Among the questions certified was whether the statute permits any minors - mature or immature - to obtain judicial consent to an abortion without any parental consultation whatsoever. On remand, the District Court certified several questions to the Supreme Judicial Court. , holding that the District Court should have abstained and certified to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court appropriate questions concerning the meaning of the statute. Subsequently, this Court vacated the District Court's judgment, Bellotti v.
If one or both parents refuse such consent, however, the abortion may be obtained by order of a judge of the superior court "for good cause shown." In appellees' class action challenging the constitutionality of the statute, a three-judge District Court held it unconstitutional. Baird et al., also on appeal from the same court.Ī Massachusetts statute requires parental consent before an abortion can be performed on an unmarried woman under the age of 18. This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 29, 2022.BELLOTTI v. Court of Appeal's decision that the trial judge erred in the finding of no evidence. The sexual assault charge against Kirkpatrick was dismissed by a trial judge who found there was no evidence the complainant had not consented to “the sexual activity in question,” nor that the defendant had been explicitly deceitful, which would have been another avenue for conviction.Īlthough the reasons for its decision are split, the Supreme Court unanimously agreed with the B.C. The fact Kirkpatrick used a condom the first time they had sex led the complainant to assume that he was already wearing one when he initiated sex for a second time, she told the court - but he wasn't, which she said she did not realize until he ejaculated. The court has ordered a new trial in a British Columbia case in which a complainant told a new sexual partner, Ross McKenzie Kirkpatrick, that she would only have sex with him if he wore a condom. In a 5-4 decision today, the top court says that “no, not without a condom” should not be found to mean “yes, without a condom” in a courtroom. The Supreme Court of Canada says sex with a condom is a different physical act than sex without one, and that the use of a condom can be a condition of consent under sexual assault law.
0 kommentar(er)
