“NO” on 85 Party

17 Comments

1. Yes — wouldn’t want the abortion industry to lose any teenage customers!

2. Only a republican would think that this proposition was about money and business.

3. This isn’t about money…

   This is about teen safety!

   Prop 85 would put teen girls at risk…
   It’s a rehash of the horrid Prop 73 that Californians turned down last year!

4. Matt — if you need a law to enforce a family value, what kind of value is it? A parent shuld have a close enough relationship with their children that the kids should know they can come to a parent about anything. No one wants to have an abortion, but what this law will do is force pregnant teens fearful or their parents; negative reaction that it will be back to the days of coat hangers and lye. Kids will die. Let me play psychic for a moment — bet your againjst condoms being distributed in schools too?

5. Andrew:

   Great job cutting and pasting No on Prop. 85 slogans!

6. Jubal:

   Great job parroting right-wing myths!

   Now what 85 would do is to require that in ALL CASES, parents of teen girls must be notified at least 48 hours in advance of an abortion…
   Even in the case of physical and/or sexual abuse at home, the parents must be notified…
   I’m sorry, Jubal, but I consider that to be putting teen girls’ safety at risk!

   Now I know that some of your right-wing friends counter with the argument that “in those cases, the girls can go to court”…
   But seriously, if a girl cannot tell her parents about an abortion in the home…
   What makes us think that she’ll tell them in a front of a judge in a court of law?!

   I’m sorry, but I refuse to put these girls in harm’s way…
   Parents should be involved in such serious matters as ternimating a pregancy, but the government should not FORCE parental involvement, especially if the teenage girl is justly afraid to tell the parents!

7. Dan:

   OK. Then let’s allow teenagers to get any kind of elective surgery they want without parental permission. Let’s put an end to schools requiring permission slips for field trips and signed permission to give our children an aspirin if they have a head-ache.

   If you’re willing to let teenager — who we know are so mature and capable of controling their impulses — making their decisions on something as momentous as an abortion, why should we place any of the above restrictions on them, or any other restrictions?

   Why not let them enter into legal contracts? After all, a parent should have a close enough relationship with their children that the kids should know they can come to a parent about anything.

   Your comment is the same dodge I get from every advocate for allowing teens to get abortions behind their parents backs: “if you have a close relationship with your teen, blah, blah, blah…” You even threw in the bloody coat-hanger for good measure, but forgot to deploy the old reliable “back alleys”.

   The fact is, Dan, that even teenagers from good homes with good loving parents exhibit terrible judgment and stupid things. It’s a function of being a teenager. That’s why we place legal restrictions on what they can do without a parents permission.

   Dan, you’re about the only member of this blog who consistently makes a real effort to mount a civil, substantive argument instead of relying on insult and vulgarity. But in this case (I think) your comment is more fluff and slogans than a real argument about why the government should allow any of my daughters, as a matter of course, to obtain a particular major and potentially dangerous (physically, emotionally, mentally) medical procedure without the knowledge and consent me and my wife?

   Not that either of us will change the others mind on this.

8. Andrew:

   There’s an old axiom that “hard cases make bad law.”

   What percentage of teenage abortions do these hard cases you cite account for? You’re advocating for stripping me and other parents of our parental rights based on your assertion that a pregnant teenager won’t go to a judge for fear of sexual/physical abuse. Tragic as that is, the existence of some abusive parents isn’t sufficient reasons for depriving all parents of their parental rights.

9. Matt — Your arguments a apples and oranges here. And I could say you’re trotting out the same arguement your side has pushed for years. Who needs to bring up back allies here when TJ is a two hour drive away?

   Schools issue permission slips to protect them from liability in issuing medication.

   And those teens from good home with loving parents typically do tell their parents that they are “in trouble” and work with their parents on a viable outcome whihc is not always abortion.

   You need to chat with representatives of Planned Parenthood about the amount of counseling a pregnant teen goes through when requesting an abortion. This is hardly a case of abortion on demand.

   Better still, let’s invest in quality sex education for teens and in better birth control technology or improved access to “morning after” medication to prevent unwanted pregnancies. I know its a slogan, but it is true: every child should be a wanted child.

   While I would hope my kids would tell me before making this decision, my first concern is always for their saftey and well-being.

   Republicans and conservatives contiune to preach abstinance only alternatives to birth control. And when I debate someone very passionate about these subjects, a single question brings them to their knees: “so, were you a virgin on your wedding night?”

   Lastly, the voters decided this issue last November in the special election. Do you intend to bring it up every year until it passes. There is always an option of moving to the Dakotas…..

10. lastly, on the comment “Hard cases make bad law” didn’t stop the GOP and Christian right from passing “Terri’s law” in the Scaivo case. I remember Bush cutting a vacation short to sign some sort of legislation to this effect, which I believe was rule unconstitutional because you can’t write a law that only benefits one person or one particular person (sorry, I’m too lazy this afternoon to look that one up).

    There was an expression, “Better 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man be executed.”

    My position is abortion should be safe, legal and rare. You cannot chip away at Roe v Wade and in the case of Propo 85, voter salready decided on this last year.

11. What about the Parental Rights of the pregnant teenage girl?

    It is NOT a parental right to demand your daughter share your system of values and beliefs.

    What about passing laws to legislate against abortion-as-birth-control rather than condemning the girls whose admissions of pregnancy would, for whatever reason, shatter their families?

12. Making teens go through the courts is nothing more than a delay tactic.

    Some of these girls were molested by family or step family and cannot go to their parent for fear of reprecussions. They are also afraid to go through the courts because they are afraid of blame for destroying their families.

    Do we prefer that teens go to their parents – of course. Does Planned Parenthood advise minors to include their parents. You Bet!

    All of the other crazy statements are just that. Schools will still ask for permission slips, etc.

13. Thank you, demmother!

    I could not have said it better! : )

14. lastly, on the comment “Hard cases make bad law” didn’t stop the GOP and Christian right from passing “Terri’s law” in the Scaivo case. I remember Bush cutting a vacation short to sign some sort of legislation to this effect, which I believe was rule unconstitutional because you can’t write a law that only benefits one person or one particular person (sorry, I’m too lazy this afternoon to look that one up).

    1) Did I bring up Terri Schiavo?

    2) You didn’t really dispute the the point I was making to young Andrew.

15. What about the Parental Rights of the pregnant teenage girl?

    How can she have parental rights unless she’s a parent? Unless you are conceding the unborn child is indeed a human being possessing the fundamental right to life?

16. Jubal, You said earlier in this thread; “The fact is, Dan, that even teenagers from good homes with good loving parents exhibit terrible judgment and stupid things. It’s a function of being a teenager. That’s why we place legal restrictions on what they can do without a parent’s permission.”

    There are many conservatives (and liberals for that matter) who believe that a teenager should be prosecuted as an adult for their error in judgment if their actions are related to violent crime. Using that logic, why would a teenage girl who chooses not to continue a pregnancy not be adult enough to make that decision, but be adult enough to be charged as an adult for a violent crime?

    I hope you don’t think this is a dodge, because it isn’t. I’m really trying to reconcile the apparent double standard here.

17. What the free market can’t provide, the black market will. Don’t like the ‘free market’ argument, cool:

    It’s only 120 miles to Mexico.