Current Events & Hot Topics

Featured Posts
February 20, 2013 at 12:08 AM

Pregnant Teen Wins Abortion Battle

pregnant teen who sued her parents, claiming they were coercing her to have an abortion, will be able to give birth to her baby.

Attorneys representing the 16-year-old girl were granted a long-term injunction against the girl's parents in Texas family court on Monday, according to court documents.

The teen is 10 weeks pregnant and the injunction will last for the duration of her pregnancy.

As part of the order, the girl will be able to use her car to go to school, work and medical appointments. Her parents had taken away the use of the car as part of their effort to force an abortion, court papers stated.

The teen's parents will be liable for half of the hospital bill when she gives birth, unless she is married to the baby's 16-year-old father.

"We are extremely happy with the judge's decision today and we are very proud of our teenage client for being strong enough to stand against her parents to save her unborn child's life," Greg Terra, president of the Texas Center for Defense of Life, said in a blog post on the group's website.

Attorneys filed a lawsuit on the teen's behalf earlier this month arguing that her parents "are violating her federal constitutional rights to carry her child to term by coercing her to have an abortion with both verbal and physical threats and harassment."

The teen, identified in the lawsuit only as R.E.K. since she is a minor, was "beside herself" when she called the center for help, her lawyer Stephen Casey told last week. The group claims it has previously represented teens in similar situations and won their cases.

"These girls are in a bind, particularly in a situation where their parents are forcing them to do something they don't want to do," Casey said. "Regardless of the [situation], that's her parents and she should expect support from them in this situation, not resentment and anger."

When the pregnancy was confirmed, the teenager's father allegedly "became extremely angry, was insistent that R.E.K. was not having the baby, and that the decision was not up to her, according to the lawsuit. He stated he was going to take her to have an abortion and that the decision was his, end of story."

The teen claimed in the lawsuit that her parents had taken away her phone, pulled her out of school, forced her to get two jobs and took away her car in an effort to "make her miserable so that she would give in to the coercion and have the abortion."'

Also Read


  • booklover74
    February 20, 2013 at 10:41 PM
    I agree with the courts. She took the legal route she could in order to stop the harrasment and intimidation. She needed legal protection immediately and this was a good route. The parents were using thw car, phone and school astools in thier intimidation to try and force an abortion. Had they not been doing that the judge probably wouldnt have felt the need to make a ruling on them one way or another. As for the medical care part, the judge did them a kindness. Legally you are responsible for 100% of your childrens medical bills no matter the reason. Without his ruling they would have been responsible for all ofvthe hospital bill not 50% of it.

    She would not have meet the criteria for emancipation so it wasn't an immediate option.
  • turtle68
    February 20, 2013 at 11:00 PM

     I would never kick my kid out of the home if she was pregnant, nor would I demand an abortion.  The parents are wrong...but so is the judge IMO  He has filled that kid with more self importance than she already had.

  • fullxbusymom
    February 21, 2013 at 7:26 AM

    Because they are the ones that said she needed to go to court in the first place.  She simply called a pro life hot line on how to save her baby.  Then a lawyer called her and told her they would do it for FREE. 

    Quoting lga1965:

     How do you KNOW that?

    Quoting fullxbusymom:

    Because she did what her lawyers recommended.

    Quoting punky3175:

    Emancipation. She wanted to sue? Why not sue for emancipation to become a legally recognized adult? That would show she really did want to take FULL responsibility.

    Quoting fullxbusymom:

    Can't live on your own at 16.  By law no one can rent to anyone under 18 so how exactly do you propose she does this?

    Quoting Ktina11:

    100 % of the responsibility would be living on her own and paying all medical costs herself. She is not accepting full responsibility. She is making a grown up decision, but the judge should have required her to accept the grown up consequences. Mom and dad should not have to foot the bill for anything for the teen or the grandchild. What a bad precence to set.

    Quoting fullxbusymom:

    Wow she is still a kid and is taking 100% responsibility for herself and her unborn child.  She is far from acting spoiled!!  She is simply asking to be able to carry her baby to term and go to school!!  How is that not taking responsibility or being a spoiled brat??

    She simply wants her car to go to school and dtrs appts. I think what she is asking is completely reasonable and mature beyond her years.

    Quoting talia-mom:

    Actually they didn't.  They are allowing it for limited uses.   No right to a car for ths girl or anyone was established.

    She is a spoiled little brat who doesn't want the reality of what she put herself into.

    Quoting fullxbusymom:

    Well the fact of matter is the courts disagree with you in this case as they have stated she is to be able to have her car. 

    Quoting talia-mom:

    There is no right to a car.   None.

    Quoting fullxbusymom:

    You nor I know the answer to that.  Can only take a bus if there is one offered.  Where I live we don't have public transportation so there would be no way to get to a dtr's appt. without a car.  So yes a car would be a right not a privilege in this situation.

    Quoting AMBG825:

     who paid for it? Who is insuring it?


    I agree with you on the school. She can take the bus. A car is not a right.

    Quoting fullxbusymom:

    It was HER car and she needed it to get to dtr's appts and school.  Her parents wouldn't allow her to go to school and school is NOT a priveledge!!! 

    Quoting AMBG825:

     I like how the judge reinforced the idea that there is no personal responsibility.


    A car is a privelege not a right. A phone is a privelege and not a right.



  • littleangie
    February 21, 2013 at 5:59 PM

    Was the parent's paying for the phone and care or was the girl?

Current Events & Hot Topics

Active Posts in All Groups
More Active Posts
Featured Posts in All Groups
More Featured Posts