achtungbaby
08-07-2002, 01:27 PM
By ADAM LIPTAK
New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/06/national/06ABOR.html?ex=1029384000&en=c282611dfa223a61&ei=5040&partner=MOREOVER)
Pennsylvania judge allowed a woman yesterday to end her pregnancy after a week's delay during which he had considered her ex-boyfriend's objections.
Legal experts said the ruling was required by Supreme Court precedents in Roe v. Wade and other cases, and they expressed surprise that the judge had prohibited the abortion even for a week. They also questioned his decision to hold a hearing to consider evidence and to appoint a guardian for the fetus.
The woman, Tanya Meyers, 22, of Kingston, Pa., had planned to have an abortion last Tuesday, when she was nine weeks pregnant. But on the afternoon before, her ex-boyfriend, the father of the child, filed a lawsuit seeking to stop her.
"My preborn child at this moment is a living being who can feel and respond to pain, whose heart beats, who moves in Tanya's womb, who has brain activity and fully functional organ systems," John Stachokus, 27, said in legal papers. "He or she is a living human being."
In an interview, Ms. Meyers said that having to explain herself to the court and then wait to hear what she would be allowed to do was hard.
"It's not something the court system should entertain," she said. "I felt extremely violated. I still feel violated that my life was made so public. It's just been emotional torture."
Mr. Stachokus, who lives in Plains, Pa., and works as an emergency dispatcher, did not return calls for comment. He had told the court that he would take responsibility for the child's welfare once born.
The couple recently ended a 10-month relationship. On the same day Mr. Stachokus filed suit, Ms. Meyers sought a court order forbidding him from contacting her. A hearing on the order will be held tomorrow.
On July 29, Judge Thomas F. Burke Jr. of the Court of Common Pleas in Wilkes-Barre entered a temporary order forbidding Ms. Meyers to have an abortion. Another judge of that court, Michael T. Conahan, held a hearing two days later. He kept the order in place until he issued yesterday's decision.
Mr. Stachokus also sued Ms. Meyers' mother, Tracey Curry. He said Ms. Curry had coerced her daughter into seeking the abortion because Ms. Curry disliked him.
In an interview, Ms. Curry said that was false, though she did not express any fondness for Mr. Stachokus.
"She's 22," Ms. Curry said of her daughter, "and she can make her own decisions."
Ms. Meyers's lawyer, Linda Rosenthal of the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, said the decision was her client's alone.
"The only coercion regarding the abortion came from the boyfriend," Ms. Rosenthal said.
"Do you want to have an abortion?" she asked her client at the hearing on Wednesday.
"Very much," Ms. Meyers said.
Mr. Stachokus testified that the couple had discussed what to name the child and had chosen godparents.
After Judge Conahan declined to issue a ruling on Wednesday, Ms. Meyers tried two sets of emergency appeals, one to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The appeals courts declined to take immediate action.
Sylvia Law, who teaches constitutional and family law at New York University, said the case was straightforward and should have been rejected out of hand.
"A lot of issues in this area are, honestly, difficult," Ms. Law said. "This is not one of them. This is crystal clear."
She added: "The law on the question of fathers' or husbands' capability to veto a woman's ability to have an abortion has always been that it's completely unconstitutional."
In the Supreme Court's most recent major abortion ruling, in 1992, the court struck down an aspect of a Pennsylvania law that prohibited a doctor from performing an abortion on a married woman unless she confirmed in writing that she had notified her husband.
Ms. Rosenthal said the 1992 decision should have ended the recent lawsuit before it began. "If you don't have to notify a spouse," she said, "you certainly don't give a veto right to a former boyfriend."
Courts in Pennsylvania and elsewhere have rejected suits similar to the one filed by Mr. Stachokus.
In an interview before the court ruled yesterday, Mr. Stachokus's lawyer, John P. Williamson, said the law in this area was unsettled, but he did not explain how. Mr. Williamson said his client's case was strong.
"What's at issue here is a child's life," he said. "A baby doesn't realize that all these lawyers are trying to abort it."
In his ruling, Judge Conahan said that both Ms. Meyers and Mr. Stachokus were "credible and sincere." But he held that Ms. Meyers had a constitutional right to have an abortion.
"This right is not subject to being vetoed by a woman's husband or partner," Judge Conahan wrote. "Neither an ex-boyfriend nor a fetus has standing to interfere with a woman's choice to terminate her pregnancy."
He continued: "The delay in her procedure has inflicted significant and extreme emotional distress on Meyers, and she faces increased medical risks due to the delay in her procedure."
Judge Conahan did not explain why he had delayed the procedure.
Ms. Rosenthal said that she was pleased by the ruling but that it had taken too long.
"The federal law as well as Pennsylvania court decisions make clear that a man does not have a right to overrule a woman's choice," she said. "It's appalling that this process took as long as it did, and it's shameful that every court in the Pennsylvania court system touched this case and still failed to apply the law."
Mr. Williamson was not available for comment after the ruling. Asked whether Mr. Stachokus will appeal, an assistant to Mr. Williamson, Charles Mammucari, said, "Mr. Williamson is taking every avenue he can to protect the life of the child and the health of the mother."
