My state is at it again. The parental nofication bill is put on the ballot again for the third time. It had been twice rejected and I felt that it will be rejected again. Anyways, about the parental nofication laws, here are my opinions:
By forcing the physicians to notify the parents about their daughter attempts to get an abortion, than the parents could help their daughter if she was rape or a victim of incest.
I personally think that if a parent need a physician to tell them that their daughter had been rape or a victim of incest when she attempt to get an abortion, than that parent had already fails to provide a loving and caring home for her.
Beside, many women clinic do comply with child abuse laws, especially when it comes to rape or incest. Do you think that a physician will not report that their young client had been rape or a victim of incest? Of course they will.
The purpose of this bill is base on a girl name “Sarah” (name withheld to protect her identity) who die from infection after getting an abortion. She spend a day or so at the hospital before dying without the doctors and nurses knowing what made her sick in the first place. If her parents had knew about her abortion than they would had save her life.
I think that this “Sarah” girl had probably obtained an illegal abortion. There are two way to end an abortion in the first trimester, the abortion pill or medical procedures. My suspicion is that “Sarah” went to a butcher or a doctor who had no experience with abortion procedures to get rid of her pregnancy. She probably didn’t tell her parents because she fears that there might have been some backlash against her for being pregnant in the first place. She also probably kept quiet though out her stay at the hospital because she did not want to disappoint her parents about her pregnancy.
Good parents don’t need laws to tell them if their child had been rape or a victim of incest. What kind of parents should be so busy with their lives that they don’t had enough time to notice that they teenage daughter had been rape?
Here is another argument:
Adam Gault, 41, lured a 14 year old from her home with promises of drugs and a job. Instead, she became his sex slave for a year, captive in his house. When she became pregnant, Gault arranged for an abortion for her at Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood didn’t report the girl’s victimization (because they didn’t not notify her parents, who she had not seen for a year when she left for a job and promise of drugs at the age of 14).
I wonder where her parents were for a year. If she left her house for a job and promises of drugs, than she probably had a very bad home to live in because she needed drugs to escape her home. My gosh, where are these parent these days. What about the neighbors that live near Mr. Gault, why didn’t they report the sexual abuse of the girl? There had been nothing Planned Parenthood could have done to prevent the sexual enslavement of the young girl under the influences of Mr. Gault for a year. How did they found out that she was a sex slave anyways? They probably found out about it after she escaped or told someone about it. I hope they caught the guy and hope that he is rotting in a prison cell right now.
The last argument:
A 12 year old girl was given alcohol by an adult male who raped her when she passed out. Weeks later, the rapist’ mother took her to an abortion clinic and afterwards dumped her 30 miles from home. The police finally located her after the girl’s frantic mother reported her missing. She was suffering severe abortion complication that could have caused her death had she not received immediate medical treatments.
I think that when a young girl get date rape, she often experience traumatic stress disorder. She would go into denied or a depression base on the severity of date rape effect. I also want to know what her parents were doing when the young girl was given alcohol and than date rape. How did the young girl came into possession of alcohol in the first place? Where the hell were her parents when she was going though the trauma of date rape and a rape pregnancy? How did the rapist’s mother was able to take the young girl to an abortion clinic without her parents noticing something odd or strange. I wonder if the rapist and his mother were friends with the girl’s parents. Parental notification had nothing to do with this; it had to do will bad parenting.
These parents who offered their stories are really bad parents from my view and parental notification would not had force these parents to be better communicators to their daughters. They had observably failure to provide a household where their daughters felt safe enough to tell them about their sexual lives.
What are your thoughts?
http://www.ppacca.org/site/pp.asp?c=kuJYJeO4F&b=139413
also, look up yes on prop 4 or inside california register voter guide.
You have a very good argument here, but don't forget proper tense and spelling. Yours is not as bad as some I have read, but proofread your blog before posting. What I do is write the blog in Microsoft word so I can run spell check.
Like what you've read? Well, then here's more:
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tricia0711
i do use spell check. i just don't had proofreading for it that is all.
...I am a proponent of parental notification laws for minors who are seeking abortions (so long as they contain appropriate judicial bypass mechanisms). The medical decisions of a minor child lie with the parent in virtually all other cases. I am aware of no other voluntary medical procedure that a minor may obtain without parental consent and I see no rational justification for taking that decision out of the parent's hands in these cases.
