• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

Last week, the California Supreme Court, in a 4-3 ruling, decided the abortion industry is better at making decisions about kids’ futures than their parents. Seriously, that’s the only way you can interpret this decision.

Oh, that’s not the way the Sacramento Bee and the Los Angeles Times and the San Francisco Chronicle played it. But you decide.

In overturning the state’s 10-year-old parental-consent law, passed by a liberal Democrat-controlled Legislature, the imperial California court, once again, totally disregarded the will of the people of the state and precedent by a previous court, not to mention common sense.

Think about it. Not too long ago, a California high school student was suspended for giving a friend a Midol tablet because she had cramps. There isn’t a school in the state that would provide a student with so much as an aspirin to relieve a headache — certainly not without a parent’s permission. And, frankly, that’s the way things ought to be.

Parents and parents alone should make decisions about how to treat even the most minimal health and medical problems of their kids. The state should stay out of it. After all, isn’t that what the abortion lobby told us all years ago? Wasn’t the reason for legalizing abortion to keep government “out of the bedroom”?

Of course, I never heard of an abortion being performed in the bedroom. So that was a specious argument to begin with. But, here, with this ruling, these hypocrites have been exposed for the umpteenth time for exactly what they are — statist population-control freaks like their totalitarian friends in Beijing.

When a teen-ager — or even pre-teen — gets pregnant, it’s evidence that the kid is irresponsible. Let’s face it. It’s a bad decision. Now the court says that only this kid, who has proven herself irresponsible already, can make a life-and-death decision for the baby she carries as a result of that bad choice. Does that make sense?

Even further, the decision means, that parents don’t even have a right to advise her of the consequences of her next decision. Only the strangers at Planned Parenthood, or more accurately, “Abortion Inc.,” are qualified to counsel the girl.

I can almost hear the objections to my line of reasoning from the abortion-at-any-cost crowd: “Well, what if the girl was raped?” This is always their retort. Of course, it’s extremely rare that a rape actually results in a pregnancy. But, for the sake of argument, let’s accept the worst-case scenario.

If a teen-ager has been raped, there’s even more reason for the parents to be fully informed. Who is going to help that child make choices about legal recourse? If, indeed, the rape has been reported, the police have already notified the parents. If the girl has not reported it, the state certainly ought to encourage her to do so — unless, of course, the state is now in the rape-protection business as well as the child-killing business.

In the majority opinion, California Chief Justice Ronald George — a Republican, Pete Wilson appointee, wrote, “No one would doubt the value to a pregnant minor of wise and caring parental guidance and support … assuming such support is available and the minor is willing to seek it.”

In other words, the imperial justices don’t trust parents to make caring and wise decisions about their children’s futures. They do, however, trust scared, irresponsible kids and wise and caring abortionists who make money off scared off irresponsible and scared kids.

Do these clowns in the Supreme Court understand that teen-age girls have died on abortionists’ tables in their state? That’s right. It happens. All too often. There are other complications from such operations, as well — sterility, a higher incidence of breast cancer, infections, emotional trauma. Who’s going to be there for that kid later? The state? The abortionist? Planned Parenthood?

So what’s next from a Supreme Court like this? Where does it stop? Will parents be trusted to make other decisions for their kids — medical, dental, nutrition, discipline, spiritual, educational? Or are those decisions better left to confused kids, the people who profit from such choices and the all-seeing, all-knowing, all-wise state?

This is a slippery slope, folks. No matter how you feel about abortion, you have to ask yourself about the implications of such a ruling. Have kids been emancipated? Are the inmates running the asylum? Are families and parents obsolete?

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.