Third Party & Independents Archives

Democrats Fight to Weaken Parental Rights

It’s not a ban on abortion. It’s not a restriction on abortion. It’s a bill that would make it a crime to drive a pregnant minor across state lines to get an abortion without notifying her parents. So why does Hilary Clinton think a lot of girls will die because of this? Well according to Democrats we live in a country of abusive parents who rape their children and force them to give birth to their bastard offspring.

This bill should have passed without objection:

WASHINGTON - A bill that would make it a crime to take a pregnant girl across state lines for an abortion without her parents' knowledge passed the Senate Tuesday, but vast differences with the House version stood between the measure and President Bush's desk.

The 65-34 vote gave the Senate's approval to the bill, which would make taking a pregnant girl to another state for the purposes of evading parental notification laws punishable by fines and up to a year in jail.

The girl and her parents would be exempt from prosecution, and the bill contains an exception for abortions performed in this manner that posed a threat to the mother's life.

Struggling to defend their majority this election year, Republican sponsors said the bill supports what a majority of the public believes: that a parent's right to know takes precedence over a young woman's right to have an abortion.

"No parent wants anyone to take their children across state lines or even across the street without their permission," said Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. "This is a fundamental right, and the Congress is right to uphold it in law."

Bowing to public support for parental notification and the GOP's 55-44-1 majority, Democrats spent the day trying to carve out an exemption for confidants to whom a girl with abusive parents might turn for help. It was rejected in floor negotiations.

Democrats complained that the measure was the latest in a series of bills designed chiefly to energize the GOP's base of conservative voters.

"Congress ought to have higher priorities than turning grandparents into criminals," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass.

No one knows how many girls get abortions in this way, or who helps them. But Democrats say the policy would be dangerous to pregnant teens who have abusive or neglectful parents by discouraging other people from helping them.

"We're going to sacrifice a lot of girls' lives," said Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.

Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., countered that opponents "want to strip the overwhelming majority of good parents their rightful role and responsibility because of the misbehavior of a few." He pointed out that the judicial bypass provision would help pregnant teens with abusive parents get around the law.

Ted Kennedy is worried about grandparents becoming criminals if the bill becomes law. I am worried that without it adults who have sex with children have no problem discarding the evidence, as was the case in Ohio where parents are seeking records of an unauthorized abortion their minor had who was impregnated by a 21-year-old. The boyfriend claimed he was her brother and was successful in getting a Planned Parenthood clinic to abort a child that was conceived illegally by a man who shouldn't be having sex with minors.

But the Democrats in the Senate know their support and money come from pro-abortion groups who oppose any legislation whatsoever that would make it a tad more difficult to get one, even though all we're talking about is making sure parents are aware that their daughter is being carted off somewhere to get her uterus scrambled.

Senator McConnell got it right. You can't even begin to justify allowing a minor across the street without their parent's permission, let alone into another state. But this bill doesn't even require permission - as it should - it simply requires that parents be notified so, you know, if a child were to not make it back home one night after a long road trip they at least have an idea of where to begin their search.

That Democrats are currently trying to prevent this bill from ever reaching the president's desk is a telling sign of what we can expect to come if Democrats pick up considerable ground in this November's election.

Posted by Scottie at July 25, 2006 9:56 PM
Comments
Comment #170670

Well according to Democrats we live in a country of abusive parents who rape their children and force them to give birth to their bastard offspring.

I don’t remember any Democrats ever saying that we live in a country of abusive parents who rape their children and force them to give burth to their xxxxxxx offspring.

That’s an interesting premise to base the overall post.

Posted by: benjifromtheDNC at July 25, 2006 10:15 PM
Comment #170671

Scottie,

Whoa. Bullseye. On the mark. Blown away. Great post.

Posted by: esimonson at July 25, 2006 10:16 PM
Comment #170673

Quote of the day:

Well according to Democrats we live in a country of abusive parents who rape their children and force them to give birth to their bastard offspring.
Posted by: esimonson at July 25, 2006 10:24 PM
Comment #170679

Republicans and authoritarian-style legislation seeking control over America. For some reason these people just don’t understand that where there is a will, there will always be a way. If this bill passes, it will do nothing more than insure a brisk sale of fake drivers licenses to underage pregnant teenagers who desperately want to get an abortion without telling their parents.

Btw, you left out what I consider the MOST IMPORTANT part of this story:

Another, sponsored by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., would have encouraged the federal government to provide money for more sex education. That bill failed earlier in the day, 48-51. “If we do nothing about teen pregnancy yet pass this punitive bill, then it proves that this (bill) is only a political charade and not a serious effort to combat the problem,” Lautenberg said.

Abstinence is the best way to prevent teenage pregnancy, responded Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.

“How many people really think it’s in the best interest of young people to be sexually active outside of marriage? Does anything positive ever come from that?” Coburn asked.

Republicans really don’t have a firm grasp on reality, do they? Instead, it seems like they prefer to live in some sort of a Heritage USA FantasyLand.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 25, 2006 10:40 PM
Comment #170698

What happens when Roe vs. Wade is overturned and women will have to travel to other states to get an abortion? You are going to make it impossible for pregnant teenagers to have abortions if their parents are religious wackos.

Posted by: bushflipflops at July 26, 2006 12:37 AM
Comment #170709

I’d be very interested in knowing what “General” laws exist that prevent a minor from being transported across state lines without the “Permission” of thier guardian(s).

I would think that the threat of federal kidnapping charges would be a great deterrent against helping a child in trouble.

This is yet another indication that the conservative right is doing absolutely everything that they can to impliment issues of religious morality, to the extent of “Loophole Hunting”.

I want to be clear, so I will make a few statements.

I’ve had the opportunity to accept the confidences of many women who felt that abortion was the solution, and I will say that every experience was mutually traumatic. Most of these females have made a choice more difficult than anyone could imagine, and no one can judge.

I am spiritually against abortion ocurring after the first trimester, but will never make it a political issue.

With what I’ve encountered, as long as abortion is not illegal in America, any minor who qualifies for an abortion should have the same rights as an adult.

Parental rights are forfieted when parental responsibility is ignored.


Posted by: DOC at July 26, 2006 2:19 AM
Comment #170723

DOC,

In that case, why shouldn’t minors have the right to buy cigrettes or alcohol? Should minors have the same rights as adults, as you believe to be the case with abortion, when it comes to plastic surgery? And let’s not forget the gung ho thirteen year olds who want to fight in Iraq, right? Marriage? 900 numbers? Adult book stores? R-rated movies? With the exception of going into the military, none of these thing is as much a life and death decision as to have an abortion, a decision too complex for someone who isn’t even permitted to buy a lottery ticket.