BUT...it is important to note that the "Sarah" (as she is referred to in public Court documents) would not have been saved by Proposition 4. This girl had entered into a common-law marriage with an older man (completely legal in Texas, where this happened), and was not a minor per the statutory definitions in Texas State Law. Proponents of this law do themselves a disservice when they disingenuously attempt to sensationalize the debate over very serious issue with false claims about the nature of the situations they cite.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
I just don't think that you need a law for good parenting. if your daugther don't feel safe coming to you about her pregnancy or abortion than You had failed as a parent to provided a loving and caring home.
If you believe that teenages girls should be force to tell their parents about their attempt at abortion, than these parents should go and talk to their daugthers about pregnancy.
beside, Planned Parenthood do comply with the laws. If they expect some forms of child abuse, rape, or incest, they do report it to the proper authories.
Gov.t. should force by law what the parents had fails to do in their house.
good parents don't need laws. only bad parents need laws.
if my daugther, (not that I had one) was going to get an abortion, I would much rather she be alive than dead because she fears my opinion.
this prop. was created in relations to the state passing a law way back in the 80's or maybe 70's, where they said that teenage girls had the right to same medical care as adult women.
yes, my state pass this law way back than.
this means that if an adult woman can terminate her pregnancy without permission from her parents than the teenage girls should be entitle to the same right.
the reason of this prop is to overturn it.
look, if you are really good parent, you don't need a doctor to tell you that your daugther had been rape, or a victim of incest, or had in engage in teenage sexual intercourse.
You believe this but don't force it upon other women, who may not had a nice home to live in, or worse they fear their parents opinions that is why they would keep it a secret.
I also don't think this had anything to do with protecting victims of rape or incest.
About chuches being tax, here is my opinion. I don't want to donate to a church or religious organization that siad they will use my money to help the victims of katrina or HIV positive orphans in africa than use my money to campaign for a candidate that i don't agree with.
this is what i am coming from, that is why i believe that churches should be tax.
i am scared that if i donate to the Red Cross so that they can used my donated money to help victims of hurricane ike or whatever but instead they used my money to campign for McCain/Palin or a right wing conservative candidate, leaving the victims of the hurricanes without any helps since all my money went to McCain/Palin.
do you understand why I just think that religious organization that do this should be tax.
don't lie to my face that you are using my donated money to help poor hungary children than use it to finance a political campaign.
I just don't think that you need a law for good parenting. if your daugther don't feel safe coming to you about her pregnancy or abortion than You had failed as a parent to provided a loving and caring home.
That's an interesting opinion, but it is completely irrelevant. The point is that the legal parents and guardians of a minor are responsible for making major medical decisions regarding their children and wards. Can you provide an example of any other major voluntary medical procedure which can be performed on a minor without the consent of the child's parents? Regardless of what you may think about the parenting skills of a child's legal guardians, they are still the child's guardians and have a right to be involved in a decision of this magnitude. There are of course extreme situations which warrant outside intervention, which is why a appropriate judicial bypass procedure is needed in case the rights of the legal guardian need to be abridged or terminated. But until that happens, those parents have rights, too, and among those rights lie the power of medical decision making for their children.
If you believe that teenages girls should be force to tell their parents about their attempt at abortion, than these parents should go and talk to their daugthers about pregnancy.
Indeed. They should have to "tell their parents" just as they would be expected to do so before agreeing to a appendectomy, or a
beside, Planned Parenthood do comply with the laws. If they expect some forms of child abuse, rape, or incest, they do report it to the proper authories.
Who said that they don't? Planned Parenthood is doing their level best to help these children in accordance with the law. I have no problem with them doing what they do to comply with any and all applicable laws. I still think, however, that it is plainly wrong-headed to presume that a minor child who can't even get an aspirin from the school nurse without parental permission can somehow make a rational, informed decision without the help of her legal guardians (that is kind of the whole point of being a legal guardian to a minor child, after all).
