NH Supreme Court Speaks Law into Existence out of Thin Air
Does what you believe about abortion having any bearing on the decision of your under-aged child? What if your daughter was pregnant and decided that an abortion was the best thing for her, and she was only fifteen?
This was the situation in New Hampshire. A fifteen-year-old found out she was pregnant.
Christian News reports:
In November 2012, a 15-year-old Farmington High School student—referred to as “Student A” in court documents—approached Demetria McKaig, who was a school counselor at the time. The student, along with her boyfriend, explained that she was pregnant and wanted to abort her unborn child without telling her parents, saying they were “afraid for their safety” should the girl’s parents find out.
McKaig and another school counselor met with the school principal to discuss the situation. The principal said the student should inform her parents about the pregnancy, in accordance with New Hampshire’s Parental Notification Law, which requires pregnant girls under 18 years old to inform their parents before obtaining abortions.
So with the help of the ACLU and McKaig, the student obtained a Judicial Bypass Order from the court. Because of this exception, the student was able to obtain the abortion without her parents’ knowledge. According to Christian News, McKaig, as a consequence, was fired for “insubordination, breach of student confidentiality, and neglect of duties.”
But, of course, this did not stand. The New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled that this was the wrong decision.
Christian New reports:
“We … order that McKaig be reinstated to her former employment,” the court declared in its final opinion, published Thursday. In its 4-1 decision, the court ruled that McKaig’s actions were justifiable and that she was therefore not deserving of job termination.
And the only dissenting judge hit the situation right on the head.
“What is not debatable is that the legislature did not do so; and neither the state board nor this court has the authority to decide this case as if the legislature had enacted such a privilege merely because the board or the majority of the court may believe that the legislature should have done so,” he added. “Yet that, unfortunately, is the upshot of the majority’s decision.”
This was nothing more than legislating from the bench. These judges spoke law into existence because they did not like the law as it was written. Rather than ruling according to the law they swore to uphold, they ruled according to how they thought it should read.
Article reposted with permission from Constitution.com. Article by Michael Ware.