8/26/99

The 14 yr Old ABORTION Issue Rages on in AZ. FRONT PAGE of the Newspaper-HEADLINE Once Again. Story below. from THE ARIZONA REBUPLIC.

I feel no further COMMENT is required from myself. Just read the Stories below.

Abortion furor intensifies

Hull defends move to send teen out of state

Jane Hull

By Chris Moeser
and Karina Bland
The Arizona Republic
Aug. 26, 1999

Gov. Jane Hull on Wednesday defended her decision to let a teenager who is 23 weeks pregnant be sent out of state for an abortion, saying it's in the child's best interests to resolve the matter quickly.

Hull also disputed critics' claims that the abortion violates Arizona law and stressed that the 14-year-old herself chose the procedure after reviewing all her options.

The decision created an uproar among abortion foes, who flooded radio talk shows and lawmakers' offices with outraged calls.

House Speaker Jeff Groscost, R-Mesa, and other legislators continued to criticize Hull's decision Wednesday. But the governor refused demands to appeal the court order, issued Friday, requiring officials to take the girl to a state where abortions are performed after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

Abortions are not currently performed in Arizona after 20 weeks.

FOR MORE INFO

  • Teen sent out of state to undergo abortion

  • Post your views on the message board
  • Hull added that Attorney General Janet Napolitano told her there was little room to appeal the judge's order. Napolitano herself said the court order prohibited her from commenting.

    "I think abortion is wrong. I don't like abortion," Hull said. ". . . We can draw lines in the sand, but are we going to draw lines in that child's life? I think we have to let the process move forward."

    The governor added, "My gut feeling is tremendous sympathy for this child, for what she's gone through since she was 5. What can we do at this point? There's a court order."

    Abortion-rights advocates rallied to the state's defense Wednesday, agreeing with Hull that state officials are acting legally in assisting the child.

    They also demanded an immediate investigation of how information about the case, which by law is confidential, was leaked to the press.

    New details also emerged about the girl, who has been a ward of the court since age 5.

    FYI

    Here's how Maricopa County Superior Court came to grant an Arizona 14-year-old an abortion out-of-state.

  • The girl's court-appointed guardian requested the abortion after discovering that the child had been raped or had sex with an adult, which is statutory rape.

  • The girl, a chronic runaway, told the court that she used myriad illegal drugs during her pregnancy.

  • The girl's mother died in January, and her body was found near the Glendale Municipal Airport, according to police reports.

  • The girl's father is in prison, and no other adult relative is willing or able to care for her.

  • The guardian and others talked to the girl about her options, including giving up the baby for adoption.

  • After a hearing, Judge William Sargeant determined that it was in the girl's best interest that she have an abortion. The girl, who was at the hearing, reiterated her wish to have the procedure.

  • At Gov. Jane Hull's request, a veteran Child Protective Services caseworker met with the girl again Tuesday to go over her options in detail. The girl also met with a psychologist and was examined by a Phoenix doctor.

  • The girl continued to insist she wanted an abortion.

    There has been no request that the matter be reconsidered. The girl's court records have been sealed.

    Sources: Presiding Judge Maurice Portley of the court's Juvenile Division and others. -- The Associated Press

  • Presiding Judge Maurice Portley of Maricopa County Juvenile Court said the girl's court-appointed guardian, an attorney, requested the abortion after discovering that the child had been raped or had sex with an adult, which is statutory rape.

    The girl is a chronic runaway who told the court that she used myriad illegal drugs during her pregnancy, Portley said.

    The girl's mother died in January, and her body was found near the Glendale Municipal Airport, according to police reports. The 39-year-old woman was last seen the day before in the 7100 block of North 80th Avenue in the company of a man. Glendale police still are investigating.

    The girl's father is in prison. Portley said no other adult relatives are willing or able to care for her.

    The guardian and others talked to the girl about her options, including giving up the baby for adoption, Portley said.

    And, at Hull's request, a veteran Child Protective Services caseworker met with the child again Tuesday to go over the child's options in detail. The girl also met with a psychologist and was examined by a Phoenix doctor.

    "The caseworker that was sent in yesterday at my request was an experienced person who had dealt with this and could give the girl her options," Hull said.