I also think that your viewpoint about your imaginary daughter is a bit naive. I think that if you came home from work one day and found a note saying, "Hey mom, I went out to have surgery without telling you. See you later." You'd be pretty pissed off (and if you weren't, then I think that you would only need to find a mirror to see one of theose "bad parents" that you are railing against.
if you are really good parent, you don't need a doctor to tell you that your daugther had been rape, or a victim of incest, or had in engage in teenage sexual intercourse.
I think this opinion in incredibly naive.
You believe this but don't force it upon other women, who may not had a nice home to live in, or worse they fear their parents opinions that is why they would keep it a secret.
Again, you aren't reading very closely. That's why I think that these laws must by necessity include a judicial bypass. The whole point of having an age of majority is that before a certain point, most kids just aren't capable of making good decisions. Those that are capable, or who lack a sufficiently supportive situation at home should have options.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
Do you know who Becky Bell is?
she died from complication from a fail abortion. she did that because she didn't want to go though the state abortion laws, which require a perent consent.
Here is how her parents felt:
Bill and I decided to speak out; we thought we could prevent other girls from dying. We appeared on 60 Minutes. The anti-choice crowd came after us. They followed us. There would be crowds of people with their fetuses in a bottle, and some would say that Becky didn't die the way we said she did. They loosened the lug nuts on our car. In Arkansas, they shot a hole in the building where we were speaking. They cared more about a fetus than about my daughter. I thought, "I'm not afraid of anybody, because my daughter is dead and you can't hurt me anymore."
People ask me what I would have done if Becky had told me the truth. I would have been mad, and I would have said, "Becky, you just ruined your life. What are the neighbors going to think?" That would have been my first reaction because that's who I am. But then I would have asked her, "Beck, do you want to get married? Have a baby? Have an abortion? What do you want? What can you live with, hon?" We would have worked it out. But I never got the chance.
Is that what you really want. Yes, I would be angry if I found out that my daugther had a medical procedure in regards to her pregnancy but I would even be more angrier if I came home and saw my daugther's dead body lying on the group because she too scared to tell me that she wanted to terminated her pregnancy.
I would never wants to felt that way. I would never want to felt the pains of losing my fictional daugther if she was to die from complication from a botched abortion.
Yes, i had received over the top counter drugs before.
Good Parents don't need laws, only bad parents do.
Here is comprise, if the these people are so worry about protecting rape or incest victims.
When she goes to her doctor, she can informed her doctor that she wishes that the doctor to tell her parents about her pregnany instead of she telling them herself.
That way, the parents will be informed of thier daugther's pregnancy and other girls who wishes not to informed their parents of the pregnancy can still keep it a secret.
I grew up in a household where birth control was a word that didn't even exist, if i ever gotten pregnant (not that I had), I would never want my parents to know about my pregnancy because I don't want to disappoint them.
I probaly also don't want to informed anyone who I don't trust about my (imaging) abortion either, and if I did, it would be a sister or aunt, which this laws excluded from parental notification.
Keep your laws off my uterus.
I grew up in a household where birth control was a word that didn't even exist, if i ever gotten pregnant (not that I had), I would never want my parents to know about my pregnancy because I don't want to disappoint them.
so, really, your entire reasoning for not wanting parents legally involved in a major medical decision is that their kid might have to face additional consequences for their actions.
If I had gotten pregnant as a teenager, my parents would have been disappointed as well. But not telling them to avoid disappointing them would have been, I think, an incredible act of selfishness on my part. Because disappointing them would have made me feel bad. When it comes down to it, that's what you're avoiding.
You're not looking out for your parents' well-being by getting an abortion behind their backs, you're looking out for your own interests.
I agree with Blackout. It is a major medical decision and, unless physical harm is going to come to a minor if her parents find out about it, her parents should have a right to know about the procedure and be involved in the decision-making.
"What a crazy random happenstance!"
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog
Read my Blog!
So, in other words, you think that a girl should be punish for engaging in premarital sex?
if she don't want to tell her parents, than she is a selfish whore, but she is too stupid to make a decision on her owns.
the teenager who wishes not to discuss her prengnacy with her parents is stupid selfish whore because she don't want to tell them and she is too stupid to know what is going on with her body?
this bill doesn't protect the teenagers at all. it said that in the case of protecting a teenager's health, it will be an exception but how does one determine that given that the doctor must notify the parent before providing her the abortion pill.
also, a parent can still sue the doctor even if the doctor provided a notification to a person other than the parents or the legal gaurdian, which this bill allows.
the doctor is more likely to paid damages in 10,000 dollars, whereas a person pretending to act as a legal gaurdian only faces fines up to 2,000.
if they want to protect the child, why not just focus on the abuse, by saying that the doctor must informed her parents if she was a victim of abused?
