are gonna be at 15 but it's old enough to make decisions. She's old enough to decide to have unprotected sex, and she's old enough to decide to have an abortion.

what if she's 14 and was raped?

[Wild Cobra]

Parental consent used to be required, but was ruled uncons utional by the State Supreme Court in State v. Koome (1975). And BTW, legal abortions in Washington state were voted on (Referendum 20, 1970) and passed with 56.5% of the votes. So what you have here has nothing to do with 'lib politicians', but mere popular will.

LOL...

Here we are talking about pregnant children, and you change tracks again. The 1970 vote was not to address children, but to overturn a 1854 law that made abortion illegal.

Abortion Reform in Washington State

The Washington Territorial Legislature adopted its first abortion-related statute in 1854. The law made it illegal to “administer to any woman pregnant with a quick child any medicine, drug, or substance whatever; or use or employ any instrument or other means with intent to destroy such child, unless the same shall have been necessary to preserve the life of such mother” (Sec. 37, p. 81, Laws of Washington, 1854).

If you ask me, the appeals court went too far on abortion for minors. Judicial activism. This was not a vote of the people. Inconsistent with this as well:

Providing Health Care to Minors under Washington Law

Age limits for things other than abortion? Where is the legal consistency?

[Wild Cobra]

Thanks for the link Nono. After reading the bolded, I'm still left with the question of how one reconciles minors having a cons utional right to privacy about abortions yet the cons utionality of denying minors the right to consent to sex is never questioned. Not that I'm asking you specifically for an answer Nono. It's just goofy to me.

Same here. Consent and notification are not the same.

[ploto]

what if she's 14 and was raped?

Actually, some of those states with parental consent laws allow for abortion without parental consent in cases of sexual assault. So, a girl who has been raped has even more leeway to get the abortion without her parents' permission.

[ElNono]

LOL...

Here we are talking about pregnant children, and you change tracks again. The 1970 vote was not to address children, but to overturn a 1854 law that made abortion illegal.

Abortion Reform in Washington State

You need to read what you link to. That 1970 law also established that minors seeking abortion required parental consent. That's exactly why I brought it up. The consent requirement was then challenged and dropped in 1975 in the State vs Koome lawsuit.

If you ask me, the appeals court went too far on abortion for minors. Judicial activism. This was not a vote of the people. Inconsistent with this as well:

It wasn't an appeals court, it was the State's supreme court. I would think they have a better idea of their own state cons ution than you do.
Furthermore, it's been 35 years. They're obviously comfortable with their system, otherwise they would have a new law in place already.

[Wild Cobra]

You need to read what you link to. That 1970 law also established that minors seeking abortion required parental consent. That's exactly why I brought it up. The consent requirement was then challenged and dropped in 1975 in the State vs Koome lawsuit.

Yes, I know that. I thought you were linking it to show the voters agreed to children having abortions without parental consent with the 56.5% Yes vote.

It wasn't an appeals court, it was the State's supreme court. I would think they have a better idea of their own state cons ution than you do.

I could swear the do ent I pulled up on the case said appeals court, but that doesn't matter much. It didn't go farther and became law.

Furthermore, it's been 35 years. They're obviously comfortable with their system, otherwise they would have a new law in place already.

Sure, the liberal baby killers are. Not the population as a whole.

I find it very offensive that an activist court can find such equality for minors to adults for mature decision making when the cons ution specifically recognizes age requirements. I think if this ever went to the supreme court with a good litigator, it would be overturned. It obviously either had in incompetent attorney on the state's side, or the judges were activists. Maybe it wasn't an activist judicial system. After-all, competent lawyers can make so much more money that their counterparts working on a government salary.

[ElNono]

Sure, the liberal baby killers are. Not the population as a whole.

You're still missing the point. The court decision was 35 years ago. If the liberal baby killers have been in power for so long, it's because the population as a whole feels comfortable keeping them in power.

I find it very offensive that an activist court can find such equality for minors to adults for mature decision making when the cons ution specifically recognizes age requirements. I think if this ever went to the supreme court with a good litigator, it would be overturned. It obviously either had in incompetent attorney on the state's side, or the judges were activists. Maybe it wasn't an activist judicial system. After-all, competent lawyers can make so much more money that their counterparts working on a government salary.

What you find offensive is irrelevant. Justice deals in law, not morality. Again, that ruling was 35 years ago, and there's nothing stopping lawmakers from criminalizing underage abortion with a mere law, the same way they criminalize underage marriage. It's patently obvious that if it hasn't happened yet, it's most likely because the popular support for such a measure is not there in Washington state.

Tell me something, do you think Roe vs Wade was a good ruling by the SC?

[Wild Cobra]

Tell me something, do you think Roe vs Wade was a good ruling by the SC?

No.

It violates States Rights.

As for the other matter, the age recognition by cons ution should have been enough not to give minors equal rights to adult decision making. Also, law recognizes that parents are responsible for their children. How can they be when the government is so hypocritical on the subject?

[spursncowboys]

IMO the only people who think roe v wade was a good ruling are the ones who like the end result of the ruling.

[Wild Cobra]

IMO the only people who think roe v wade was a good ruling are the ones who like the end result of the ruling.

Yep, the lovers of infantcide.

[ElNono]

No.
It violates States Rights.

Or whatever you think State Rights are... gotcha

As for the other matter, the age recognition by cons ution should have been enough not to give minors equal rights to adult decision making. Also, law recognizes that parents are responsible for their children. How can they be when the government is so hypocritical on the subject?

Can I get a quote of that?

[ElNono]

IMO the only people who think roe v wade was a good ruling are the ones who like the end result of the ruling.

What is, in your opinion, the end result of the ruling?