<$BlogRSDURL$>

Thursday, April 28, 2005

Riding the fence 

Thank God the ACLU doesn't win them all (at least not yet). Taking a break from our current discussions of foreign policy, I was appalled at the blatant hypocrisy of the ACLU down in Florida.
The ACLU in its appeal on the girl's behalf cited Florida statutes that protect a minor's decision to decide on an abortion.

"No (Department of Children & Families) regulation or state law can override a constitutional right as recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court," said Howard Simon, the organization's executive director for Florida.

We need to dissect the language to really understand the full depths of depravity that the ACLU has sunk to. While shock and disgust at the mere idea of advocating and Abortion for a 13 year old is my gut reaction first and foremost, two things jump out at me from this quote: (1) The article cites a Florida statue protecting abortion, and yet the ACLU's quote is in reference to the constitution, which holds nothing even resembling a discussion of abortion, and ignores the State law that prohibits the State from conceding to an abortion for a minor in any case. Are they appealing based on the statute, or is the ultimate goal to help broaden the legal protection of abortion on "Constitutional" grounds, and perhaps more important (2) "A Constitutional right as recognized by the U.S. Supreme court"? This cuts to the core of the ongoing discussion right there. Constitutional rights are recognized by the constitution.
The ability of the liberal judges to extract a right to anything from a passage in the constitution aside, this case is shocking in that it comes so soon after the ACLU did little to protect the rights of another person "unable to make a medical decision." Need we be reminded the tenacity with which the ACLU and others defended Mr. Schaivo's ability to decide for his wife the matter of life and death, something explicitly enumerated as an "inalienable right" in the declaration of independence and the Constitution?
A quick search of Google reveals Mr. Simon and the Florida ACLU to be rife with contradiction (but are we really surprised?):

Howard Simon, executive director of the ACLU of Florida, supported the legislation, noting that his organization for years had advocated electronic monitoring of offenders on probation (4/22/05, link)

and

"The mayor better get good legal advice before he backs the city into doing something the courts will eventually find the city cannot do," said Howard Simon, executive director of the Florida ACLU.( in regards to a law to mandate a buffer zone around areas containing children to stop sex offenders)(4/26/05, link)

Hmm.

Religious freedom is hardly the only civil libertarian concern the ACLU has downgraded in favor of ant discrimination concerns. The national ACLU, for example, believes that plaintiffs should be able to win ant discrimination lawsuits by showing "disparate impact" (demonstrating the discriminatory effects of the defendant's actions, even if there was no discriminatory intent). This places defendants in a very vulnerable position-even if they acted completely innocently, they can be found liable-but the ACLU seems unconcerned. As Cornell University professor Jeremy Rabkin points out, the ACLU is ''obsessed with due process, except when it comes to civil rights litigation, where they want no due process for the other side.'' ''There's a certain kind of logic to it,'' Rabkin adds, ''They genuinely think you're in the path of social progress if you object. It's not a personal comment on you; it's that you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs.'' (10/22/03, link)

and

"The proposed language is one step closer toward creating an environment in public schools where students won't be afraid to speak their minds for fear of offending others," said Zeina N. Salam, co-chair of the Broward County ACLU's Legal Panel and a cooperating attorney on the case. (04/22/05, link)

And last, but perhaps most egregious:

"They can put a good face on it, saying that the grant ran out, but frankly if there wasn't growing opposition to this kind of intrusive, investigatory technique, the funding wouldn't have run out," (Partial birth abortion? No, a terrorism and crime database!) (04/18/05, link)

So what's the point? Well, the simple answer is that the ACLU really doesn't care about the 13 year old girl in question. As usual, she is merely a tool for the ACLU to ride the winds of emotion and popular Liberal opinion, at the expense of human life, pre and post natal. If they did, they would recognize that, despite their rhetoric, an abortion is far more intrusive than giving birth, even for a 13 year old. They would examine their own statements, and realize that it is hardly consistent to fight for (but occasionally against, if that makes any sense) notifying families about ,and protecting minors from, sex offenders, yet opposing laws mandating that parents be notified if a minor wants an abortion. Hell, you have to a have a parent present in order to get a Tattoo in this country, but not to get an abortion! And why? Well, if you follow the ACLU's logic, that’s because the supreme court hasn't put Tattoos into the Constitution yet.
Thankfully, the Florida legislature is moving to create an amendment to the State constitution that would allow for a lasting law on parental notification, and stricter second trimester abortion laws. And surely the ACLU will challenge it. That is, unless they change their mind.

Comments:
And you think a 13 year old is mature enough to have a child? This is why abortions should be available.
 
As the previous commenter correctly pointed out, the 13 year old is better off getting an abortion.

But she's not better off getting a tattoo.

So there's the difference.
 
This would seem valid, but my point would have to be that we don't know the specifics of the situation in either direction. That is the basis for parental consent laws, or at least notification laws. The people who know this situation best are the girl herself, and the parents (if they were present). The analogy to tatoos is simply to draw attention to the fact that there seems to be quite a legal disparity when one must obtain guardian consent for a superficial skin treatment, but not for an invasive and potentially dangerous medical procedure. Further, we need to remember that carrying the child to term does not necesarily mean she will "mother" the child; she is a foster child herself and should be made aware of all her options. Thus the state's position that she is incapable of making the decision.
 