Posted by: Duane-o at July 26, 2006 4:16 AM
Comment #170724

It’s funny(actually sad) that a minor isn’t allowed to get a cavity filled without a parent’s permission but can get an abortion without even NOTIFYING their parents.

Posted by: Duane-o at July 26, 2006 4:20 AM
Comment #170731

bushflipflops:

Parent’s rights should rule. You should not be able to overturn a parent’s rights, even if you disagree with them. Consider if I took your daughter to get a tattoo, or to get her drunk in Mexico (legal drinking age is lower there), or decided to take her to church despite your objections. Consider if your in laws did any of the same things.

You’d have the right to be angry and to prevent me or them from doing that. Its your right as a parent.

The right of parenthood covers many things. You apparently think abortion is ok—-that’s your right. And therefore, if YOUR child wants an abortion, you have the right to agree or disagree, for YOUR child. But not for mine or anyone elses. Nor do I have the right to decide for your child.

That’s the overriding premise, even though someone like Adrienne wants to change the focus of the bill. She wants more sex education…as if we don’t have enough already. Sex education is not the salient point here. The point is whether someone other than a parent gets to make rules for their children. I know someone like Adrienne would guard her parental rights like a mother bear. The question then is why wont she guard other people’s same parental rights.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at July 26, 2006 7:37 AM
Comment #170732

Doc,

“I’d be very interested in knowing what “General” laws exist that prevent a minor from being transported across state lines without the “Permission” of thier guardian(s).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mann_Act

“The United States White-Slave Traffic Act of 1910 prohibited so-called white slavery. It also banned the interstate transport of females for “immoral purposes”. Its primary stated intent was to address prostitution and immorality. The act is better known as the Mann Act, after James Robert Mann, an American lawmaker.”

Posted by: Rocky at July 26, 2006 7:40 AM
Comment #170739

I dont usually touch abortion, the issue is too heated and I don’t have a strong opinion, but I do need to respond to this one bit:

“But this bill doesn’t even require permission - as it should - it simply requires that parents be notified so, you know, if a child were to not make it back home one night after a long road trip they at least have an idea of where to begin their search.”

I agree that the requirement is nowhere near as egregous as some have painted it, but I think tying abortion to the parents (requiring their permission) would be a bad idea. Once a girl is old enough to have a child, she is not necessarily in the proper state to raise one. When your fifteen year old comes home pregnant and does not have a mind to keep it, but you veto her decision (this is all in the context of Roe V. Wade maintaining the right to an abortion), you are in effect forcing that girl to undergo months and years of trauma stress and pain without involving her in the decision. Once someone is old enough to have sex and get pregnant, they have to be in charge of what happens to their reproductive system, otherwise we have a sort of double standard.

Posted by: iandanger at July 26, 2006 8:41 AM
Comment #170743

Ian,

We have all sorts of double standards when it comes to children in America. I still distinctly remember yelling at my parents about how unfair it was when I was a teenager. However, the reality is that teenagers are often not mentally equipped to make important choices on their own without adult guidance and oversight.

I had a hard time knowing when to know when on the beer when I was in high school. A few things kept me out of trouble most of the time. One of the more important ones was the limits that my parents put on me. Those limits are key to developing healthy adults. When we allow children to make adult decisions without parental guidance, we remove the most important role that parents play in the lives of their teenage children.

As to the Democrats main concern of abusive parents, the sad fact is that there are many out there. Most of the state laws on parental consent I have seen have an opt out clause that allows the minor to go before a judge with a guardian to ask for relief from the law. This also has the added benefit of ensuring that the crimes against the children are reported, and the correct steps taken to make sure that the parents are punished and the child protected.

Posted by: Rob at July 26, 2006 9:10 AM
Comment #170744

iandanger:

Here’s the caveat to your position:

If a girl (you used age 15 so I shall too) decides to get her ears pierced, who are the parents to tell her what to do with her body?

Who are the parents to tell her whether a tattoo is safe or not?

Why do schools require parental permission for children to play sports….after all, since the children are old enough to have sex and get pregnant, aren’t they old enough to decide what games to play?

Children ARE old enough to have sex and get pregnant—-that’s the easy part. The hard part is being emotionally mature enough to make a decision that could impact the rest of their lives. This is where parents come in.

If we limit a parent’s role for abortion, why not all other physically related issues? Also, I don’t know the youngest age at which a girl can become pregnant, but I’ve heard of 11 and 12 year olds getting pregnant. By your argument, since they are old enough to have sex and get pregnant, they alone should make their decisions about abortion. Are you willing to argue that an 11 year old has the life experience and maturity to make such a decision, simply because they have the physical ability to perform sexual activity?

Posted by: joebagodonuts at July 26, 2006 9:13 AM
Comment #170746

Rob,

would you not also agree that there are many times parents would make the wrong decision for a child. I may be wrong because of my own personal experience (my dad is neurotic and mentally ill), but having to have a parent’s permission seems way too far for me. For example, I understand a parent’s consent being needed for a tattoo or a major piercing. These are life changing experiences, and the child is unaffected if the parents say no. Pregnancy on the other hand is life altering either way. That is why the choice is ultimately in the “child’s” hands, because the moment she gives birth, she is no longer a child, she is a mother. If a child cannot do that, she does have the option to give the baby up for adoption, but in the meanwhile her school career could be derailed by an entire year, and the social repercussions could be great. If, as Roe says, the right to privacy inherently protects the right to an abortion, then she should be allowed to because of how the pregnancy affects her life.

I really don’t have a problem with her parents being notified, and I see the incest argument as kind of a rarity among abortions, but, far be it from me to presume the protection habits of incestuous fathers.

Posted by: iandanger at July 26, 2006 9:25 AM
Comment #170747

A parent is a parent, and they should be notified when a underage child is pregnant, wants a abortion,or taken across state lines for such.
We keep on saying parents are responsible for their kids, but if they do not know what is going on how are they responsbile.
Here in Michigan, kids can quit school at 16yrs old w/o parent permission, can leave home at 17yrs old. Yet the parent is still responsible for them until they are 18yrs old. So a 15yr goes out and by mistake gets pregnant, wants a abortion the parents need to be notified, PERIOD.
Then it is up to the child and parent to work it out on what to do.

Posted by: KT at July 26, 2006 9:28 AM
Comment #170749

jbd,

I would argue that any eleven or twelve year old who becomes pregnant should not be allowed to have that child, it is a terrible tragedy that the child is pregnant, and her parents should definately be notified, because they need to know she is sexually active (though, again, im not sure how to deal with the incest issue), but it is not their decision to force this preteen to experience pregnancy.