    The girl continued to insist that she wanted an abortion.

    After a hearing, Judge William Sargeant of Maricopa County Superior Court determined that it was in the girl's best interest that she have an abortion, Portley said. The girl, who was at the hearing, reiterated her wish to have the procedure.

    Portley said he hasn't received any requests that the matter be reconsidered. The girl's court records have been sealed.

    Hull, who opposes abortion rights in most cases, said the child's wishes should be respected.

    "She, too, has to have a choice in her future," Hull said. "I would be almost as frightened of government as I am if government made decisions for everybody."

    Abortion opponents continued calls for the state to appeal the decision. Bishop Thomas O'Brien of the Catholic Diocese of Phoenix issued a statement expressing his "horror and outrage."

    "I must also express my grave disappointment with the governor and the relevant state agencies for their failure to appeal this ruling," O'Brien wrote.

    Abortion-rights supporters, however, said state officials were doing nothing wrong by complying with the court order. They disputed critics' assertions that it was against state law to perform abortions after 20 weeks in Arizona.

    Although no doctors currently perform the procedure at that stage of pregnancy in Arizona, there is no specific requirement that cuts off abortions after 20 weeks, said Joseph Feldman of Planned Parenthood of Central and Northern Arizona.

    The standard, Feldman said, is whether the fetus is able to survive outside the womb. That determination is made by the doctor, he added.

    "This abortion would not be illegal in Arizona," Feldman said.

    Abortion opponents also had argued Tuesday that taking the girl out of state for the abortion violates a state law that forbids the use of state funds for abortions. But state officials have said the procedure would be paid for with federal funds, a point Hull reiterated Wednesday.
    Photo of Abortion protesters

    Paul F. Gero/The Arizona Republic

    Abortion protesters Jeff Schulte (from left), Adbid Badilla and Deacon Tom Bills gather at the state Capitol on Wednesday night.

    "Not one penny of state funds is being used," Hull said.

    Federal funds can be used for abortions for the poor in cases of rape, incest or if the mother's life is endangered.

    Abortion-rights supporters, in letters to Hull and Napolitano, trained their fire on abortion foes, demanding to know how details of the case were leaked.

    In letters to Hull and Napolitano, Bruce Miller and Brian Finkel highlighted comments by abortion opponent John Jakubczyk in Wednesday's Arizona Republic in which Jakubczyk said he had been tipped off by officials familiar with the girl's situation.

    "A crime has been committed," said Finkel, a doctor who provides abortions. "We have state or court employees who have knowingly violated the rights of a child."

    Jakubczyk, president of Arizona Right to Life, said abortion-rights supporters are diverting attention from the real issue at hand.

    Hull said she will attempt to find out who leaked the information.

    Sen. Sue Grace, chairwoman of the Senate Health Committee, agreed that state officials need to find out who leaked the information.

    "It's a privacy issue. How did they find out?" asked Grace, R-north Central Phoenix. "This poor girl, even though her name is not being used, knows we're talking about her. I'd like to see her pain diminished as much as possible and be done with it."

    ***

    2nd STORY from the ARIZONA REPUBLIC ON THE FRONT PAGE TODAY.

    8/25/99

    ONLY 4 MORE MONTHS FOR CHRISTMAS SHOPPING!!!!

    Man Oh Man is Talk Radio all abuzz over the Headline in todays Arizona Republic. Read the story below. But First I have clarifications to the story since printed. The "girl" had "consensual sex", but LEGALLY She can't have "consensual sex". So the STATE (AZ) calls it RAPE (Statutory Rape). Age of the fetus reported in the paper is 20 weeks. New info raises it to at least 23 weeks, and as much as 27 weeks (nearly 7 months). The STATE is the "GUARDIAN" of this girl. So a judge has ordered the "girl" to be taken OUT OF ARIZONA to have an ABORTION, because STATE LAW FORBIDS ABORTIONS after 23 weeks. This law was passed recently in response to an ABORTION MILL botching an ABORTION of an underage "girl" that "THEY" determined was at 23 weeks gestation. It turned out to be 37 weeks (over 8 months). The "ABORTED" Fetus was ALIVE after the "ABORTION", with massive deformities caused by the "ABORTION".
    The Citizens of ARIZONA outraged at this passed NEW LAWS to prevent this. NOW THE "GUARDIAN" of this "girl" THE STATE OF ARIZONA, is going to send this "girl" OUT OF STATE for an ABORTION ILLEGAL in ARIZONA. Talk about a HEATED CONTROVERSY on local TV NEWS and RADIO today. HERE is the ORIGINAL Story in Todays Paper, w/o the updated INFO .

