WOW! I, don't know what to say. If a judge gives a minor PERMISSION to have an abortion, he/she gets named? So does that mean judges will need around the clock protection? Doesn't that get expensive? This is being written by the party of 'fiscal conservatives' afterall. Is it just 'fair game' on any judge who does give permission. Kinda like the abortion doctors who are FAIR GAME, now the judges are too?? UNADULTERATED HARASSMENT. Texas Bill Would Name Judges Who Give Minors Permission to Have Abortions "It's about punishing judges," one critic warns. By Molly Redden | Fri Apr. 3, 2015 6:00 AM EDT Abortion rights supporters jostle with protesters at the Texas state capitol in 2013. Tamir Kalifa/AP The last time Texas lawmakers met in the state capitol, it was to pass the mammoth anti-abortion bill that was the target of state Sen. Wendy Davis' all-night filibuster. Now the Legislature is in session again after a year-and-a-half-long recess, and conservatives are pushing a slew of new measures that would make it harder for women to end pregnancies. Two of these bills would publicize the names of judges who give minors permission to obtain abortionsa step that critics say would put judges under intense pressure, or even jeopardize their safety. In 38 states, it is illegal for a minor to terminate a pregnancy without one parent's knowledge. (Some of those 38 states go further, and require a parent's permission.) Girls who are afraid or unable to involve their parents can ask a judge for permission instead. This confidential process, which the Supreme Court helped establish in the late '70s and early '80s, is called judicial bypass. Since 2010, when Republicans captured a record number of legislative bodies and governors' seats, lawmakers in several states have passed laws that limit the counties where a minor can petition for bypass or forbid anyone other than lawyers or court staffsuch as an aunt or a teacherfrom helping a young woman obtain one. And Alabama has approved a harsh new measureblocked in courtthat requires district attorneys to cross-examine minors who want to get abortions. But Texas is the first state in recent memory to consider naming the judges who rule on bypass cases. One bill, introduced by Republican Rep. Ron Simmons, would name the judges outright. Another proposal, authored by fellow Republican Rep. Geanie Morrison, would list the courts that grant bypass petitions. Since some courts have just a few judges, Morrison's bill would make it easier for abortion foes to identify and pressure judges who give minors permission to get abortions. Morrison did not respond to requests for comment, and Simmons declined to comment. Proponents of the bills have argued that they would bring accountability to the bypass process. Critics say that the bills are aimed at discouraging judges from participating in bypass hearings. "This isn't about transparency in the petition process. It's about punishing judges," warns Susan Hays, a Texas attorney who works with a nonprofit group called Jane's Due Process to represent minors in bypass cases. Texas, she notes, elects its judges. "We pass these bills, and suddenly you don't even have this option in huge swaths of the state." Several thousand minors have abortions in Texas each year. But few of them use the bypass process. Many of the young women who use the bypass system have been physically abused by a parent or have a mother or father who threatened to kick them out of the house if they ever got pregnant. Some are caretakers for their parents. Others are estranged from them: "Mom's dead, Dad's in prison, they never liked me much anyway," is how Hays, the attorney, has described these cases. But if the state were to start naming judges, many would become unwilling to participate in the process, Hays argues. "Some of these courthouses already refuse to hear the girls' petitions, which is eight shades of illegal, but what are we going to do about it?" she says. "Now, if it's going to be public which judges are doing these, you're going to have girls with nowhere to go." Texas Republicans have tried before to out the judges who make these sensitive rulings. In 2005, Republican Rep. Phil King introduced a bill that would have not only publicized judges' names and rulings, but also would have altered the law to make transcripts of the hearings available to the public. Opponents of the bill objected, noting that bypass hearing transcripts often contain enough information about a minor, such as the name of her school and a description of her home life, to make her identifiable to people who know her. http://www.motherjones.com/politics...ges-who-give-minors-permission-have-abortions
Ironic. Gay libs and their cadre anxious to 'out' people who do not wish to support a gay lifestyle - celebrates scary repercussions for those unfortunate victims of the gay mafia. Objects when the opinions of liberal judges are exposed similarly. Ironic.
1. Dishonest thread title as usual from this OP. The article states very clearly that the bill would out judges who give abortion permission TO MINORS, not generally. Don't be fooled by dishonest thread titles. Personally, I think it -should be- public record when a minor gets permission from a judge to have an abortion, just redacting the minor's identity. Voters have a right to know information about elected judges. 2. Just looked up Mother Jones on Politifact, truly atrocious history of half truths and worse. Of 46 Mother Jones stories and statements covered, only TWO were entirely true according to Politifact. This means that there's only a 1:23 chance of stories from Mother Jones of the type evaluated by Politifact being wholly true. WOW, abysmal. 22 of 46 stories were "mostly false" or worse. Abominable. Why would -anyone- take such a source seriously to comment on -anything-? Why would anyone waste their time reading it? http://www.politifact.com/search/?q=mother jones&page=1