In response to the two comments before: Of course she's too young to be a mother. She's too young to be engaging in sexual intercourse too! It boggles my mind that in America we abort over one million babies a year, while meanwhile thousands of infertile couples wade through miles of red tape, and drain their finances just for the chance to adopt a baby. Yes, she's too young to raise the child, but obviously her body isn't too young to "have" the baby. Let her have the baby, and give it up into a loving home.
 
Ah, little 17 year old girl wants to get an abortion?

Got to go get a parental notification from daddy.

Too bad that daddy's the one that's been steadily raping her for years, and he's the guy that knocked her up.

But you know, we got this culture of life thing, so we can't have you aborting that pregnancy without checking with dad first, or mom, I bet she's in real fine emotional shape.

I'm sure the kid you're forced to have will grow up just fine.

You people are going to have to face it, this is a PERSONAL decision, regardless of the persons age.
 
"an abortion is far more intrusive than giving birth"

Are you out of your fucking gourd?
 
Have to agree with Shadow Spawn here: too young to raise the child? by who'se standards? The same biology that the left uses to justify there shenanigans about fetus vs human is at work here. She got pregnant didn't she? Not that society doesn't have a responsibility to aide her. But thats exactly the point. Will an abortion actually help. And yea, abortion is more intrusive than giving birth. Last time I checked, birthing a baby didn't involve a metal tube being shoved into my uterus!:
Suction Abortion, Also called vacuum aspiration, this is the most common abortion technique in use today. In this procedure a suction tube is inserted through the dilated cervix into the womb. A powerful vacuum tears the placenta from the uterus and dismembers the body of the developing child, sucking the pieces into an attached jar. There is a risk that the uterus can be punctured during the procedure. Also, the abortionist must take care that all the body parts are removed from the womb, as infection and hemorrhage can occur if fetal or placental tissue is left in the uterus.
 
Why abortion is different from getting a tattoo.

1. There are no medical complications to not getting a tattoo. Pregnancy has numerous medical risks, including death, far greater than a first-trimester abortion. The medical risks of getting a tattoo are, of course, greater than the risks of not getting one. So in the case of a tattoo, the requirement for parental approval protects the health of the child, while in the case of abortion, a requirement for parental approval places the child's health and life at greater risk. It is questionable whether even a parent is entitled to impose such risks on a child against her will.

2. People never need tattoos as a result of parental abuse. Children who are pregnant are often the victims of abuse by the very parent who is required to approve the procedure.

3. There are no hazards to postponing a tattoo. Delaying abortion results in medical hazards, as well as ethical concerns for those who believe that there are ethical problems with aborting after the embryo acquires a functioning brain. In some states, abortion may not even be available at later stages of pregnancy.

Or to summarize: Duh!
 
I see that they voted down amendments that could have substituted a grandparent or priest/minister for the parental consent. What if both parents are dead, missing or jailed? What if the parent (as others here have pointed out) was the one who impregnated the 13 year old? What if she was raped by anyone?

This legislation makes no sense and those writing it KNOW that. I suspect this is part of a greater paln to further demonize the (right-leaning) judiciary who will have no choice but to declare this legislation unconstitutional (if it even passes the Senate, which it probably won't)!
 
Parental notification for an abortion is great, unless, of course, the father of the fetus is the father of the girl. But she was probably asking for it, right?
 
She was asking for it? You are sick. Whether she was raped or not doesn't change if she has an abortion. In fact, it will only violate her further.
 
I can't think of anything more heartless, crueler or colder, than forcing a 13 year-old girl to give birth when she does not want to. Do the men who make these laws understand that giving birth involves a tremendous amount of pain and some women die during childbirth? Any woman who does not want to give birth should not be forced to by the state. Period! I hope things work out for this little girl. If she is a ward of the state, and the state wants to claim ownership of her body, she should sue the state for letting her get pregnant in the first place!
 
In the case of the tatoo, the kid is about to do something stupid. There is still time to prevent the mishap.

In the case of her pregnancy, the girl has already done something stupid (or been the victim of something nasty and illegal) and needs a remedy. Her parents may or may not be capable of helping. But she is already in the middle of a tragedy.

Makes sense to me that the judicial attitudes are different.
 
>I can't think of anything more heartless, crueler or colder, than forcing a 13 year-old girl to give birth when she does not want to.<

This is the kind of attitude in today's society that drives me nuts. In other words we should all be able to go about and do whatever we feel like without having to face or deal with any consequences of our actions. Just because we live in a modern time where medicine allows us to perform relatively safe abortions, doesn't mean it should be the "fix all" for every unwanted pregnancy.

As a parent I find it unfathomable that there are those in society who would rather see a perfect healthy fetus sucked down a drain rather than be given a chance at life, just to spare the mother the "horror" of child birth.

For those who say, "what if she was raped by her own father"? I think you have a point. Some contingencies must be planned for when making such laws.
 
Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?