It also takes days for the young girl to get to the court, given that it last days before the court can get to the case, and if he don't agree with her, than she shall had to get to an appeal court, and if he don't agree with her, than she finally had to tell her parents.
by that time it might be too late for her to safely terminate her pregnancy.
bad parenting, that is all.
So, in other words, you think that a girl should be punish for engaging in premarital sex?
if she don't want to tell her parents, than she is a selfish whore, but she is too stupid to make a decision on her owns.
the teenager who wishes not to discuss her prengnacy with her parents is stupid selfish whore because she don't want to tell them and she is too stupid to know what is going on with her body?
No, in other words, that is not what I think. I never said anything remotely similar to that. I can't even begin to figure out how you would even draw that conclusion.
Could you please provide a link to the bill you're describing? It's hard for me to figure out exactly what it entails from what you've written.
"What a crazy random happenstance!"
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog
Read my Blog!
...but I am aware of no credible source that has suggested that such situations are in any way common. Referring to the CDC's Abortion Surveillance Report, for example...
So, while your story is very sad, it doesn't seem reasonable to suggest that these laws cause any significant increase in the number of deaths that occur due to young girls seeking illegal abortions.
This also has NOTHING to do with me wanting to control your uterus. I am a pro-choice advocate. But, this isn't about "choice." This is about whether or not parents have the right to make medical decisions for their minor children, and how the State can justify abridging that right and making that decision FOR the parents without even informing them that their parental rights have been suspended.
I also must note that you avoided answering my very simple challenge to you. So, I will ask you again...
Can you name any other major, elective medical procedure which can be performed on a minor without the consent of the child's parents?
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
Look, doctors and Planned Parenthood already agree to the following:
However, some things cannot remain confidential. Your health care provider will need to contact someone if you say any of the following.
* You are being abused, physically and/or sexually
* You are going to hurt yourself or someone else
* You are under 16 and having sex with someone 21 years or older
* You are under 14 and having sex with someone 14 years or older
http://www.pamf.org/teen/sex/righttoknow.html#Patient%20Confidentiality%...
According to the laws of the State of California, your doctor or nurse cannot tell your parents or guardians anything about your exam if you're seen for any confidential services (excluding the reasons listed above). These include care for problems or concerns in the areas of sexuality, mental health and substance abuse. You, as a young person, can consent for care on your own in these areas. You need your parent or guardian's consent for other health services such as physicals and care of colds, flus, and injuries.
It isn't naive for a parent to asked their child if they are sexually active and it isn't naive for a parent to explain to them the basic facts of sexual health’s even if the parent believes that it is against their religious belief because your teen isn't going to come to you about sex if she felt that you are opposed to premarital sex.
You don't need a law to notify you nor do you need to invade your teen sexual privacy by bring in the government, to tell you about your parenting skill or how to be a good parent.
That is why I am against this bill because I believe that teens should be able to obtain the same rights as adult woman in regards to pregnancy or their uterus.
I believe that abortion is between a woman, her doctor, and her god. It isn't the role of government to legislate parenting skills or legislate upon others a morality that parents had failed to teach in their household.
Do you agree that abortion should be between a woman, her doctor, and her god? Or shall a woman abortion be podcasts on national television, in the Yankee stadium, or put on stage in the cinema for everyone to watch while they throw stones at her?
Do you agree that a man is more eligible to know what it right for a teenager or a woman in regards to their uterus or sexual reproductive organs or are these women capable of taking care of themselves?
Do you also disagree with California constitution and the California state supreme court that a teen should had the same rights to that of an adult female in regards to her sexual organs or shall men or other people's opinion decided how a minor live should be run?
Do you agree that a parent should trust their teenage daughter to make the right choice in regards to sexual heaths, pregnancy, or abortion or shall they be haul off to prison to be protected from outside dangers?
If you felt that a parent shouldn't trust their daughters enough to make their own decision in regards to sexual heaths, than why not?
