Ohio Federal Court Rules To Uphold The Natural Right of Parents Over Minors

I read a short 9/15/2005 article in LifeNews.Com about a director of an abortionist clinic named Carol Westfall whom after hearing a court case go against her organization and the ACLU in a U.S. District Court in Cincinnati stated that the Judge Sandra Beckwith should be lynched. She did this after the later give a 24 hour window for abortion clinics to comply with Ohio law on parental and informed consent.


Unlike Tony Perkins, the LifeNews.com reporter I am certain that Carol Westfall did not violate the law that forbids the threatening a federal judge under penalty of serving time in jail or a large fine. In fact such “threats” are an American tradition and a right under the First Amendment which was actually written to protect political speech. I am not saying a direct threat such as saying for an example I am going to kill Judge so and so is free speech. What I am saying is that saying a judge ought to be hung or that even hanging an effigy of a judge, such as the Sons of Liberty did, are protected by the First Amendment. If her use of free speech significantly violated any of the reasons given for the establishment of the Constitution or other rights then it should be illegal. I see no indication it had any real effect beyond possibly causing the judge to reconsider her judgment and create a wider window of time in which the abortion clinics had to comply with the law. Freedom of speech is a natural law that is dependent on the freedom of liberty and pursuit of happiness mentioned in the Declaration of Independence and its protection is one reasons why governments exist and if they become destructive of that or any other end it is the right of the people to abolish it.


On the other hand The Natural Right are backed up by the Declaration of Independence. The Right of Parents consent over their children's actions is mentioned as such in John Locke’s “Two Treatises of Government” . In addition William Blackstone often mentions the age of consent when children to longer need their parents agreement on making decisions such as marriage. The age of consent of a state and the reasons for overriding that consent should be uniform throughout a state but otherwise history has shown that teenagers are occasionally freed of the parents wishes if they are able to take care of themselves or both parents are unfit. If the later is the case than it is the duty of a judge to remove them from their parents custody and appoint guardians for them who will have consent over them. In the earlier case the can be emancipated from their parents or guardians and thus bare responsibility for themselves. In both cases the Constitution is clear that no one either the daughter or her parents can be deprived of their life, liberty, or property without due process of law which introduces a new wrinkle into the situation.


By the Constitution and the Natural Laws mentioned in the Declaration of Independence both the parents and daughter have the natural right to liberty and property yet the daughters rights are subject to her parents as by nature her brain has not completely matured. This maturation is not complete until sometime in a minor’s early twenties according to scientific studies, but as in general as a society we consider that at 18 as the age of consent. The purpose of parental rights is that parents being more mature and loving are able to choose the best course of action for their child while the child ability to choose is incapacitated due to lack of development.


Lisa A. Abraham at Beacon Journal in a 9/9/2005 article reports the following about the democratically passed Ohio law finally being put in to place.

Under the old law, the parents of a juvenile had to be notified about their daughter's planned abortion. However, a juvenile could go to a judge to seek an order allowing her to have the procedure without telling her parents. She had to convince the judge that the abortion was in her best interest, that she would face abuse by having to tell her parents or that she was mature enough to make the decision.


The new law requires that at least one parent give his or her consent to the abortion. Girls are still free to go to court to ask a judge for an order to bypass that consent requirement, but the abuse defense can no longer be used.

As you can see it supports the national rights of parents but the removal of the abuse exception makes sense provided Ohio law allows for minors to escape from unfit parents in another way. A minor should be able to challenge their parents fitness to make decisions for them and if not have a court ordered guardian appointed. The criteria for choosing that guardian should be laid out in law to help alleviate the risk of bias on the part of the judge. The greatest error I see in the law is it provides a way for the parents due process of law rights to be violated by having secret hearings. I can not blame the lawmakers for this breach of the Constitution as the federal judiciary insist that such an exception is Constitutional. The judiciary need to stop relying on precedent and start looking at maintenance what the Constitution and the law really say in order to stop such contradictions and thus uphold the Rule of Law.


According to the report in Beacon Journal the new law also does the following,

It also requires adults seeking abortions to meet in person with a doctor at least 24 hours beforehand to get a description of the procedure and information about alternatives. Under the former law, that information could be given over the phone or by videotape.

This makes sense to me because it is interest of the state that women make an informed decision when using their right to liberty. It does not make sense to me that the Supreme Court chose to violate the natural right to life of children that are yet in their mothers womb. A right that is retained by the people and written in the law that was practiced not only at that time the Constitution became law but at the time Roe v. Wade was decided.