here is the supreme ct talking about why, even though minors can be denied other rights, the right to an abortion is more imperative:
[INDENT]The abortion decision differs in important ways from other decisions that may be made during minority. The need to preserve the constitutional right and the unique nature of the abortion decision, especially when made by a minor, require a State to act with particular sensitivity when it legislates to foster parental involvement in this matter.
The pregnant minor's options are much different from those facing a minor in other situations, such as deciding whether to marry. A minor not permitted to marry before the age of majority is required simply to postpone her decision. She and her intended spouse may preserve the opportunity for later marriage should they continue to desire it. A pregnant adolescent, however, cannot preserve for long the possibility of aborting, which effectively expires in a matter of weeks from the onset of pregnancy.
Moreover, the potentially severe detriment facing a pregnant woman . . . is not mitigated by her minority. Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622, 642 (1979).[/INDENT]
basically, they say if the minor can't wait until majority to exercise a right because the damage would already be done, the right should be granted to them. it strikes me that a similar argument could be made for political rights (and, by extension, a lot of first amendment rights). for example, if you're denied the right to vote, you can't just vote when you turn 18 and make up the difference — people will have already been elected and laws will have already been passed; you may gain the right to vote later, but yoru right to vote in THAT election cannot be preserved. if someone is 17 and can't vote for president, they will have to spend 3 years as a legal voter under that president's administration, with all the potentially severe detriment that entails.
thoughts?
Login 
Register 
Forum
You know, I never actually thought about that! I guess great minds think alike… Perhaps this is something that someone in theNYRA can look into. Sometimes making a good argument requires versatility, and tying connected view points. In laymen's term, I agree!