When you love your child, you trust them. No laws or government can force that upon you a relationship that you had fail to provide for your child.
...so let me try this again (and notice the terms in bold, this time)...
Can you name any other major, elective medical procedure which can be performed on a minor without the consent of the child's parents?
Do you know what a "major, elective medical procedure" is? Here's a hint...getting your birth control pills from the local health department doesn't meet the definition.
Actually, the State of California requires that doctors verify the consent of both the minor and their caregiver or guardian before they perform any surgery or similarly major procedure on the minor. The laws of your State do permit exceptions for a court order, for cases that are deemed to be an emergency, and for any minor who is emancipated or legally married. California also defines a very specific (and rather short) list of situations for which a minor can give his or her own consent, without the need for anyone's else's approval. This list includes treatment for drug and alcohol problems, family planning services, treatment for a number of STD's, mental health counseling, and treatment for abuse and sexual assault. None of these meet the criteria of the question. And even in each of these cases, minors below a certain age (12 years old in most cases) still have to meet the consent restrictions I described above.
There are only two situations in California for which the laws of that State permit a minor of any age to give his or her own consent for treatment. One is pregnancy. A minor in California can obtain any treatment directly related to a pregnancy without consent. However, I must note that these treatments also do not meet the criteria of the question. And the other, of course, is when a minor seeks an abortion. This is the ONLY "major, elective medical procedure" that appears on the list. This strikes me as being a rather gross (and I would suggest politically motivated) inconsistency in California's laws.
As for you questions, I think I can sum up an answer for you thus...Barring emergencies, I think that the responsibility and the right to make decisions for a minor lies with the parent or legal guardian, in all cases, without exception, unless there is compelling evidence that would justify the termination of the guardian's parental rights. I hold this opinion primarily due to the fact that a significant body of research has demonstrated that the human brain--and specifically the dorsal-lateral prefrontal cortex...i.e. the portion of the brain that assesses risk and controls judgment--does not fully mature until we are (approximately) 25-years-old.
The simple fact is that no matter how you try to spin the issue, the minors in these scenarios do not posses the capability to make good, informed decisions.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
I was not able to get to this website yesterday because it too long to upload.
Anyways, yes in the state of California, a teenage girl is entitled to the same medical benefits of a woman in regards to pregnancy.
Here is what it said in California constitution or amendment:
"In 1953, a state law was enacted that allowed minors to receive, without parental consent or notification, the same types of medical care for a pregnancy that are available for an adult. Base on this law and later, legal developments related to abortion, minors were able to obtain abortions without parental consent or notification.
In 1987, the Legislature amended this law to require minors to obtain the consent of either a parent or a court before obtaining an abortion. However, due to legal challenges, the law was never implemented, and the California Supreme Court ultimately struck it down in 1997. Consequently, minors in the state currently receive abortion services to the same extent as adults. This includes minors in various state health care programs, such as the Medi-Cal health care program for low-income individuals. "
This means that an adult female who is able to receive medical care such as birth control, abortion, social services like WIC, and pre/post natal care, than that same right shall be extend to minors.
So, to answer you question, yes. In the state of California, minors are able to receive the same medical care to that of a woman. The state constitution and the state supreme court had already stated that a minor is allowed the same right to that of an adult in regards to matters concerning pregnancy or sexual health.
This means that if a woman or 18 year old girl chose to get an abortion without notify her parents (who she lives with) than the minor is granted the same right under California constitution.
The purpose of proposition 4 is to amend California state laws in regards to abortion by parental notification but allowed minors to receive the same benefits of adults in regards to pregnancy, abortion, and social service.
http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2008/4_11_2008.aspx
http://www.pamf.org/teen/sex/righttoknow.html
...in my comment above.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
When you turn 18, you aren't a minor anymore, and can make your own medical decisions.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
So your arguement is that girls are too stupid to make the right decision for them?
Rather or not you agree with it, this is California laws.
Now, I can understand what you really think of teenage girls. It isn’t so much as you trying to help a teenage girl but because you think that a teenage girl is not smart or mature make a decision on her own. Therefore her father shall be the one who govern her life until she reaches 25 years of age. Shall the father make the decision on who she shall vote for too? At what point is a teenage girl allowed to make a decision on her own without daddy’s permission.
