>

And when the parents consent, what excuse will be pulled out next to prevent this?
Colorado began providing free IUDs and contraception to teens without parental consent, and saw a dramatic drop in teen pregnancies and abortions. >

Shocking result >

And not the result the GOP wants. >

Need to encourage that domestic supply of babies >

Enjoy your explosion in teen pregnancies, Texas. Your government is dumb AF and will handle this as absolutely incompetently as is humanly possible. >

We are solid members of the Never Every Club
"Never Ever, in a Million Years, will that happen to me/my family/my wife/my child"  
Until it does >

And then the kid is conveniently and quietly rushed off for an abortion in a legal state >

If you have money >

That was the implication >


The case was brought by Jonathan Mitchell, the former Texas solicitor general who masterminded the state’s ban on abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy. Mitchell is representing Alexander Deanda, a father of three daughters.
Deanda is raising his daughters “in accordance with Christian teaching on matters of sexuality, which requires unmarried children to practice abstinence and refrain from sexual intercourse until marriage,” according to the complaint.

That's all I needed. Fuck off with that noise. I'M NOT CHRISTIAN AND YOU CAN'T FORCE ME TO BE ONE OR ACT LIKE ONE.

Neither Deanda nor his daughters have sought services at a Title X clinic, per the complaint. But Kacsmaryk ruled that the program violates Deanda’s rights under the Texas Family Code and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, denying him the “fundamental right to control and direct the upbringing of his minor children.”

I read this as there being no standing for this... person. And then at the very end they clue us in to what it is all about. CONTROL >

For anyone who hasn't seen this one... Garfunkel and Oates! >

I love that one >

So ... More teenage mother's. Got it. >

Texas is one of the leaders in teenage pregnancy. >

And don't forget we hate to support women with children. Or anyone really. And also remember we have a failing foster system as well. And adoptions are biased against gay couples. It's almost like Texas wants children born just so they can be treated like shit by the state. >


And adoptions are biased

That's as far as it needs to go. I don't know what it costs now, but it used to be as much as a round of IVF if not more. Which, a decade ago, was about $15k >

Did you want a black market on abortion access, higher number of unwanted children and unprepared parents, and an increase of abandoned babies found dead?
Because that's how you'll get a black market on abortion access, higher number of unwanted children and unprepared parents, and an increase of abandoned babies found dead.
All because of organised religion insisting on persecuting people in the name of a false god. >


Kacsmaryk’s ruling threatens the entire Title X program, which was created during the Nixon administration to provide family planning services to low-income women. While Title X clinics should “encourage family participation … to the extent practicable,” federal regulations forbid them from requiring parental consent or notifying parents that a minor has received services.
Kacsmaryk, a religious liberty lawyer before he was appointed to the bench in 2019, ruled that Texas parents have a right under state law to be notified that their children are receiving contraception. His ruling “holds unlawful” and “sets aside” the confidentiality clause.
The case was brought by Jonathan Mitchell, the former Texas solicitor general who masterminded the state’s ban on abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy. Mitchell is representing Alexander Deanda, a father of three daughters.
Deanda is raising his daughters “in accordance with Christian teaching on matters of sexuality, which requires unmarried children to practice abstinence and refrain from sexual intercourse until marriage,” according to the complaint.
Neither Deanda nor his daughters have sought services at a Title X clinic, per the complaint. But Kacsmaryk ruled that the program violates Deanda’s rights under the Texas Family Code and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, denying him the “fundamental right to control and direct the upbringing of his minor children.”

The modern American judicial system: Religious nutbags for judges and no real standing necessary anymore. Also god forbid someone want birth control for the numerous other things it helps with besides pregnancy. >

Please tell me they can appeal this. >

Why back in my day... teen pregnancy was a bad thing. >

Ladies and Gentlemen, the party of small government 🙄 >

Don't worry Texas, NM has plenty of abortion clinics conveniently placed right on the border. >

Just a quick 14 hour drive from Houston! Dont tell any friends or family where youre going or why tho or you will get sued! >

But condoms are ok without parental consent. >

For now. Conservatives eventually want all birth control banned. >


Neither Deanda nor his daughters have sought services at a Title X clinic, per the complaint. But Kacsmaryk ruled that the program violates Deanda’s rights under the Texas Family Code and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, denying him the “fundamental right to control and direct the upbringing of his minor children.”

I guess I don’t get it. How do they have standing to bring this lawsuit then? How does this not violate the 14th amendment rights of young women to control their own reproductive organs?
Why are these creepy old men so effing obsessed with controlling women’s bodies? Go hire a prostitute if you want to pretend that you’re actually a dominant male and not a doughy old creep. >

If you ask for birth control you are old enough to recieve  birth control or any other medical care without consent. >

I'm sure this will end well.