Senate Revisiting Teen Abortion / Parental Rights,

Hey folks,

Happy Saturday to you. It IS an election year, and it IS only 109 days from the mid term elections. So the Senate is visiting all those "hot button" topics and issues that they feel you, the voter, feels strongly about. This time around it is abortion. But this issue that they are debating I DO agree with. I know most of you do as well.

What they are debating it a bill that would make it illegal, a federal crime, to take a teenager across state lines to end a pregnancy without a parent's knowledge. As I said the last time they debated this, what’s the problem? Why do we NEED a law stating this. OH yeah, we need this law to counter the insane idea that this would be OK.

Opponents say the bill would make criminals of well meaning confidants, such as relatives and clergy members, who might help a pregnant teen whose parents are abusive. They also argue that we have to protect these women from pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. So let the Loonies speak. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who is managing opposition to the bill during floor debate, said,

"Instead of doing something to improve the health of women and girls, the Republican leadership is spending precious time on a bill that protects incest predators, throws grandmothers in jail and violates our Constitution."

NOW’s Vice President Melody Drnach, said,

"It's very dangerous to young women. The most vulnerable young women it leaves out are those who are victims of incest and abuse within their own family and their own network of adults. And it is not going to help grandmothers and aunts and sisters who want to help out in a time of crisis."

If you go to A Statement by the Planned Parenthood Clergy Advisory Board you will see the PPH is trying everything that they can to convince the general public that their opposition to this bill is not only right, but moral. Part of what the "clergy" say in this statement is,

"But, as pastoral counselors, we also know that not every family functions well. Alcoholism, domestic violence, and neglect are but some of the sad realities that many young people live with. In such families, a teen who becomes pregnant is unlikely to tell her parents and run the risk of their wrath. In other families, a teen may wish to spare her parents the pain she believes her unplanned pregnancy might cause them. In at least one case in a state where mandatory parental notification is the law, a teen's concern for her parents cost her life. Knowing that she could not go to a reputable provider who would be obligated to notify her parents, she became the victim of illegal abortion. Access to confidential and competent health care could have preserved her life.

Mandatory parental notification and/or consent laws can increase the risk to the health of pregnant teens. Such laws, despite their intentions to the contrary, are far more likely to encourage a teen to delay speaking with her parents and, thereby, cause her to delay seeking the medical services and emotional counseling she requires. In turn, these delays increase the risk and the cost of any procedure she may undergo."

Now I understand in the RARE cases that abusive parents are either neglecting or abusing their children, the children need to be protected. But we already have laws to do this. If the parents or other families members are having incestuous relations with them, we have laws that take care of that situation. If the children are being mentally or physical abused, we have laws for that. Of course we have laws for rape. This law does not override these laws, nor put the child more at risk of these already present harmful situations.

Then to state that the law will be far more likely to encourage a teen to delay speaking with her parents and, thereby, cause her to delay seeking the medical services and emotional counseling she requires, is just idiotic.

The proponents of the bill, those with sane rational, say that those girls that are taken across state line, often occur when a girl, or the man involved, wants to evade home state parental consent laws. In other words, they get the girl pregnant, and avoid any consequences.

OK, say I, in my single days, did something stupid. For those of you who may remember my story of the two girls, one 12 or13, and the other 14 years old that showed up at my house, one wearing a see through top with no bra, and daisy duke shorts, and the other in a thong string bikini, asking me if "there was anything they could do for me to get money to go to the store", you may understand what I mean.

What if, I said yeah? They come into my house and something happened? I get one of them pregnant. If the LWL {Left Wing Looneys} or those that truly believe in this "right" of a CHILD to be taken across state lines and given an abortion WITHOUT the parents even knowing anything about it, had their way, I could do exactly that. I would continue on with my life and await my next victim, without any repercussions for my rape and abuse of this young girl. The parents would not even know about it. Noone would.

As the bill's Senate sponsor, John Ensign, R-Nev. asked,

"How would you feel as a parent in a situation like that?"

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. said,

"Those who would object to it have a high burden to show what is unreasonable about the legislation,"

The only explanation that I can come up with or that I’ve been told is this, some feel, strongly I might add, that ANY bill or legislation that hinders ANY form of abortion in any way, is an attempt to reverse the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. But, under this bill, anyone who helps a pregnant minor cross state lines to obtain an abortion without parental knowledge could be punished by fines and up to a year in prison. The girl and her parents would not be vulnerable to criminal penalties. The measure contains an exception for those who help underage girls get such abortions to avoid life threatening conditions. So this is really not the case.

I asked a Liberal friend of mine who is a single parent of a 14 year old daughter, how she could possible and truly believe that this is alright? That it is OK for someone to take her daughter across state lines, get her an abortion, and not be at all informed of the situation? After a brief hesitation, she said,

"This is just a move by the Religious Far Right Wackos to take away a woman’s right to chose." After asking her if she TRULY believes that, even if it was her daughter? After her even longer hesitation, she said, "Yes".

I love her to death. I really do. But I just am completely stupefied at this concept. That her normal, and fully intact, motherly instinctive child protection process is completely interdicted by her political view of the Liberal Looney agenda. She would be calling for the head of any male that took her daughter across state line without her permission or knowledge for any other reason, and the male could be arrested for kidnaping, but in this case, it’s OK.

This is the same person that told me that she "owns" her daughter until she goes off on her own as an adult. Isn’t that the way it SHOULD be? When did this concept that kids having rights come about anyway. Truthfully, the parent is the parent and need to make sure that the child is the child. Believe it of not, the parent knows what is best for their child more than the child does.

Let’s leave aside all the other Looney and ever changing arguments for abortion itself for a second. Like first trimester, second, no wait third. In the case of rape or incestuous pregnancies, which is only like 6% of abortions. By the way, did you know that one study of 1,900 abortion clients in 1987, found only one woman claimed to be the victim of rape or incest. (Torres and Forrest, "Why Do Women Have Abortions?"Family Planning Perspectives, July/August 1988, 20:4, pp. 169-176.) Or the contradiction of if a woman decides to end the pregnancy, it is a medical procedure, yet if she is murdered and her child dies, then the murderer can be charged with two counts of murder. Let’s talk about this one scenario. As Ensign and Sessions noted that a child needs parental permission to receive aspirin at school and to go on a field trip, but no parental consent is required for an abortion.

More than 30 states have parental involvement laws, but there is no federal policy requiring other states to honor them when girls cross jurisdictions secretly to obtain abortions. Democrats will try to amend the bill but predict it would be approved considering the Republicans' 55-44-1 majority.

Thankfully most polls taken in this country suggest there is widespread public backing for the bill supporter’s sentiments about a parent's right to know about a child's actions regarding abortion. In polls, almost three quarters say they think a parent has the right to give consent before a child under 18 has an abortion. Even more indicate they feel that it is important for the parents at least being informed. I’m glad to see that MOST Americans have it right.
Peter