You know, a girl is not the property of their fathers. So, base on your argument, if her father’s wishes that she get an abortion, she shall be force to because his brains is more develop to that of hers? What if he wishes that she married a 57 year old man, shall her father superior brains override that of the girl dissent?
Since you believe that a mind cannot mature until 25 years of age, shall 18 - 24 years old girls be given permission slips from her father to obtain birth control?
Lets take your argument for an example, since a teenager brains will not be fully developed until the age of 25, than the government passed a law saying that anyone who get birth control (with the exception of over the top condom, a wink at the boys there) must need their parents consent.
A young girl who is sexually active will less likely to get birth control out of fears of her parents will be notify. She will still be having unprotected sexual intercourse but without the help of birth contol because you think that she is not smart enough to make a decision.
The study said that teenagers are more likely to engage in risky behaviors, than it is logical to acknowledge that many teenagers’ girls will engage in risky behaviors if they fear that they must tell their parents about their pregnancy.
Still, I don’t believe that the government had an obligation to intervene in a teenage girl life. You will defend a fetus in the womb but said that a girl has no right to decided what happen to her uterus since it is the property of her parents or that she is too stupid?
Here is what the court said:
• The law requiring minors seeking abortion to obtain parental consent or judicial authorization violates the California Constitution's explicit right to privacy.
• California courts must interpret the state Constitution independent of the federal Constitution and that laws restricting fundamental reproductive choices face the highest standard of review.
• The court recognized that the objectives of protecting the welfare of adolescents and promoting family harmony are very significant. However, the Court also concluded (based on trial court evidence) that the consent law does not advance these goals.
The decision recognizes that parents do have important constitutional rights, including the right to instill their values about sexuality and pregnancy. However, the decision affirms the principle that parental authority is not unlimited. For example, parents do not have the right to control their daughters' decision about pregnancy. They can neither force their pregnant teenagers to bear children nor force them to have abortions.
http://www.ppacca.org/site/pp.asp?c=kuJYJeO4F&b=139573
Therefore, if you believe that a girl is not smart enough to make the right decision than why don’t you talk to her instead of forcing governmental intervention? Should parents be involved in their child’s life, sure but that should not be though force.
...when you continuously invent false positions in the arguments of your opponents. For example...
So your arguement is that girls are too stupid to make the right decision for them?
My position on this matter has nothing to do with the sex of the minor, nor does it imply in any way that those minors are unitelligent. But, it is a physiological fact that the brains of children in the age range we are discussing here have not developed sufficiently for them to truly assess the risks and consequences of their decisions. Attempting to spin that position into some kind of sexist attack on women is extremely disingenuous.
Rather or not you agree with it, this is California laws.
The point of this discussion isn't to determine the contents of California's laws. One can do that by simply looking them up. What we are discussing is whether or not those laws make sense, and are they consistent with the relevant governing principles that inform our system of jurisprudence.
Now, I can understand what you really think of teenage girls.
Based on what you have written, I would suggest that you don't seem to understand my position at all.
It isn’t so much as you trying to help a teenage girl but because you think that a teenage girl is not smart or mature make a decision on her own. Therefore her father shall be the one who govern her life until she reaches 25 years of age. Shall the father make the decision on who she shall vote for too? At what point is a teenage girl allowed to make a decision on her own without daddy’s permission.
Here again, you have presented a false assertion concerning my position. I hope that you can take a step back and in the future couch your responses in a more honest framework. But to address your point directly, who said anything about it having to be the "father" that makes these decision? I certainly didn't. Approximately one-half of all parents are mothers, I hope you realize. As for voting, no one should be able to decide for whom you should cast your vote. However, I would not be opposed to a move to defer the age of majority for voting until age 25 for all persons, regardless of their sex.
You know, a girl is not the property of their fathers.
I never said that they were.
So, base on your argument, if her father’s wishes that she get an abortion, she shall be force to because his brains is more develop to that of hers? What if he wishes that she married a 57 year old man, shall her father superior brains override that of the girl dissent?
Once again, you have misapprehended my position. I think that the provision in California's laws that require the consent of both the parent and their minor ward before performing a major surgery is appropriate. Such requirements effectively prevent the sort of scenario that you suggest. The most significant misapplication in your examples however are in that I have not in any way suggested that a parent can force a child to obtain an abortion, nor have I in any way suggested that girls should be forced into marriages against their wills.
