Did anyone else catch what's missing in this piece? - Granite Grok

Did anyone else catch what’s missing in this piece?

Maybe not a lot of folks – it is from the Concord Monitor after all.  What IS obvious is the plot line, proving what I have been saying for years, that school staff take a dim and condescending view of parents.  And now, in this court case, the Judge makes that legal (reformatted, emphasis mine):

Court: Adviser who helped girl get abortion should keep job

Demetria McKaig helped 15-year-old get judicial approval for abortion

A school guidance counselor who helped a 15-year-old girl get judicial approval for an abortion without telling her parents shouldn’t have lost her job, the state’s highest court ruled Thursday. Demetria McKaig’s contract at Farmington High School was not renewed in April 2013, four months after she blocked her principal from telling the girl’s parents about the pregnancy. A majority of Supreme Court justices said McKaig should be reinstated, but in a dissent, Justice Robert Lynn accused his colleagues of ignoring legal principles because the case involved a hot-button issue.

“Because I cannot join the bandwagon of political correctness that provides the only justification for the majority’s decision, I respectfully dissent,” he wrote.

Under a state law that took effect in January 2012, pregnant girls under 18 who want an abortion must tell their parents or get a judge’s okay. In the Farmington case, the girl told McKaig she was pregnant, wanted an abortion and didn’t want her mother to know because she and her boyfriend feared for their safety. McKaig told the girl she could avoid telling her parents by going to court, but the principal argued that the school should tell the girl’s mother about the pregnancy.

That line about “My parents will kill me!” only seems to hold water in Islamist type Muslim families who have no problem in killing their offspring as honor killings and it happens all over the world (and here in the US, too).  But this is what we have police for – if there really was a case of actual harm, they could get involved or this being an underaged girl, DCYF here in NH (strange, no info on the boyfriend’s age).  But from the UL comes a bit stronger worded account of the utter disregard that McKaig had for following orders:

McKaig called the New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union to ask for its help in preventing the girl’s mother from finding out about the pregnancy, even though Principal Matt Jozokos ordered school staff to inform the mother.

Here’s a clear cut example of the educational-industrial complex making the decision that parents should NOT have any input into their daughter – nada, nein, nope.  A major medical procedure that can after effects on their offspring, not to say the moral climate that parents may be trying to engender to the children that God entrusted to their care – and they are totally cut out of the loop.  But they will have to be responsible for that child’s wellbeing in the physical, mental, and spiritual spheres, you can be sure of that.  And if stuff goes wrong, with busybodies (especially in the schools), they will be on the hook for what the school has done.  So much for being responsible for one’s (e.g., McKaig) decisions and the consequences.

And it is yet another cutting of the ties between parents and children – and as we have seen, Progressives are just dandy with that (re: Hillary’s “It takes a village to raise a child” is nothing more than the State owns your child and not you). One more snip of a strand of the rope that bind a child to their parents.  And it sows that seed of “well, if I didn’t need Mom and Dad for this, what else do I not need them for”…).

And then to spike that decision, what did “Guidance counselor Queen and *I* know this child better than anyone else” do to cement her arrogant and unbelievable decision to take the life of this child’s unborn child?  Yeah, she went there:

McKaig then obtained a restraining order on the girl’s behalf to prevent the principal from speaking to the mother, and the court granted the girl’s request to bypass the parental notification requirement. McKaig was later told that her contract would not be renewed for insubordination and breach of student confidentiality.

Heck, I would have pitched her butt out of school just as soon as I found out about what McKaig wanted to do with that child. But the GALL of McKaig to premptively say “hey, my boss is in favor of parental involvement in this major decision?  “*I*, who have no skin in this game with this child, will take it upon myself to seal this deal anyway I can” – what a stupifyingly, full of hubis decision.  Yet, I bet McKaig is still patting herself on the back for her own actions.

The majority of the court found that McKaig did not violate the school district’s policy on insubordination because the principal neither instructed her to stop helping the student nor challenged her request for a restraining order. They also pushed back against Lynn’s criticism, saying that he made “incorrect assumptions” about their motivations and that they were disappointed by his tone.

Oh it’s always about the tooonnnee – as if that means anything at all.  Ya think that the very fact the principal said “we have to get Mom involved” would have been a rebuke right then and there to this “guidance” counselor (and now accessory to the murder of an unborn child) – and a message of “you are wrong and stop right there”?  My boss says something akin to that in some situation, the message is clear: stop, cease, and desist.

But Lynn argued that no law or policy would have prevented the principal from disclosing the pregnancy – the parental notification law pertains to notification of an abortion, not a pregnancy. He called the majority decision an “exercise of raw judicial power” that was unsupported by established law or legal principles and crafted instead to produce a desired outcome.

All in all, I believe that any law that bypasses the parents is wrong – it’s too bad that the article didn’t go into whether or not REAL harm would have been committed by her parents.  All that said, however, did anyone else notice this in the piece?  Or more technically correct, the LACK of it?

Yeah, this:

The girl is / was 15. The age of consent in NH is 16. Why isn’t there any mention in this article of statutory rape? Especially if the boyfriend had reached his age of majority?

>