Ms. Meyers declined to say what her plans were concerning the abortion.
New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/06/national/06ABOR.html?ex=1029384000&en=c282611dfa223a61&ei=5040&partner=MOREOVER)
Pennsylvania judge allowed a woman yesterday to end her pregnancy after a week's delay during which he had considered her ex-boyfriend's objections.
Legal experts said the ruling was required by Supreme Court precedents in Roe v. Wade and other cases, and they expressed surprise that the judge had prohibited the abortion even for a week. They also questioned his decision to hold a hearing to consider evidence and to appoint a guardian for the fetus.
The woman, Tanya Meyers, 22, of Kingston, Pa., had planned to have an abortion last Tuesday, when she was nine weeks pregnant. But on the afternoon before, her ex-boyfriend, the father of the child, filed a lawsuit seeking to stop her.
"My preborn child at this moment is a living being who can feel and respond to pain, whose heart beats, who moves in Tanya's womb, who has brain activity and fully functional organ systems," John Stachokus, 27, said in legal papers. "He or she is a living human being."
In an interview, Ms. Meyers said that having to explain herself to the court and then wait to hear what she would be allowed to do was hard.
"It's not something the court system should entertain," she said. "I felt extremely violated. I still feel violated that my life was made so public. It's just been emotional torture."
Mr. Stachokus, who lives in Plains, Pa., and works as an emergency dispatcher, did not return calls for comment. He had told the court that he would take responsibility for the child's welfare once born.
The couple recently ended a 10-month relationship. On the same day Mr. Stachokus filed suit, Ms. Meyers sought a court order forbidding him from contacting her. A hearing on the order will be held tomorrow.
On July 29, Judge Thomas F. Burke Jr. of the Court of Common Pleas in Wilkes-Barre entered a temporary order forbidding Ms. Meyers to have an abortion. Another judge of that court, Michael T. Conahan, held a hearing two days later. He kept the order in place until he issued yesterday's decision.
Mr. Stachokus also sued Ms. Meyers' mother, Tracey Curry. He said Ms. Curry had coerced her daughter into seeking the abortion because Ms. Curry disliked him.
In an interview, Ms. Curry said that was false, though she did not express any fondness for Mr. Stachokus.
"She's 22," Ms. Curry said of her daughter, "and she can make her own decisions."
Ms. Meyers's lawyer, Linda Rosenthal of the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, said the decision was her client's alone.
"The only coercion regarding the abortion came from the boyfriend," Ms. Rosenthal said.
"Do you want to have an abortion?" she asked her client at the hearing on Wednesday.
"Very much," Ms. Meyers said.
Mr. Stachokus testified that the couple had discussed what to name the child and had chosen godparents.
After Judge Conahan declined to issue a ruling on Wednesday, Ms. Meyers tried two sets of emergency appeals, one to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The appeals courts declined to take immediate action.
Sylvia Law, who teaches constitutional and family law at New York University, said the case was straightforward and should have been rejected out of hand.
"A lot of issues in this area are, honestly, difficult," Ms. Law said. "This is not one of them. This is crystal clear."
She added: "The law on the question of fathers' or husbands' capability to veto a woman's ability to have an abortion has always been that it's completely unconstitutional."
In the Supreme Court's most recent major abortion ruling, in 1992, the court struck down an aspect of a Pennsylvania law that prohibited a doctor from performing an abortion on a married woman unless she confirmed in writing that she had notified her husband.
Ms. Rosenthal said the 1992 decision should have ended the recent lawsuit before it began. "If you don't have to notify a spouse," she said, "you certainly don't give a veto right to a former boyfriend."
Courts in Pennsylvania and elsewhere have rejected suits similar to the one filed by Mr. Stachokus.
In an interview before the court ruled yesterday, Mr. Stachokus's lawyer, John P. Williamson, said the law in this area was unsettled, but he did not explain how. Mr. Williamson said his client's case was strong.
"What's at issue here is a child's life," he said. "A baby doesn't realize that all these lawyers are trying to abort it."
In his ruling, Judge Conahan said that both Ms. Meyers and Mr. Stachokus were "credible and sincere." But he held that Ms. Meyers had a constitutional right to have an abortion.
"This right is not subject to being vetoed by a woman's husband or partner," Judge Conahan wrote. "Neither an ex-boyfriend nor a fetus has standing to interfere with a woman's choice to terminate her pregnancy."
He continued: "The delay in her procedure has inflicted significant and extreme emotional distress on Meyers, and she faces increased medical risks due to the delay in her procedure."
Judge Conahan did not explain why he had delayed the procedure.
Ms. Rosenthal said that she was pleased by the ruling but that it had taken too long.
"The federal law as well as Pennsylvania court decisions make clear that a man does not have a right to overrule a woman's choice," she said. "It's appalling that this process took as long as it did, and it's shameful that every court in the Pennsylvania court system touched this case and still failed to apply the law."
Mr. Williamson was not available for comment after the ruling. Asked whether Mr. Stachokus will appeal, an assistant to Mr. Williamson, Charles Mammucari, said, "Mr. Williamson is taking every avenue he can to protect the life of the child and the health of the mother."
Ms. Meyers declined to say what her plans were concerning the abortion.