Since you believe that a mind cannot mature until 25 years of age,
It isn't a matter of "belief." It is a simple scientific fact that has been well supported by credible research.
shall 18 - 24 years old girls be given permission slips from her father to obtain birth control?
Lets take your argument for an example, since a teenager brains will not be fully developed until the age of 25, than the government passed a law saying that anyone who get birth control (with the exception of over the top condom, a wink at the boys there) must need their parents consent.
Considering that the part of the immature brain that we are talking about specifically controls the ability of a child to asses risk and predict consequences, I think that any measure which provides a safety net against the negative ends which so often result because of that inability are a good thing. Prevention is better than remedy, in my opinion, and I would suggest that offerning birth control (which is not a "major, elective medical procedure") is a reasonable tactic in mitigating the poor judement that so often leads to the very situations you describe.
A young girl who is sexually active will less likely to get birth control out of fears of her parents will be notify. She will still be having unprotected sexual intercourse but without the help of birth contol because you think that she is not smart enough to make a decision.
The study said that teenagers are more likely to engage in risky behaviors, than it is logical to acknowledge that many teenagers’ girls will engage in risky behaviors if they fear that they must tell their parents about their pregnancy.
This, of course, only demonstrates the very lack of mental maturity that I mentioned above. Providing birth control to these minors helps to compensate for their lack of judgement, just as requiring parental notification and conset for an abortion does. The legitimate goal of these laws is to protect young people from making poorly considered choices that can have such a dramatic impact on the rest of their lives.
Still, I don’t believe that the government had an obligation to intervene in a teenage girl life.
Really? Should a minor child be able to enter into a legally binding contract without the consent of her legal guardians? Should she be held fully responsible for the consequences of that contract, even if she lacked the cognizant ability to understand what she was signing at the time? Do you believe that a minor child should be treated the same as an adult when they commit a crime? Should a minor child who commits a murder face the same death penalty as an adult? Should minor children be eligible for the draft? Should minor children be allowed to vote in presidential elections? Should there be no minimum age to obtain a driver's license? Should a minor child be allowed to purchase a firearm? Should two very young children be allowed to marry without their parent's consent?
All of these questions are addressed by a very basic concept in Western jurisprudence known as the age of majority. Now, the age of majority isn't the same everywhere--the age in various countries ranges generally from as young as 14 to as late as 21 years of age--and there is certainly a valid argument to be had concerning when, exactly this legal line should fall. But, there is a consistent belief throughout the legal and moral systems of the world that this point occurs sometime after the birth of the child. In order to be consistent with this concept, we must for practicality's sake draw a line somewhere in the law.
Consider the story of Lina Medina. As the youngest child on record ever to become pregnant (her exact age was unknown due to her tribal origins, but doctors concluded that she was between five and six-years old).
Now...the California law that you are defending would allow this girl to giver her own consent to obtain an abortion without the the knowledge of her parents or guardians. As reported by the doctors, the child could not even comprehend the conditions of her pregancy and the birth of her child.
Do you think that young Lina (or any other child), at age five, could be rationally capable of making that kind of decision on her own?
You will defend a fetus in the womb but said that a girl has no right to decided what happen to her uterus since it is the property of her parents or that she is too stupid?
Tell me, are you incapable of having an honest discussion, or do you really not see the falsity in these accusations?
Here is what the court said:
• The law requiring minors seeking abortion to obtain parental consent or judicial authorization violates the California Constitution's explicit right to privacy.
• California courts must interpret the state Constitution independent of the federal Constitution and that laws restricting fundamental reproductive choices face the highest standard of review.
• The court recognized that the objectives of protecting the welfare of adolescents and promoting family harmony are very significant. However, the Court also concluded (based on trial court evidence) that the consent law does not advance these goals.
The decision recognizes that parents do have important constitutional rights, including the right to instill their values about sexuality and pregnancy. However, the decision affirms the principle that parental authority is not unlimited. For example, parents do not have the right to control their daughters' decision about pregnancy. They can neither force their pregnant teenagers to bear children nor force them to have abortions.
http://www.ppacca.org/site/pp.asp?c=kuJYJeO4F&b=139573
I'll see your California Supreme Court decisions, and raise you one from the Supreme Court of the United States...