This is exactly the opposite of piercings or tattoos, because those are decisions that will not have any effect on the child if the piercing or tattoo does not happen. Pregnancy affects the child either way, moreso if she stays pregnant, therefore ultimately it his her decision and hers alone.

Posted by: iandanger at July 26, 2006 9:32 AM
Comment #170759

ian:

Im trying to address the larger issue here, which is parental rights.

Pregnancy affects the child either way, moreso if she stays pregnant, therefore ultimately it his her decision and hers alone.

You are justifying taking parental rights away from the parents, which I categorically disagree with, regardless of the issue. One of the major problems with society today is the lack of parental influence, namely in the form of single parent homes.

In some homes, parents are their children’s “friend”. That’s not what its supposed to be. I am my kids’ parent. Part of my role is to be their friend, but moreso it is to set boundaries and guidelines for them. They are simply not experienced enough to do so at young ages. Another part of my role is to assess their capabilities in decision making and set the boundaries in coordination with their abilities.

Some kids are better decision makers than others. The determination belongs to the parents. I’d fight against someone forcing a child of mine to have an abortion, thereby taking away my right to determine what’s best for my child. Yet that’s what you advocate in your opening statement. I’m not sure how you can possibly know what would be best for my child, anymore than I could know what’s best for yours.

The issue is parental rights. The abortion debate is a subset of that. If you are in favor of removing parental rights, then you need to do so across the board for all the things that are less critical than abortion. Go to your schoolboard and demand that they allow kids to decide without parental consent to play sports or go on field trips etc. Those issues are far less important that abortion, so if you are willing to eliminate parental rights for abortion, you should have no problem eliminating them for other issues.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at July 26, 2006 10:03 AM
Comment #170765

I believe the only right a minor has in this country is the right not to be violated physically, mentally or emotionally. This includes the Freedom of Speech or any other right enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Parental rights should rule even in abortion cases. Nothing about our laws says everybody should agree with its ourcomes nor should it.

Posted by: BAWDYSCOT at July 26, 2006 10:24 AM
Comment #170767

Jbd,

my opening statement was a moral one and not a suggestion for legislation(i was not saying there ought to be a law). The fact of the matter is, as much as parents would like to consider themselves final arbiter of their children’s lives, the child has final say on pretty much everything. A parent can say, don’t get a tattoo, but children have always, and always will have ways around their parents’ will. The process of growing up is really children making mistakes, their parents struggling to prevent the kids from making mistakes, and the child fighting for control of their life, in order to make more mistakes, which is how they learn.

My perspective is different, because I am only 19, and am neither planning on marrying nor having children, but I was a very headstrong teenager, and I made many mistakes i possibly would not have had i listened to my parents, but they were my mistakes, in my life. I did learn one lesson from my parents, which was that abstinence is the only real way to prevent pregnancy, since my mother and father both used protection before my conception. As such, I don’t trust such things. However I would not expect anyone not in my situation to be as skeptical of birth control, because examples like myself are quite uncommon. Still, ive made it past my mother’s age when she became pregnant, so I did learn something from her.

It is absolutely your duty as a parent to try and prevent your children from making major mistakes. But it is equally their duty to try and pursue their own path, and make the choices (and inevitably the mistakes) that will define them later in life. If this means defying their parents, there is certainly nothing wrong with it. The struggle between you is what defines all family relations.

…wow is that sort of a marxist take on family, or what?

Posted by: iandanger at July 26, 2006 10:32 AM
Comment #170775

Everyone seems to be missing the bigger issue here. Each state is free to pass its own laws regarding parental and child rights on this issue.

The big issue here is State’s Rights. And Republicans backed by a few conservative Dem’s have just undermined State’s Rights, yet again by federalizing a law that should have always remained the province of state law.

Welcome to the federalist society, where the federal government refuses to leave no part of individual’s or families lives untouched by its regulations, laws, and oversight. And with every federal law comes an ever more crippling burden on our Dep’t of Justice, which already fails again and again to investigate or prosecute a whole host of federal laws due to limited resources. Not that the DOJ isn’t growing in size and consumption of tax dollars, it is, but, the laws it is responsible for enforcing are growing far faster.

Now the feds will be monitoring abortions and teen girls? I don’t think so. Yet, how else would our FBI and DOJ be able to enforce this new law? One of the worst offenses a society can commit against itself, is to pass laws it cannot, or will not, enforce rigorously. Failing to enforce the laws breeds contempt for them by growing numbers of the population. Our speed limit laws are a perfect example. The majority of drivers now speed without fear or regard. Despite the fact that our own governments have said, speed kills. Add cell phones and speed kills twice as many.

Add cell phone laws unenforced, seat belt laws unenforced, and speed kills even more. But, who cares, we want what we want when we want it, and that is all that matters. Today we want to breed contempt for another law that will be enforced only when the government’s nose has been rubbed into some sordid tale of a 16 year choosing to have an abortion in another state with an older sister, or grandparent aiding in their transportation by paying for the bus ticket for her and her girlfriend. So the girlfriend who tags along giving moral support gets busted, while family member providing the money for the bus tickets goes free?

Justice? Only in the twisted mind of our lawmakers.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 26, 2006 11:02 AM
Comment #170778

David,

I’m unaware of any cell phone laws, that must be a regional thing, but I’ll tell you what, I’d get behind one of those, that is for damn sure.

But, at the same time, they’ve found that using hands free sets causes the same amount of disruption in the ability of drivers, but making that against the law would be insanely unenforceable.

Posted by: iandanger at July 26, 2006 11:07 AM
Comment #170783

Sexual abuse within family’s happens. Don’t pretend it doesn’t. I’ve never heard a US democrat make that argument (I am stating fact on my own behalf in making that statement in relation to sexual abuse).

In Ireland horrific scandals have come to light concerning the sexual abuse of children both within the home and by strangers (priests, swim coaches etc).

If the parents have a good relationship with their child the child will tell them about the pregnancy. If not (perhaps the parents are not the best equiped to make a fair decision about what happens to the child’s body/life/sanity.

If the parents are the abusers, requiring their permission/notification is a disgusting idea.

If the parents are not the abuser (any under age child made pregnant is a victim of statutory rape), then the parents extreemist religious views (if any) should not stand in the way of a rational, moral and fair consideration of the best interests of the child (the born child) to whom they owe a duty of love, affection and care for their little girl’s well-being.

This is a charter for abusive and/or religiously fundamentalist parents to impose their views/and or preferences on the body and life of another.

Your children are “yours” you care for them, you love them but you do not “own” them. They are not small slaves or chattels but people with rights in need of protection brom the good and bad intentions of others.

