A Florida judge has granted a 17-year-old Tampa teenager her appeal to seek an abortion without parental consent. The high school junior “lives with her father, who does not believe in abortion except in cases of rape.
She believes that both of her parents would urge her to keep the baby if they found out that she wanted an abortion,” a court filing states. Knowing her parents would likely not approve of her getting an abortion, the teenager — identified only as “Jane Doe” — applied for an exemption that would allow her to get information about medical abortion pills, according to Faithwire. Florida law mandates those under 18 years old have parental consent before discussing abortion pills with a medical doctor or taking them.
The teen’s attorney, Rinky Parwani, explained to the court that the 17-year-old Tampa high school junior works, pays for things she wants and needs (outside basic necessities provided by her father and sole caregiver, according to court records) and that she wants an abortion because she isn’t yet financially stable.
He says his client wants to enlist in the military before going to college and becoming a nurse. “That is huge for these ladies that petition the court for this,” said Parwani. “They do have futures, they understand that having a child may limit those futures in different ways.”
When considering a judicial bypass, a judge is to consider seven factors regarding the petitioner, including “overall intelligence; emotional development and stability; credibility and demeanor as a witness; ability to accept responsibility; ability to assess both the immediate and long-range consequences of the minor’s choices; and ability to understand and explain the medical risks of terminating her pregnancy and to apply that understanding to her decision.” Judge Jared Smith denied her request, citing concerns she wasn’t being forthcome about her GPA. An excerpt from the appeal reads:
In the present case, the circuit court noted that the Petitioner is seventeen years old. However, addressing her “overall intelligence,” the court found her intelligence to be less than average because “[w]hile she claimed that her grades were ‘Bs’ during her testimony, her GPA is currently 2.0. Clearly, a ‘B’ average would not equate to a 2.0 GPA.” The court reasoned, “Petitioner’s testimony evinces either a lack of intelligence or credibility, either of which weigh against a finding of maturity pursuant to the statute.”
Upon appeal, however, Judge Darryl Casanueva wrote for the 2-1 majority, “The petitioner’s testimony demonstrates that she possesses an ability to assess the consequences of her choice and the risk it entails, as well as the intention to reassess her decision after consultation with her physician.”