    Teen sent out of state to undergo abortion 14-year-old ward of court is 23 weeks pregnantBy Chris Moeser The Arizona Republic Aug. 25, 1999  A Maricopa County Superior Court judge has ordered state child welfare officials to take a 14-year-old girl who is 23 weeks pregnant out of state for an abortion. The abortion must be performed outside Arizona because a new state law has essentially eliminated abortions in most cases after 20 weeks of pregnancy.  The ruling has outraged abortion opponents, who say the decision violates state law that forbids state money being spent on abortions. But state child protection officials and representatives for Gov. Jane Hull say the action is legal and is the only option available after the court order was issued.  The girl, who reportedly has been in the state child welfare system since she was 5 years old, became a ward of the court after apparently running away repeatedly from foster parents and group homes.  Her name was not released by state officials because names of children in foster care are kept confidential. "Obviously, this is a very tragic situation," said Francie Noyes, a spokeswoman for Hull. "The girl is a ward of the court. The court is acting in the role of the parents and obviously (the Department of Economic Security) will follow its orders. . . . The court did order to terminate the pregnancy . . . out of state."  Noyes said the procedure would likely be performed "fairly soon," but she did not provide any additional information.  Lawmakers who oppose abortion, meanwhile, say the state hasn't done enough to overturn the decision.  "We're extremely outraged," House Speaker Jeff Groscost said. "They're trying to take the child across the state line for a purpose and that purpose is . . . they can't do it here. I'm very disappointed that at the very least we haven't had an appeal."  Senate Majority Leader Rusty Bowers, R-Mesa, is vowing to fight the confirmation next year of DES head John Clayton if nothing is done to stop it. Abortion opponents say the ruling is intentionall skirting the state law that forbids state money to pay for abortions unless the procedure is needed to save the life of the mother.  The details in the case are sketchy, but the order was issued this month by Judge William Sargeant, who could not be reached for comment. According to John Jakubczyk, the president of Arizona Right to Life, the girl, along with her court-appointed advocate, requested that she receive an abortion when she was 14-weeks pregnant.  Jakubczyk said he learned of the case after being tipped off by officials familiar with the girl's situation.  Jakubczyk said the girl ran away and didn't resurface until last week. At that point, Sargeant ordered Child Protective Services to transport the girl to another state, most likely California, that performs abortions at that stage of pregnancy.  Federal law allows abortions to be performed in cases of rape or incest as well as danger to the mother.  The girl, according to Jakubczyk, told court officials she had been raped. In addition, statutory rape laws say that any sexual activity for 14-year-olds can be considered rape. That qualifies for the exception under the federal law, according to Sally Ordini, a DES spokeswoman.  Ordini would not comment specifically on the case. But she said the both medical and transportation costs in these types of cases would be covered by federal Medicaid funds, meaning no state funds are involved.  She added that the state is required to provide health care for those in its charge.  "Any child that is in state custody, the state covers their medical expenses. If a judge orders the state to provide and pay for medical care for a child who is dependent on the state and it's legal, then we have to carry it out," Ordini said.  "DES doesn't make these decisions."  She added that if a child in state custody needed eye surgery and Boston was the only place that care was available, the state would cover the care.  But Rep. Laura Knaperek, R-Tempe, pointed out that only two states, California and Kansas, perform abortions at this stage of pregnancy.  "That to me is a big signal there is an issue with an over 20-week abortion," she said. "Here we have people claiming they're acting in the best interests of the child perhaps doing the opposite."  Knaperek blasted state officials for not doing enough to fight Sargeant's order, saying "they would have found a way" to appeal it if they truly opposed it.  Jakubczyk wonders how many times situations like this have occurred at CPS. Because most juvenile records are sealed, it's difficult for the public to get information on these cases, he said.  He also questions why the child wasn't adopted and instead left in the child welfare system. Jakubczyk said her mother was murdered when she was younger and her father is in prison.  "How much she's making the decision, who knows? I've got real questions about who's consenting and who's forcing," he said.  Groscost vows a careful review of DES if the girl receives an abortion. He argues it may be safer and less expensive for the girl to undergo a Caesarean section.  "By the time this is over there will be a full accounting of how this abortion proceeded. Their ducks better be in a row. The better have tried to fully comply with state law," he said.  Noyes said state officials are simply out of options. 
     "The people that are working in the girl's best interests believe this is the best interests," she said. "The court agreed and did issue the order." 
    