Children do have the capacity to understand their situation. A good parent if informed by their child of a pregnancy would sit down with the child (perhaps having sought outside psychological/medical opinion) and explain to the child the situation in a supportive but objective fashion, considering the pro and con of each possible course of action in detail and the ramifications for the child’s physical, mental and psychological well-being and future…

and then, let the child decide.

Posted by: abhcoide at July 26, 2006 11:28 AM
Comment #170791

“The big issue here is State’s Rights. And Republicans backed by a few conservative Dem’s have just undermined State’s Rights, yet again by federalizing a law that should have always remained the province of state law.”

I could not agree more. As a recovering Republican, this flies in the face of one of the most basic of all planks, states rights.

I am no advocate for abortion. I do, however, advocate the feds butting out and letting each state decide.

Having said that, the very idea of my daughter being transported across state lines without my permission for an abortion would enfuriate me and would mark my total failure as a parent. I would certainly think the kidnapping laws already forbid the transportation of a minor across state lines for any purpose without the permission of a parent. There is no need for an additional law.

This is a prime case of a huge federal government expanding on itself and stepping on the toes of states.

Posted by: Chi Chi at July 26, 2006 12:18 PM
Comment #170794

Rocky - Thanks for the legal background. Sadly, I suspected as much.

Duane-o - I shouldn’t need to say it, but since you seem to require it, I will. With very few exceptions, chosing and going through with an abortion is “different” than buying a pack of cigarettes.

Posted by: DOC at July 26, 2006 12:24 PM
Comment #170796

abh:

I simply cannot agree with your position of giving the child full decision making responsibility. For one thing, I’m not sure how you would define “extremist religious views”, but I’d venture there are a number of definitions. For another, you don’t address the child’s capability to make such a decision, nor the child’s age.

Lets take a slightly different example: A child has Non-Hodgkins lymphoma. The child does NOT want chemotherapy because she is very afraid of needles, hospitals, medicine etc. Should the parent “sit down with the child (perhaps having sought outside psychological/medical opinion) and explain to the child the situation in a supportive but objective fashion, considering the pro and con of each possible course of action in detail and the ramifications for the child’s physical, mental and psychological well-being and future…and then, let the child decide.”

What if the child decides not to have any kind of medical response, based on her fear of medication and hospitals? Would you support the child making that decision? Would you allow it if the child were your daughter or son, and you knew that chemotherapy was 84% successful in leading to full remission of the cancer, while doing nothing would most likely lead to death?

I’d overrule my child on such a decision—the child would certainly be involved but not be the final decision maker. You see, the abortion subtopic gives a different view to things, which is why I’ve taken it out of the picture to see if your logic holds up in a different circumstance.

I don’t think it does.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at July 26, 2006 12:29 PM
Comment #170813

What you right wingers making excuses for this type of political grandstanding are ignoring is that, by its nature, reproductive freedom extends to all females. Think about it free of the echoes of the right-wing think tank. A 16-tear-old girl can get pregnant and have a child without her parents’ permission. Not one of you is suggesting that parents be given the right to force her to abort her pregnancy. Yet when the subject is her right to abort her pregnancy, whoa, the righteous indignation comes out. All of a sudden, the parents must be involved and have veto power. Only a nutcase would consider this a balanced position. Either the parents have absolute rights over their minor child’s reproduction or they don’t. You don’t get to pick and choose based on your political advantage. I vote for no. You can vote for yes, but be careful of what you wish for.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at July 26, 2006 1:24 PM
Comment #170823

Mental Wimp:

Change the age of the girl and tell me how you vote. 10…11…12…13…14…15. Does your opinion remain the same at each age or does it change?

Posted by: joebagodonuts at July 26, 2006 1:47 PM
Comment #170837

Just a few thoughts on this issue:

1. With rights come responsibilities. If your child seeks help from someone else, have you met or failed in your responsibility to the child? What does that say about your relationship to the child?

2. Do parent’s rights supercede any rights the child might have? What rights does the child have?

3. How and why did the child become pregnant? Do parents abrogate resonsibility if they didn’t provide the child with birth control?

4. There should be a place the child can safely and legally go to for help if the parents are perceived by the child as a problem.

Just some random thoughts. It occurred to me that if my child were to get pregnant and seek someone’s help besides mine to obtain an abortion, then I have failed my child.

Posted by: womanmarine at July 26, 2006 2:38 PM
Comment #170851

David,

I agree with you on the State’s right position, generally. However, I’m not sure that there isn’t a broader Federal power that might apply in this and other similar cases involving minors, something to research.

That said, as to the enforcement, you enforce it the same way local police enforce domestic abuse laws in most cases, based on a complaintant. In this case a parent would have to complain that their child was taken across State Lines for the purposes of an abortion without their knowledge.

abhocide,

First of all, see my post above regarding the application of these provisions in the case of incest. All of the State provisions on this that I’ve seen have provisions for the parents to be by-passed in this case.

Second, there are many Catholics in America that would disagree with your characterization of their religion as extreme or fundamentalist just because they abide their churches’ guidance on abortion.

Third, the idea that if the relationship is strong the child will come to their parents to discuss the issue is flawed. Teenage pregnancy usually accompanies a number of poor choices being made by the child (alcohol abuse, drugs, involvement with young adults too old for them, etc.) that the child knows their parent would not approve. Teenagers are famously motivated by their desire to avoid consequences. Hiding pregnancy and taking steps to have an abortion without their parents consent would be high on the list. This is not to say that all teenagers would do this, but there is enough of a pattern to suggest that it would not be uncommon. For the State to allow and in some ways support this activity delays solving the real problems that underlie the cause of the pregnancy. Btw, that is true for incest as well. If the child has to go to court to get permission, then the authorities know about the problem and can take corrective action.

Posted by: Rob at July 26, 2006 3:25 PM
Comment #170877

This attack on parents is simply a liberal extension of “All of those evil corporations!”. Liberals will soon define anyone in charge of anything or anyone as “an evil corporation”. Their idea is that if no one is seeking responsibility or self-reliance then, well, that would make everyone not seeking change a liberal voter.

It’s brilliant! Un-American as all get out, but still brilliant!

And you know, they’re right! Who do parents think they are with their minor children??!!! It’s like they think they’re actually raising them or something. The gall!!! Don’t those parents know it’s the responsibility of an eventual liberal administration to raise their children. “It takes a Village” are code words for “Let Us Politicos Do It, We’ll let you parents know if your input is requested.”

Posted by: Ken Strong at July 26, 2006 5:03 PM
Comment #170879

bushflipflops:
“What happens when Roe vs. Wade is overturned and women will have to travel to other states to get an abortion?”

Oh, the evangelicals will probably then start advocating for a law demanding that those women will need permission to leave the state for an abortion by the father of the child. In any discussion of abortion, it always starts with plenty of moralizing and/or bible thumping, but beneath all of that it is ultimately about once more gaining control over women.

