A wise man once said...
"Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them."
-Paul, writing to the Ephesians (5:11)
Evil flourishes when it is hidden; injustice festers when the victim is unseen.
Sam Heller (interesting name), lawyer for the Center for Reproductive Rights eagerly says that:
Should a 13 year old be the manager of their health history? Do they have their own health insurance? Do they get to call the shots with the doctor on what surgery is best for their condition? I'm sorry, I think their parents are better suited at protecting and ensuring that their long-term interests are protected - not a Planned Parenthood clinic that takes that kid's allowance money all the way to the bank, or a frightened 13 year old who has just found out she is pregnant.
To assume a priori that abortion is a simple medical procedure that does not kill a human being that has innate and ever-retreating inalienable human rights is tragic on a cosmic scale, and is exactly what this law does.
The farce is so large that it's not funny. The labor of exposing the evil is ever-increasing as the barriers and obstructions keeping the act of abortion from the public conscience are reinforced and encased again and again behind the shiny armor of a codified law that makes absurd assumptions (namely, what I describe above - that a young person is not a human person).
Sorry, all you children that are going to be aborted. We're trying. If only they knew better.
I'mma gonna make you,
Shake you, take you,
I'mma gonna be the one who breaks you.
Put the screws into ya, yeah my way,
Yeah, come on, come on, come on and make my day.
Got some hell to pay ya, I steal your thunder,
The joy of violent movement pulls you under,
Oooh bite the bullet well hard,
Yeah but I bite harder, so go too far.
Oooh, I can't hear ya,
talk to two-by-four.
-Metallica, 2x4
Sorry, it's just playing now, and it's a good, gritty song for a good, gritty subject.
-Paul, writing to the Ephesians (5:11)
Evil flourishes when it is hidden; injustice festers when the victim is unseen.
Sam Heller (interesting name), lawyer for the Center for Reproductive Rights eagerly says that:
"It is the first ruling recognizing the United States Constitution gives protection -- constitutional protection -- to the informational privacy rights of young people in health care," Heller said.Sure. And it helps 13 year old kiddies abort their children. It's not about privacy, it's about abortion, and it effects only abortion.
Should a 13 year old be the manager of their health history? Do they have their own health insurance? Do they get to call the shots with the doctor on what surgery is best for their condition? I'm sorry, I think their parents are better suited at protecting and ensuring that their long-term interests are protected - not a Planned Parenthood clinic that takes that kid's allowance money all the way to the bank, or a frightened 13 year old who has just found out she is pregnant.
The center sued in 2003 on behalf of a group of obstetricians and gynecologists, nurses, psychologists, social workers, a family practice doctor, and a sex education teacher.Take a second and think about that little list of people - notice one thing in common? They make money and have a vested interest in increasing the number of "private, surgical procedures" (aka abortions) procured by all people as well as maintaining easy access to such "care." Caring about the kids? Doubtful. Caring about their business? More likely in my opinion.
To assume a priori that abortion is a simple medical procedure that does not kill a human being that has innate and ever-retreating inalienable human rights is tragic on a cosmic scale, and is exactly what this law does.
The farce is so large that it's not funny. The labor of exposing the evil is ever-increasing as the barriers and obstructions keeping the act of abortion from the public conscience are reinforced and encased again and again behind the shiny armor of a codified law that makes absurd assumptions (namely, what I describe above - that a young person is not a human person).
Sorry, all you children that are going to be aborted. We're trying. If only they knew better.
I'mma gonna make you,
Shake you, take you,
I'mma gonna be the one who breaks you.
Put the screws into ya, yeah my way,
Yeah, come on, come on, come on and make my day.
Got some hell to pay ya, I steal your thunder,
The joy of violent movement pulls you under,
Oooh bite the bullet well hard,
Yeah but I bite harder, so go too far.
Oooh, I can't hear ya,
talk to two-by-four.
-Metallica, 2x4
Sorry, it's just playing now, and it's a good, gritty song for a good, gritty subject.
Comments
Kline contended that a 1982 Kansas law requiring doctors, teachers and others to alert the state and law enforcement about potential child abuse covers consensual sex between minors. He argued that the law applies to abortion clinics, and later extended that to other health professionals and teachers.
Are you really going to tell me you agree with such an interpretation as that? That makes no sense. Now you may try to counter with some argument about 13 year olds not being able to decide consensual, but that still doesn't justify calling it child abuse (especially when the reprocussions in terms of punishment are quite harsh...imagine if you were 13, made the dumb choice of having consensual sex, and suddenly the state had right to call you a sex offender. The rest of your life is now marred by that simply because of loose interpretation of a law.)
I don't want to defend the stupidity of how much underage sex has become common in teens, but I'm also not going to defend bad laws and bad interpretations of them. If they want a law forcing health care to divulge this information, they need to make one specific towards that (and there are states that have that already, so it isn't like they'd be treading new ground). Using a child abuse law to cover their ass because they are lazy bit them back for being lazy. Now they need to step up and fix the situation.
As it stands, a 13 year old walks in to an abortion clinic after finding she's pregnant and has the baby killed.
If they ask (I'm not sure about the legal options or requirements) who she had sex with, she can say two things.
1.) It was consensual with her 13- 14-year-old boyfriend, etc.
or,
2.) It was non-consensual (rape) or the man was over 18 (statutory).
Which is easier under the ruling? Do you think she wants to go through the legal ordeal if there's an option where she can just say "it was my underage boyfriend?" Which serves the short-sighted interests of the girl? Which enables the easy killing of the unborn person?
If the girl gets a cold and needs penicillin, she needs a parental guardian to handle it, but now that she's pregnant, this girl in 8th grade should have complete autonomy regarding a procedure many times more dangerous and intricate? No, I don't think so.
Either you fully protect the health and legal privacy rights of the underage, fully removing medical guardianship from the parents, or you leave it fully.
Parental guardianship originated because we recognize that parents are smarter than their kids. They are able to better look out for their interests, despite what they think. This is true in the great majority of cases. Obviously douche-bag heroin-addicted parents might prove otherwise.
Give the above, this whole idea of allowing an 8th-grader complete medical privacy from all parties (including and especially her parents) is hypocritical and absurd when applied only to when the girl is electing to abort her child.
Getting back to what you commented about, reporting consensual sex of 13-year-olds. Strictly speaking, I believe it is outside the bounds of reasonable government for reporting of sexual activity to parents to be mandatory. That smacks of some kind of freaky social conservative Orwellian state.
But here's the kicker.
Do I think it's outside the bounds of reasonable government to require parents to be notified after a 13-year-old who is sexually active seeks to abort their child?
In the strongest terms possible: NO!!
Furthermore, for there to be a provision that allows that not to happen because the sex was consensual (or was reported to be) is tragic.
Does this answer your question?