Teen sent out of state to undergo abortion. 14-year-old ward of court is 23 weeks pregnant
The Arizona Republic
By Chris Moeser
The Arizona Republic
Aug. 25, 1999
A Maricopa County Superior Court judge has ordered state child welfare officials to take a 14-year-old girl who is 23 weeks pregnant out of state for an abortion.
The abortion must be performed outside Arizona because a new state law has essentially eliminated abortions in most cases after 20 weeks of pregnancy.
The ruling has outraged abortion opponents, who say the decision violates state law that forbids state money being spent on abortions. But state child protection officials and representatives for Gov. Jane Hull say the action is legal and is the only option available after the court order was issued.
The girl, who reportedly has been in the state child welfare system since she was 5 years old, became a ward of the court after apparently running away repeatedly from foster parents and group homes.
Her name was not released by state officials because names of children in foster care are kept confidential.
"Obviously, this is a very tragic situation," said Francie Noyes, a spokeswoman for Hull. "The girl is a ward of the court. The court is acting in the role of the parents and obviously (the Department of Economic Security) will follow its orders. . . . The court did order to terminate the pregnancy . . . out of state."
Noyes said the procedure would likely be performed "fairly soon," but she did not provide any additional information.
Lawmakers who oppose abortion, meanwhile, say the state hasn't done enough to overturn the decision.
"We're extremely outraged," House Speaker Jeff Groscost said. "They're trying to take the child across the state line for a purpose, and that purpose is . . . they can't do it here. I'm very disappointed that at the very least we haven't had an appeal."
Senate Majority Leader Rusty Bowers, R-Mesa, is vowing to fight the confirmation next year of DES head John Clayton if nothing is done to stop it. Abortion opponents say the ruling is intentionally skirting the state law that forbids state money to pay for abortions unless the procedure is needed to save the life of the mother.
The details in the case are sketchy, but the order was issued this month by Judge William Sargeant, who could not be reached for comment.
According to John Jakubczyk, the president of Arizona Right to Life, the girl, along with her court-appointed advocate, requested that she receive an abortion when she was 14-weeks pregnant.
Jakubczyk said he learned of the case after being tipped off by officials familiar with the girl's situation.
Jakubczyk said the girl ran away and didn't resurface until last week. At that point, Sargeant ordered Child Protective Services to transport the girl to another state, most likely California, that performs abortions at that stage of pregnancy.
Federal law allows abortions to be performed in cases of rape or incest as well as danger to the mother.
The girl, according to Jakubczyk, told court officials she had been raped. In addition, statutory rape laws say that any sexual activity for 14-year-olds can be considered rape. That qualifies for the exception under the federal law, according to Sally Ordini, a DES spokeswoman.
Ordini would not comment specifically on the case. But she said the both medical and transportation costs in these types of cases would be covered by federal Medicaid funds, meaning no state funds are involved.
She added that the state is required to provide health care for those in its charge.
"Any child that is in state custody, the state covers their medical expenses. If a judge orders the state to provide and pay for medical care for a child who is dependent on the state and it's legal, then we have to carry it out," Ordini said.
"DES doesn't make these decisions."
She added that if a child in state custody needed eye surgery and Boston was the only place that care was available, the state would cover the care.
But Rep. Laura Knaperek, R-Tempe, pointed out that only two states, California and Kansas, perform abortions at this stage of pregnancy.
"That to me is a big signal there is an issue with an over 20-week abortion," she said. "Here we have people claiming they're acting in the best interests of the child perhaps doing the opposite."
Knaperek blasted state officials for not doing enough to fight Sargeant's order, saying "they would have found a way" to appeal it if they truly opposed it.
Jakubczyk wonders how many times situations like this have occurred at CPS. Because most juvenile records are sealed, it's difficult for the public to get information on these cases, he said.
He also questions why the child wasn't adopted and instead left in the child welfare system. Jakubczyk said her mother was murdered when she was younger and her father is in prison.
"How much she's making the decision, who knows? I've got real questions about who's consenting and who's forcing," he said.
Groscost vows a careful review of DES if the girl receives an abortion. He argues it may be safer and less expensive for the girl to undergo a Caesarean section.
"By the time this is over there will be a full accounting of how this abortion proceeded. Their ducks better be in a row. The better have tried to fully comply with state law," he said.
Noyes said state officials are simply out of options.
"The people that are working in the girl's best interests believe this is the best interests," she said. "The court agreed and did issue the order." |