“You are going to make it impossible for pregnant teenagers to have abortions if their parents are religious wackos.”

No. Like I said, when there is a will, there will always be a way. Whether or not abortion is legal or illegal, there will always be abortions. They may not be as clean, safe and sanitary for the women, but they will nonetheless occur, just as they always have.

jbod:
“That’s the overriding premise, even though someone like Adrienne wants to change the focus of the bill.”

Nonsense. Lautenberg’s bill regarding more sex education was an entirely separate one that got shot down just before this bill was discussed. Republicans don’t like sex education for kids, they’re in favor of the preaching abstinance instead.

“She wants more sex education…as if we don’t have enough already.”

There is no such thing as too much education, in my view.

“Sex education is not the salient point here.”

Oh yes, it is. But Republicans don’t want sex education in the schools. All they want to kids to hear is that they should abstain from sex entirely before marriage. They also rage against abortion as being murder. The way I see it, you’re all for producing sexually ignorant teens, with raging hormones, some of whom are going to have sex no matter what anyone tells them they should do — but, due to their prior ignorance, those kids will be risking teen pregnancy and/or disease. After this, if they do get pregnant, you’re completely against any possibility of these kids ever leading a normal life, because to the GOP’s way of thinking, as punishment for being so disobedient, a child will automatically have to become parent before they are even a mature adult. After all, that bundle of multiplying cells sitting inside that teens uterus must be saved and nurtured at any and all costs, right?
[sigh] Your party’s position on sexuality and reproduction is nothing short of sheer madness, in my opinion.

“The point is whether someone other than a parent gets to make rules for their children.”

Truthfully I question whether the government should be concerning themselves with this — aren’t there enough other pressing problems they should be focused on?

“I know someone like Adrienne would guard her parental rights like a mother bear. The question then is why wont she guard other people’s same parental rights.”

I’m not trying to keep anyone from having parental rights over their kids. I just don’t think that parental rights is something that needs to be mandated by federal legislation. If at all, this subject should fall to the states.

David:
“The big issue here is State’s Rights. And Republicans backed by a few conservative Dem’s have just undermined State’s Rights, yet again by federalizing a law that should have always remained the province of state law.”

Yes, but the GOP doesn’t believe in states rights any longer. Just like they no longer believe in fiscal conservatism or smaller government.

“Now the feds will be monitoring abortions and teen girls? I don’t think so. Yet, how else would our FBI and DOJ be able to enforce this new law?”

I don’t think so either, but it is a good way for the GOP to politically pander to the FREC’s as they head into pre-election mode, no?

“One of the worst offenses a society can commit against itself, is to pass laws it cannot, or will not, enforce rigorously. Failing to enforce the laws breeds contempt for them by growing numbers of the population.”

I agree. But many of the people who you’re talking to are folks who have repeatedly defended this president and this administration even though they clearly have total contempt for the rule of law. So maybe this contempt is no longer simply “breeding”, but is in fact the newly-born state of the nation.

Rob:
“Teenage pregnancy usually accompanies a number of poor choices being made by the child (alcohol abuse, drugs, involvement with young adults too old for them, etc.) that the child knows their parent would not approve.”

Strangely enough, I knew several girls in high school who got pregnant simply because they were “in love” and it “just happened.” Let’s face it, teen pregnancy will always be with us — but the very least we can do is to bombard these kids with sex education so they don’t all act in total ignorance and end up pregnant, or with STD’s.

“For the State to allow and in some ways support this activity delays solving the real problems that underlie the cause of the pregnancy. Btw, that is true for incest as well. If the child has to go to court to get permission, then the authorities know about the problem and can take corrective action.”

Yet with incest there might often be a huge amount of shame involved. Seems to me that many of these poor kids are the ones who are the most likely of all to go try to score that fake ID and take things into their own hands, rather than go stand up in a courtroom and make explanations to a judge.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 26, 2006 5:06 PM
Comment #170894

Adrienne:

Now now now. When you take an argument…any argument…to such extravagant extremes, its easy to fight against it. You know better, I think.

I don’t mind sex education in schools, though I think its more of a parental duty than a public education duty. What I don’t want is a promotion of sex as being okay, and that often tends to be the implicit message behind the “as long as you have safe sex” commentary.

I also don’t want ignorant kids, which is why my wife and I have taken the time to educate and discuss with our children about sexuality. I’m not willing to rely on a school or a church or a neighbor or a book—-I did it myself. That’s a little thing called responsibility.

I also don’t want to punish kids for getting pregnant. That’s why I help out an organization that helps young mothers get things they need. We show them love and respect, and we encourage them. But….and this is key…we don’t tell them that its okay to have gotten pregnant. Neither do we castigate them for it. We empathize with the massive difficulties they face, and we help them with the difficulties. We help them learn why its in THEIR best interest to not be sexually active, since its hard to manage the outcome of getting pregnant.

Were my daughter to get pregnant, I’d advise her to keep the child. I’d also look into the idea of adoption, which of course would eliminate your hysterical concern about “these kids ever leading a normal life”. I’d love my daughter and involve her in the decision making process, and I’d love her regardless of the outcome.

As I said, anytime you take a reasonable man’s argument to extreme lengths, the argument looks stupid. But the stupidity is really on the part of the person taking the argument to such lengths. I could do the same to your ideas, by suggesting that you want to kill off any baby just for convenience, but of course, that wouldn’t accurately depict your position, any more than you’ve accurately depicted mine.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at July 26, 2006 5:37 PM
Comment #170910
Change the age of the girl and tell me how you vote. 10…11…12…13…14…15. Does your opinion remain the same at each age or does it change?

Not sure what age has to do with it. As you go down in age, the problem is rarer and rarer. Also, I’m not sure we should be making laws based on such emotional arguments, appealing as they may be.

The point is, girls have reproductive freedom in one direction, so the discussion isn’t about parental rights to be consulted, rather it’s about abrogating the girls’ rights in the other direction. They should be allowed to seek reproductive care whether it is to obtain birth control, to have a baby, or to abort a fetus. I know emotionally that bothers parents (I am the father of two girls, so I know from bothered), but face it, either there is an adequate channel of communication between parents and child, or there isn’t. If the child is pregnant and unwilling to seek the advice of their parents, then the battle is already lost. She has either chosen to have sex and got pregnant without their consent or advice, or she has been abused and gotten pregnant and does not wish to consult with them, for whatever reason. Note that under your formulation, she has the perfect right to go ahead and have a baby, that is, become a parent with parental responsibilities and HER PARENTS CAN’T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. Given that, don’t you think she should have control over her reproductive health? What am I missing?

