Letters to the Editor
-
Parental notification is another liberal loser argument
"Anyway, how is 'parental notification' an ugly argument of the pro-life side? A minor is considering one of the most harrowing, most life-altering medical procedures out there, with significant psychological and physical ramifications....and her parents should not know about this?"
Exactly. Why is it ugly? In fact, it is not ugly. It is mostly pretty sensible. It is extremely popular, possibly supported by 70-80 % of voters.
I am the parent of a 21 and 18 yr old female persons. If they had an abortion, I would need to know. I would need to know because even well-performed abortions have side effects. If there is a side-effect, my child would need to go to a gynecologist, not to her pediatrician, and not to a GP.
So often, a line is drawn for one reason or another. People say "If we cross that line, we have lost the issue." and they become inflexible. Parental choice is such an issue. It can be a camel's nose, yes. However, it can also be important. If my kid became injured and ill due to an unsafe abortion or to a normal side effect, I need to know.
And if there are kids with abusive situations, that's what judicial bypass is for.
-
@ one guy
Do you understand that sexually abusing parents exist?
I don't want to divert the course of this thread from important political issues to the details of abortion rights. You know the types that would decide to start riding this thread. However, think about my question a bit and imagine a girl who does not drive and has to account for her time, including attendance at school and I think you will get a picture. Such a child's life could even be at risk. Sexually abusing fathers have been known to murder their children to avoid being exposed.
-
Sorry...
Sorry, but 'present.' I mean, 'present=no'. The parents of girls who are 18, or 21, do not 'need' to know. They may 'want' to know, but these is their problem and a matter of their relationships with their children, but not of the state's judiciary system. Same is true for a child who is considered old enough to give consent to any other treatment.
-
ezhik2
It was the timing I questioned. Again, if they had a problem with his "present" voting, I think the time to say so would have been before giving him the go-ahead.
As as for questioning his fundamental commitment--if he were a female candidate would they still question it--assuming that he had acted precisely the same? And are they questioning other Illinois legislators who have done the same? Dick Durbin maybe?
There comes a point where feminist apologism can become too muddled for its own good. I think AKA Smith arguing for a special exception that he should have used a different strategy on one particular rule doesn't strike me as making sense either. If this is the strategy, then it is the strategy. He wasn't using it only on bills he "sort of" cared about.
There's this to throw into the mix too for anyone who cares:
"Pam Sutherland is the president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council. She says Obama voted "present" at least seven times to provide cover to other abortion-rights supporters on such bills as the "Born Alive Infant Protection Act."
"Senators didn't want to vote pro-choice anymore, because they knew these were being used against them in their campaigns," Sutherland said."
from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18348437
In other words abortion was being used to throw out legislators. I'm sure that you Clinton "purists" would have wanted him to be thrown out by Illinois Right-to-Lifers who wer on the attack, but it strikes me that the "present" vote both provided adequate opposition (since it was not a yes vote) and strategy (so he would not lose his place in government to keep on not voting yes on bills like these).
And as for evidence of his stance on the issue:
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Barack_Obama.htm
and
http://www.barackobama.com/2008/01/22/obama_statement_on_35th_annive.php
The sad thing is that the squabbling going on right now is only going to guarantee that the people who get sick of the arguing will go with McCain.
By all means, feminists should "get" Obama--but it should be for something real. Railroading him because he's a man and therefore must not be "really" pro-choice is childish, untrue, unfair, and the kind of icky politicking that is hurting the Democratic Party's clear important chance at the white house.
-
Here's what's wrong with parental consent laws -- and judicial bypass
Since several of you asked, it's all in this post: http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2006/07/25/senate_passes_ccpa/index.html
-
The enraged Hillary supporters
"The sad thing is that the squabbling going on right now is only going to guarantee that the people who get sick of the arguing will go with McCain."
I have been amazed at the passion of the Hillary supporters. It goes well beyond enthusiasm. It is, in many cases, some sort of derangement. NOTHING can get in the way of Hillary, and if it does, there is no limit to the weapon or damage to that person.
It's Rovian. It's destructive. It's unhealthy. It's not Democratic.
I have been sickened by many of Hillary's supporters, and many others have too. If Hillary is to be the Democratic nominee, the Hillary supporters had better not piss us normal non-enraged Democrats off. If you take all of the fervent, committed Hillary supporters in the US, add in the Hillary republicans (ha-ha-ha, now there's a funny) and the Hillary independents, you got 30-35 % max.
You Hillary supporters need us and you ain't winnin' over many by this scorched earth take no prisoners crap fest. Play nice, or we're taking our votes and going home. I'll still vote for Hillary but you need more than me, and some of the crappy little deals going on are GENUINELY ANNOYING.
-
Parental notification
The problem with this is not the law.
I am for gun control. I feel that handguns should be banned. But most Americans feel that guns are fine. They say, "I am responsible. I am not one of those nuts. WHY ARE YOU BLAMING ME FOR THE NUTS AND THEIR BAD BEHAVIOR?"
That's the deal here. 99.9 % of parents are not abusers. They feel, rightly, that they would not abuse their child, and that they are not sexual perverts. The very notion that we are being blamed for sexual problems is, quite frankly, insulting, and pisses many people off. They say, "I'm not like that. WHY DO YOU CONSIDER ME TO BE A PERVERT?"
The issue here is that for the normal person this law merely restates the obvious - we are not perverts, we are not abusers, and you had better not get in the way of a normal family relationship with our children. Lynn, you see it as protecting the minority, but the majority, who are the voters, see it as a terrible imposition.
It's very much of a piece with gun control.