article and its three fallacies. . .

My Article

House OKs restrictions on abortions for minors By HOWARD FISCHERCapitol Media ServicesWednesday, March 05, 2008
PHOENIX -- A divided House of Representatives approved changes in state laws dealing with when minors can get an abortion without parental consent -- changes foes said will throw new roadblocks in the path of pregnant teens.But that claim may depend on how some of the words would be interpreted. Proponents of HB 2263 say they are simply codifying the standards the state Court of Appeals spelled out five years ago when deciding what factors a judge may consider in determining whether a minor is mature enough to decide to terminate a pregnancy without parental consent. The process, known as "judicial bypass," is the only recognized exception to current laws which require that a minor has the consent of at least one parent to undergo an abortion.Central to the debate is what restrictions can -- and cannot -- be placed on minors.Federal courts have ruled that states cannot impose an absolute ban on minors having an abortion absent parental consent. That has left state lawmakers and state courts trying to balance the rights of the minor with the general premise that minors lack maturity to consent to medical procedures.In a precedent-setting ruling in 2003, the Arizona Court of Appeals said a minor wanting to avoid telling a parent must prove to a judge by clear and convincing evidence that she has the "maturity" to make that decision. But because the law did not define what that means, the appellate judges said that can be measured by examining the girl's experience, perspective and judgment.That ruling then set forth factors a trial judge could consider in determining each of those factors.Rep. Warde Nichols, R-Gilbert, said his legislation simply puts those factors into statute. He said that gives future judges clear guidance from the Legislature what may be considered.But Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix, insisted HB 2263 tightens existing standards.Sinema relies on a provision in the legislation which says a pregnant minor must not only prove her maturity to make the decision on her own but spells out that maturity must be shown "based on her experience level, perspective and judgment." Sinema, an attorney, said the 2003 ruling leaves the question of what factors constitute maturity to each trial judge.She pointed out the appellate judges said "maturity may be measured by examining the minor's experience, perspective and judgment.""This legislation makes it even more difficult for young women to solve this very difficult question and this very serious burden that they are facing," she said.Nichols, however, does not see it that way.He said while HB 2263 does spell out those factors, it gives the trial judge broad leeway in determining the how each of those factors is measured. Nichols said the legislation simply spells out those things a court may consider.For example, the court ruling states -- and HB 2263 mirrors -- that "experience" can be judged based on the girl's age, experiences outside the home, living away from home and handling personal finances."Perspective" can be measured by what steps the girl took to explore her options and the extent she considered those options. And the ruling and the bill say her "judgment" can be weighed on what she did since learning of her pregnancy.Nichols said statutory guidance is critical to ensure uniform enforcement of the law."If it's not in statute, then the judge can interject his own opinion on the matter," he said. And Nichols said having a clear state law also gives minors a clear road map of what they have to show and how they can show it.Rep. Olivia Cajero Bedford, D-Tucson, said while parental involvement is preferable, there are situations where girls cannot get that permission, sometimes because a parent is an abuser.The objections by Rep. Linda Lopez, D-Tucson, go beyond the debate over wording.Lopez pointed out that the Arizona Constitution, unlike its federal counterpart, contains a specific right to privacy. She said she believes that the justices, if properly confronted with the question of a minor's decision to have an abortion absent parental consent, would conclude that she has broader rights than required under federal judicial standards.She conceded, though, no Arizona court has ever addressed that issue, much less interpreted the state constitution the way she has suggested.Tuesday's 36-24 vote sends the measure to the Senate.
[http://www.azdailysun.com/articles/2008/03/05/news/state/20080305_arizona_news_49.txt]

The Fallacies

1. The blue sentence shows the Fallacy of Appealing to Tradition
2. The red words shows the Fallacy of Equivocation
3. And I Believe that the whole article pertains to the fallacy of Guilt by Association, in the sense that the girl or past girls did not show that they were mature so with association i suppose that the judges believe that other girls as well are immature and have to prove that they are mature to the courts.