Posted by: Mental Wimp at July 26, 2006 5:59 PM
Comment #170914
What I don’t want is a promotion of sex as being okay…

So I take it that you don’t think sex is okay. Huh? Is it bad, then? Is that the message you want to convey to your children? Fear and shame? You do know that 80% of children have sex before they become adults, don’t you? Always have, always will. No one has ever demonstrated that teaching abstinence works, rather the opposite. You’re not going to stop it. So, do you want them doing it but feeling shameful and fearful, or do you want them to choose to do it based on accurate information regarding its consequences, responsibilities, mechanics, and rewards?

Posted by: Mental Wimp at July 26, 2006 6:04 PM
Comment #170920

Mental,

First off there is an age of consent in most states. If the girl is under 16 (or whatever age), they are not legally allowed to consent to sex. Any male over the age of 18 that has sex with a girl under the age of consent is guilty of statutory (or worse) rape. The fact that the girl gave consent is not even given consideration. So I think a similar statue that demands informed parents for abortion is reasonable if it passes the same age test.

Adrienne,

I’m sure it just happens for some children, but most often there are other underlying issues that lead to dangerous choices being made.

You are right that there is a lot of shame involved in incest, and the girls may take it into their own hands more often than not. However, this provision if supported and adheared to it could help bring an end to the cycle of incest sooner.

Posted by: Rob at July 26, 2006 6:19 PM
Comment #170925

jbod:
“As I said, anytime you take a reasonable man’s argument to extreme lengths, the argument looks stupid. But the stupidity is really on the part of the person taking the argument to such lengths. I could do the same to your ideas, by suggesting that you want to kill off any baby just for convenience, but of course, that wouldn’t accurately depict your position, any more than you’ve accurately depicted mine.”

You know what is really looks stupid, Joe? The fact that I was talking about the GOP’s position on this topic, and once again, you decided to take it as a personal attack. For this reason, your entire argument was fully loaded with “I’s”: “I” do this. “I” do that.

Honestly, everytime the topic of sexuality and abortion begins with you righties it always comes back to what YOU personally do, say, preach, think is right, think is wrong, want to have happen, or are advocating for. Forget yourself for a moment, won’t you?
What your party has been trying to legislate on the federal level is for abstinence-only sex education in schools, and for abortion to be outlawed. That is the Republican position. Period.

Thus, Your party’s position on sexuality and reproduction is nothing short of sheer madness, in my opinion.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 26, 2006 6:47 PM
Comment #170960

David Remer

The reason it is a federal and not a state issue is because of the taking a minor who is the residence of one state out of that state and taking her to a different state. This then becomes a federal issue it is only a state issue when it is in that state once it crosses state lines then it becomes a federal issue.

I am very strong for state rights. I do not like the federal government takes away state rights but this is not a state right issue.

the issue of parental rights should also be a state to state issue not a federal issue. I think people take the easy way out by making it a federal issue.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at July 26, 2006 9:21 PM
Comment #170962

Adrienne

true it is the conservative and many GOP positions to make Abortion illegal. As for abstinence only education I would like it but I am not sure if it is so broad of view as to say the whole GOP or conservative movement wants it.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at July 26, 2006 9:25 PM
Comment #170992

I have to agree with Adrienne here as the sensible argument.

Abortion is a choice that should be available to pregnant teenagers.

Ideally, the parents are involved and are responsible and helpful.

In many cases this is not true.

JBOD may be the perfect parent, but the real world doesn’t meet that criteria.

My grandmother married at 13. I had a cousin who had a child at 15. Her parents helped her raise it and she is now married (to a different guy) and has a successful life.

The problem with these laws is they effect the poorest, most incapable of coping. They do not effect the well off, stable families with good parents. This is plantation law at it’s worst.

In Mississippi a poor woman cannot get an abortion without a series of visits over often long distances that may require arranging transportation, time off the job, and financial impacts that cannot be met. Roe v.Wade has been effectively overturned there. This is just another backdoor attempt to do what hasn’t been yet acheived in the Supreme Court.

Posted by: gergle at July 26, 2006 10:57 PM
Comment #170994

Adrienne:

Again, I’m compelled to say now now now. You equate my ideas with Republicans. You first talk about Republicans in general, followed by the specific statements below:

“The way I see it, you’re all for producing sexually ignorant teens”

“After this, if they do get pregnant, you’re completely against any possibility of these kids ever leading a normal life,”

If you want to talk about the GOP, then do so and leave ME out of it, as I’m not a registered member of the GOP. When you equate me with the GOP, then I will continue to tell you what I think. I tend to mostly speak for myself, rather than others, anyway.

Mental Wimp:

I think the age thing has lots to do with the discussion. I’d advocate different measures for a 16 year old than I would for a 12 year old.

But you asked a specific thing that I’ll address.

So I take it that you don’t think sex is okay. Huh? Is it bad, then? Is that the message you want to convey to your children? Fear and shame?

If that’s what you took from my post, then I’d honestly advise you to reread it. You either missed or ignored the following statements that make it undeniably clear that I don’t convey fear and shame:

“I also don’t want ignorant kids, which is why my wife and I have taken the time to educate and discuss with our children about sexuality.”

“I also don’t want to punish kids for getting pregnant… We show them love and respect, and we encourage them. But….and this is key…we don’t tell them that its okay to have gotten pregnant. Neither do we castigate them for it.”

“I’d love my daughter and involve her in the decision making process, and I’d love her regardless of the outcome.”

If you take those comments to indicate fear and shame, then I’d have to advise remedial reading lessons for cognition. I don’t know too many health care professionals who seriously indicate that sexual activity at an early age is beneficial. Do you think that it is?

I know of many who claim just the opposite. And the results of early sexual activity—namely teen pregnancy—has terrible ramifications for society. It feeds into economic distress, and it feeds into kids growing up in single parent homes, which on average are not as stable as dual parent homes.

As I stated, I’ve educated my children about sexual behaviors. They understand both the mechanics and the psychology of it, and they recognize the inherent negative possibilities of a pregnancy before one is ready to assume the responsibilities.

I’m not sure how you take a negative view of what I’ve done with my children. Is it any different than what you’ve done with yours…other than that you seem to be more okay with the idea of abortion than I am?

Reread my entire post and see if you reach the same conclusions that you posted.


Posted by: joebagodonuts at July 26, 2006 11:02 PM
Comment #171002

Mental Wimp made an excellent point earlier that I have yet to see anyone in support of this bill respond to. The ultimate outcome of this bill is that the parents have a legal right to deny their child the choice of an abortion and therefore force their child to go full term and have the baby. So I would like to know from those who support this bill if they would agree that by following the same logic that a parent has the right to force their child to get an abortion?