    AND ARIZONA IS A CONSERVATIVE STATE, What is actually happening in the LIBERAL STATES???

    8/24/99

    First thing, HEY T.D. at the "SECRET LAB", Glad you are better, but Please DON'T bring your "baby" to work!!! Size and weight is enough.... LOL!!! Inside Secret Lab Joke.

    Now to the issue of the day I wish to comment on. All of you who keep up on what I put up here know I am "SENSITVE" to SMOKER RIGHTS. Well today in the Arizona Republic there are signs that the new "LAW" banning TOBACCO products from School Grounds and Functions is GENERATING an uproar, so much that the IDIOTIC STATE LEGISLATURE is showing signs of "RECONSIDERING". Let me also tell you that the AZ STATE LEGISLATURE has NEVER been accused of being "SMART". The proposal is: TO CHANGE the word, "POSSESION", to, "USE". Here is the story from "THE ARIZONA REPUBLIC".

    Tobacco law wording targeted
    
                  Word change a possibility in campus tobacco ban
    
                  By Lori Baker 
                  The Arizona Republic 
                  Aug. 24, 1999 
    
                  State Rep. Linda Gray
                  believes a new state law
                  banning tobacco
                  products on school
                  campuses goes too far,
                  and she plans to
                  introduce legislation to
                  change it. 
    
                  Gray, R-Glendale, a former Washington Elementary School District
                  board member, said a one-word change would make the
                  difference. Instead of prohibiting the "possession" of tobacco
                  products, she proposes that the law would be changed to bar the
                  "use" of tobacco products on school campuses. 
    
                  But the Legislature doesn't come back into session until January
                  and it could take months to get a bill through. 
    
                  The new law, which took effect this summer, makes it a petty
                  offense to carry cigarettes onto school campuses -- even if they
                  aren't lighted and are hidden away in a pocket, purse or parked
                  car. 
    
                  Tobacco products are banned in school buses and buildings,
                  parking lots and playing fields, and at school-sponsored events off
                  campus. 
    
                  School employees or parents caught with cigarettes on campus or
                  at school-sponsored events will likely escape with a warning the
                  first time, district officials said. But repeated offenses could mean a
                  ticket, and disciplinary action for district employees. 
    
                  "I don't think anybody (school district officials) will go overboard in
                  enforcing this law," Gray said. 
    
                  Readers contacting The Arizona Republic in response to an article
                  published Thursday on the law had varying views about a ban on
                  tobacco products. Some praised it while others said it's a violation
                  of the constitutional rights of adults. 
    
                  "I hate the smell of a burning cigarette but I don't believe it is right
                  to try and control when someone can smoke," Chandler resident
                  Brian Hovin said. "It's still that individual's choice and their
                  constitutional right or should be." 
    
                  But Mesa resident Sean P. Murphy said he strongly supports the
                  new law. 
    
                  "Why do smokers think it is OK to wreck other people's lungs? I
                  don't smoke. I have breathing problems and sometimes can't
                  breathe when I walk into a room full of smoke," he said. "Should
                  children have to avoid school so they could breathe?" 

    Remember this law is for POSSESION, not use. It is ALREADY AGAINST THE LAW TO SMOKE ON SCHOOL GROUNDS in ARIZONA!!!