Posted by: bushflipflops at July 27, 2006 12:31 AM
Comment #171042

FlipFlop,

From the article cited above:

Both bills are designed to make it a crime to help a pregnant girl cross state lines to get an abortion in an effort to evade parental notification and consent laws in her home state.

The Senate bill would protect the girl and her parents from prosecution, as well as provide an exception for anyone who helps a girl end her pregnancy when the pregnancy poses a threat to the mother’s life. It also contains a way for girls with abusive parents to ask a court to allow the abortion without her parents’ notification.

This bill would only give parents the final say in States that already afford them that privlidge. In those cases, if the parents decided that the best course of action was abortion, I would accept that premise with the same caveats that were put in the bill. The parents can’t make that decision in the case of incest. The parents can’t make that decision in the case of emotional or physical abuse.

That is in terms of the bill. However, I think that the Doctor performing the procedure has ethical considerations in regard to the girl’s wishes which may prevent that from becoming a reality. If I remember correctly from my days when I worked in a Children’s hospital, there are several factors that determine the course of treatment and the child’s wishes are considered along with their parents, especially as they get older.

Posted by: Rob at July 27, 2006 8:38 AM
Comment #171045

>”As I said, anytime you take a reasonable man’s argument to extreme lengths, the argument looks stupid. But the stupidity is really on the part of the person taking the argument to such lengths.” Posted by: joebagodonuts at July 26, 2006 05:37 PM

JBOD - You might want to re-read your own posts prior to accusing anyone of exaggeration. I would however, have to agree with you regarding how nonsensical exaggerations can become.

>”If you are in favor of removing parental rights, then you need to do so across the board for all the things that are less critical than abortion. Go to your schoolboard and demand that they allow kids to decide without parental consent to play sports or go on field trips etc. Those issues are far less important that abortion, so if you are willing to eliminate parental rights for abortion, you should have no problem eliminating them for other issues” Posted by: joebagodonuts at July 26, 2006 10:03 AM

>”Parent’s rights should rule. You should not be able to overturn a parent’s rights, even if you disagree with them. Consider if I took your daughter to get a tattoo, or to get her drunk in Mexico (legal drinking age is lower there),…”
Posted by: joebagodonuts at July 26, 2006 07:37 AM

Posted by: DOC at July 27, 2006 9:11 AM
Comment #171048

DOC:

I’ll take your advice and do that. I hope I haven’t exaggerated anyone else’s arguments. I believe your examples show where I made my own exaggerated argument to make a point.

I don’t understand how someone can be in favor of a child having an important medical process like abortion done withOUT parental consent, and then want parental consent for minor medical processes like earrings or sports physicals. That doesn’t make sense to me. Perhaps you can help me understand the logic behind that kind of stance.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at July 27, 2006 9:21 AM
Comment #171053

JBOD - In many of the situations you describe, parental consent is requested primarily to help avoid liability in the event of malpractice or injury than an effort to protect parental control.

I can’t fault you on your position. It’s apparent that you hold parenting as one of the most noble of efforts, but your arguments assume that parents will always act in the best interest of thier children, when in all reality many don’t.

In 1935, at age 15, my Grandmother became found herself pregnant, and at that time the only socially acceptable thing to do was send her away to have the baby, and put it up for adoption. She married at 19, and had 9 children, but because of the shame that was piled on her by her parents, died without ever telling her children that they had an older sister. Eventually the truth was revealled, but only because the sister noone ever knew they had, was terminal and had only 6 months to live.

My youngest brother impregnated his girlfriend when she was 16 and he was 17. Her parents thought that the most reasonable course of action was to throw her out, disown her if she refused to get an abortion. My father was the only reason this girl did not ultimately have an abortion. At my Fathers reqest she moved in with my parents and was treated as a duaghter. She and my brother were married in 1999, and my niece is now 12 years old.

If I was asked by a minor to help in obtaining an abortion, I wouln’t do it. If she asked that I not tell her parents, I wouldn’t do that either. So with that I guess I “wouldn’t” be much of a help.

As much as my convictions affect my actions, others convictions affect thiers, and there are those who would be willing and able to help a child in this circumstance. This bill only serves to add another level of stress to an already stressfull situation.

Posted by: DOC at July 27, 2006 11:02 AM
Comment #171073

“Democrats Fight to Weaken Parental Rights”
Bull. What about:
“the policy would be dangerous to pregnant teens who have abusive or neglectful parents by discouraging other people from helping them”?

Why does a disagreement have to be bastardized into namecalling nonsense? You want to debate at what point should public policy impact private life? Fine, but why say undefensible things like “according to Democrats we live in a country of abusive parents who rape their children and force them to give birth to their bastard offspring”?

Besides, I thought libertarians didn’t buy into the political rhetoric. If it were up to a vote, I’d vote to put Scottie into the Repub/Rightist category of posters.

Posted by: Dave1 at July 27, 2006 1:00 PM
Comment #171145

Rob,

I was not referring to just pregnancies caused by incest, or children of abusing parents, or cases where the mothers life is at risk, but for all cases. To make my point clearer I’ll give you two hypotheticals:

1) A 14 year old girl gets pregnant by her 14 year old boyfriend after having consensual sex. Lets say a doctor determines that there will be absolutely no complications if she goes ahead with the pregnancy, and she is living in a state that requires parental consent for an abortion. In this case let’s say that the girl has decided that she wants an abortion, but her parents are very religious and would never allow it. She learns that the nearby state doesn’t require parental notification for an abortion, but this bill would make it a crime for anyone to help her travel to this state, so rather than risk getting her friends in trouble with the law she decides to come clean with her parents, who then force her to go though with the pregnancy. So you end up with a situation where parents have the right to force their child to have a baby.

2) For this example we’ll use the same girl and the same conditions under which she gets pregnant, only this time she has decided that she wants the baby but her parents would never allow it. If the parents have the right to force their child to have the baby like in example one, shouldn’t they also have the right to force their child to have an abortion?

Posted by: bushflipflops at July 27, 2006 4:01 PM
Comment #171162

FlipFlop,

I believe my answer was clear, but I did offer an alternative view of what might ultimately happen.

In the first case, I would accept and back the parental decision. This is the case in many states today.

In the second case, I don’t believe this bill addresses this situation since it is a notification bill not a consent bill. However, assuming for the sake of argument that it does, I would support the parental decision as a citizen. I would hope that the parents would exhaust all other options before making such a decision, but I would support it.

Full disclosure, I’m pro-choice. I just believe that like many other things in life teenagers need guidance in making life’s tough choices.