    To SASSY at the "SECRET LAB", I still think you owe me $2 for spaghetti today. And to L.C. You owe me at LEAST a BEER and a PIZZA at the Cardinals Football Game. 10 yr Season Ticket Holder, I DESERVE A PERK!!! 8/23/99

    Hello again, I hope you all had an enjoyable weekend. I did. And also I finally replaced my DEAD Microwave Oven with a NEW one. Cost Me $80. The $60 one was just to small.
    Of coarse I was at the PHX Cardinals / Tenn. Titans Football Game Friday night. We won, a scary moment when Jake Plummer went down, at least it's not serious. I was impressed with Backup QB Dave Browm, and Rookie Grieson. At least it appears if Jake gets hurt, we can still win. AZ Diamondbacks still rolling. Looks like post-season playoffs are in their future.
    Now for a bit of commentary. As you all know I live in Mesa, AZ. Home of the strictest anti-smoking laws in the country. Well I went to BEST BUY on Sun. to replace my DEAD Microwave Oven. Tell me... What do YOU think is worse? To step on a cigarrette Butt in the parking lot when it is 105 degrees, or to step on CHEWING GUM in the Parking lot when it is 105 degrees out?
    I SAY IF YOU WANT TO BAN SMOKES, THEN ALSO BAN GUM!!!! I spent over an HOUR trying to get all the gum off my $80 shoes. A cigarrette butt would not have even been noticed. And I STILL DON'T Have all the GUM out!!!
    Now let me revisit last week's decision by the NEW JERSEY STATE SUPREME COURT on the BOY SCOUTS and GAY LEADERSHIP. First I totally support the right af GROUPS to get together. I do not support the actions of GROUPS to be allowed to join and be accepted by FORCE by other groups. REMEMBER these are PRIVATE GROUPS. I BELIEVE the BOY SCOUTS has a RIGHT to ban GAYS from their Organization, especially LEADERSHIP ROLES like SCOUTMASTER. I was a Boy Scout, started in Cub Scouts, went to Webelo's, then Boy Scouts. The Atheists want this PRIVATE Organization to ELIMINATE references to GOD. These "RADICAL" GAYS want references of FAMILY eliminated. FROM A PRIVATE GROUP/CLUB/ORGANIZATION. The reason I said "RADICAL GAYS" is because that is the fact. I know some GAY people, I consider some of them my friends, because this friendship is not based on this issue alone, just like I have NON SMOKERS as friends, or MORMONS that I consider a CULT. Also people that are ANTI-Gun I have as friends.
    But let's look at it this way. Should AA (Alcoholics Anonymous) be FORCED to let in a LEADER who is not alcoholic, but drinks BEER every day? Should a Male Org like the ELKS be forced to allow women into a MEN'S ORG? Should the Catholic Church be FORCED to allow a MUSLIM to be an ALTER BOY? Should Hunting Clubs be forced to allow ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS in their CLUB to give a different Viewpoint?
    I SAY ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! WE HAVE THE RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION with others who think as we, you or I do, whatever it may be. IT IS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. I am Catholic, Should I be Able to force the Mormons to let me into their MORMON ONLY practices? I THINK NOT. SHOULD ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS be ALLOWED TO VOTE? I THINK NOT!!! But the Extremist LIBERALS would say YES.
    But remember the EXTREMIST LIBERALS want to keep ALIVE DEATH ROW INMATES CONVICTED OF TERRIBLE CRIMES, but SUPPORT the KILLING of INNOCENT LIVES before they are BORN.
    We got to get things fixed here. Because if we don't, this Country, known as AMERICA, will see the same fate as the ROMAN EMPIRE.......DESTROYED BY IT'S OWN DEVICES, like the GREEKS, and BABALOYNIANS. This doesn't have to happen, we need to wake up!!! The CONSTITUTION works!!!! We need to shut up and vote out the LIBERAL EXTREMISTS, because they are the modern Day CAIN of Cain and Able in the BIBLE. I think "THE 10 COMMANDMENTS" is a VERY GOOD START.
    HATE me, LOVE me, Call me Misguided, or OLD Fashioned, I DON'T CARE!!! THIS IS WHAT will SAVE US.