Posted by: Rob at July 27, 2006 5:02 PM
Comment #171178

gergle:

JBOD may be the perfect parent, but the real world doesn’t meet that criteria.

Thanks for the compliment, I think. I’m not a perfect parent, in part because there is no such thing, and mostly because even if there were such a thing, I’d be far from it.

But I am an involved parent. I take the job of parenting seriously. Sometimes it makes me the bad guy, sometimes I’m the friend to talk to at 2 a.m, sometimes I’m just a chauffeur. I’ve tried to help them recognize that I’ve learned not necessarily by being wise, but more so by experiencing mistakes and learning from them. I try to pass some of what I’ve learned to them, but I also recognize that they have to simply experience life in order to learn for themselves. Hopefully, I can help them steer clear of the big mistakes.

I have certain beliefs that I discuss with my kids. They will eventually decide whether to share my beliefs or whether to go in a different direction. I challenge them, but in the end, they will be their own people.

Just being around is a big part of being a parent. The myth of “quality time” instead of “quantity time” is really just an excuse by people who cannot give both, either by their own choice or by circumstances around them. I don’t think there can be quality time without the quantity first, because building a relationship takes time.

I’m no where near perfect—-not even close. But I care, I love and I participate as best I can. These are things that any of us can do if we are willing.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at July 27, 2006 5:44 PM
Comment #171205

Good article about this topic by Bob Geiger over at Huffingtonpost. Make sure you read the updated portion at the bottom of the article — it lays out the stats and the reason why the U.S. has the highest teen pregnancy rate (ages 15 to 19) among developed countries. For instance, Germany’s rate is 16 per 1,000 while ours is 84 per 1,000.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 27, 2006 7:05 PM
Comment #171277

I’m no where near perfect—-not even close. But I care, I love and I participate as best I can. These are things that any of us can do if we are willing.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at July 27, 2006 05:44 PM

JBOD - I would say that those words are quite possibly the perfect exclaimation of what it truly means to be Human.


Posted by: DOC at July 28, 2006 12:52 AM
Comment #171395

Adrienne,

Do I really need to read another article? The reasons seem obvious; keep the kids ignorant, don’t discuss sex with them, and keep sex in the closet. Am I close?

Posted by: Dave1 at July 28, 2006 11:19 AM
Comment #171471

“It’s brilliant! Un-American as all get out, but still brilliant!”

Ken, if you were referring to me, you should
know that although I am not “un-American” I am not an American. I’m Irish.

I don’t see how acknowledging the fact that children can be victims of rape or statutory rape is “unpatriotic”. Quite a weird view.

In Ireland we learned the hard way through a series of horific scandals that such things do happen, and leaving everything to the family as a “unit” into which no one is entitled peer can help abusers mask what they are doing to vulnerable members of our society…looking the other way or putting one’s head in the sand and raising bizzare red-herrings like “patriotism” is hardly helpful.

Posted by: abhcoide at July 28, 2006 4:15 PM
Comment #171472

Of course, not being American, I can’t be a democrat either. In fact I think I might join Fianna Fail here, but really I’m still debating chosing them over Fine Gael…the two main political parties in Ireland. I’m sure you haven’t the foggiest what they stand for…

Posted by: abhcoide at July 28, 2006 4:17 PM
Comment #171565

JBOD, I think the big deal here is a difference in opinion of how big of an issue abortion is. You think of it as a life or death decision whereas I do not. You say that if parent’s do not need to be notified before a person has an abortion why do they need to be notified for activities that seem to be relativally benign. My response is that from my point of view, things such as sports have a far greater risk involved because there is a significant chance of injury during sports, but a relatively low chance of something wrong happening with an abortion. I understand the root of this conflict is the difference in opinion between you and I over when a human being is formed. Is at conception or after the first trimester? But Roe versus Wade is the law of the land and in the SCOTUS’s decision it was determined that a first term embryo has no greater right to life than an any other living organism that is not a human being.

To all:

In reality, there is no difference between notification and consent laws because how can one prove a notification of a parent without the parent’s consent?

Posted by: Warren P at July 28, 2006 8:29 PM
Comment #171607

Well sometimes dad’s a real jerk and stuffed shirt,but he is a decent Joe, mostly:)

Posted by: JBOD kids at July 28, 2006 10:33 PM
Comment #171612

Interesting, abhcoide.

Fianna Fail
Call themselves Republican (i.e. nationalist) but are more like the Democrats here (were radical left, now centrist right)

Fine Gael
Started off as far-right now are more like Christian Democrats or our moderate Republicans (Whitman, Snowe).

Posted by: Dave1 at July 28, 2006 10:42 PM
Comment #171624

Warren:

You are correct that the process of abortion does not carry grave physical risks. But studies do show that there are emotional risks. An abortion is simply not equivalent to a broken arm or a bruised knee from sports. Just as sex is not the same as wrestling, and rape is not the same as a non-sexual physical assault, neither is abortion the same as another medical process.

I recognize the differences people have surrounding abortion. But I’m still talking about parental rights here, not specifically abortion. A parent is always consulted before virtually any medical procedure; why would we exclude abortion from the list? There are provisions that consider incest or parental abuse, so those are not reasons to exclude abortion. The abortion issue, to me, is a subset of the parental rights issue. If we exclude abortion as being a minor medical procedure, then do you support removing all “minor” medical procedures from parental notification?

JBOD’s kids:

That was hilarious. Made my day. Made me laugh out loud.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at July 28, 2006 11:27 PM
Comment #172281

abhcoide,

I was not referring to you, I would’ve mentioned you by name if so. What is definitely un-American is to take away parental supervision of a child and to leave what is probably the most important decision in a young girl’s life to a TOTAL STRANGER.

And who’s saying the girl has to have the baby … or has to have an abortion??? I’m saying it’s the parent’s right to discuss this and determine the answer WITH THEIR OWN CHILD.

The issue of rape and incest to defeat parental rights is a jump shot in a dark gym. First of all, rape or incest is a crime and labeling it as a crime is already addressed in all of the public and private schools I’ve ever known. Incest with your child removes your parental rights making it a moot point … someone else will make the decision with the girl just like the liberals want. Most importantly, percentages are infinitesimally low for teen pregnancies via “Dad”. A supreme & vast majority are from her boyfriend’s semen. Does anyone dispute this?

To argue “we can’t let parents in on the pregnancy because there’s a 0.002% chance that Dad raped her” is like saying “we can’t imprison any criminals at all since 1% of all criminals are imprisoned unfairly”. Sometimes going with overwhelming odds is actually the right thing to do … as liberals moan in shock.

Posted by: Ken Strong at July 31, 2006 11:59 AM
Comment #198517

Help

Posted by: William at December 9, 2006 10:21 PM
Post a comment