In the case of Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, 546 U.S. 320 (2006), the High Court ruled unanimously that...
Now...guess which decision trumps the others.
Therefore, if you believe that a girl is not smart enough to make the right decision than why don’t you talk to her instead of forcing governmental intervention? Should parents be involved in their child’s life, sure but that should not be though force.
And once again, you are projecting some seriously inaccurate assumptions into my opinions. You don't know anything at all about my involvement with the girls and women in my life. You have no idea who I have or have not "talked to" and you have no idea what I may or may not have said to them when I did. Your assumptions in this are--to put it succinctly--ignorant.
TTFN,
Blackout
P.S. Please use the reply key when responding to a comment.
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
this is about me and my sisters.
Now i was informed enough to know the importance of birth control and sexually active teenagers but it isn't like that in all homes.
My mother thinks that it is disgusting for a person to look at a woman's vagina.
Now, do you think that my mother would had consented for me to get an annual pap smear or check up? of course she would said no.
she also don't believe in birth control, so she would not had consented for me or my sisters to get birth control, even if we are sexually active.
everybody's home is different, that is why i don't think that government should intervene in a teenage girls life.
I, my sisters, or the majority of teenage girls I know would not want to go though a court in order to get a pap smear or be tested for sexual diseases, or get birth control.
I am not demonizing you but I do believe that every parents should had a conversation with their child and it should not be force though the government.
...is that YOU are the one who is supporting a position that takes power away from the private citizens, and places it in the hands of the government. Your position inherently assumes that the government is a better decision maker about the appropriate medical treatment for a young, minor child than that child's parents.
Kids very often don't having the beliefs and values of their parents imposed on them. I know, I certainly didn't. But until a child achieves his or her age-of-majority, the parents do in fact have (or should have) that authority. After all, they're the ones who are responsible for that child, and for the consequences of those decisions.
Sometimes, that arrangement doesn't work. Sometimes, parents are neglectful or even abusive. And in those cases there are perfectly legal ways to end the parent-child relationship. But to assume that a very young minor is capable is making an adult decision of this magnitude is simply ludicrous. Which of course leads me to ask again the question that you evaded, above...
Do you think that young Lina (or any other child), at age five, could be rationally capable of making that kind of decision on her own?
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
Oh, for goodness' sakes! You CAN do all those things, because they are NOT MAJOR medical procedures. Yes, a pap smear hurts, but other than sticking a plastic tool up the vagina to stick a cotton swab up there, nothing really happens. There's no cutting (though there may be some tearing of the vaginal walls, depending on whether or not you're sexually active), there's no need for anesthesia (Personally, it looks like the swabs they use to test men for STDs hurt a lot more than those pap smears)... Birth control is the same concept. You don't need parental consent to do that, and you have doctor-patient confidentiality when those procedures are done, should you wish. In other words, your mother would not have had to consent for such procedures to be done.
But, these things won't cause death, the vast, vast majority of the time. Birth control, depending on which birth control you get, could cause blood clots, which lead to death, but that usually happens in women who smoke or are over 35. Thus, teenage girls have little to worry about.
Abortion, on the other hand, comes with the risks of any surgical procedure. It can get infected (which wouldn't happen with birth control, and probably wouldn't happen with a pap smear). This, in turn, could cause sepsis, which would cause death unless treated. Abortions can also, in rare cases, lead to complications like infertility. A young girl may or may not fully understand these consequences; a parent would. The parent has the responsibility to look out for the care and well-being of his or her child. Thus, asking for permission for an abortion, just like asking permission for brain or heart surgery, is logical.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
Here is what the court had decide, now if you want to use science as a reason why a teenage girl need a permission slip from her father to even breath, than you can take it up to the courts.
The state court had already made a decision. Proposition 4 is not using science as the reason to justify parental notification and this is not a court case. The purpose of the bill is delayed a teenager’s pregnancy though a giant beauracy so that when it is over, it would already be too late to get an abortion. This had nothing to do with parenting.
In People vs. Belarus, the California’s state court rules that:
The majority cite no authority holding that the term 'necessary to preserve [the woman's] life' is impermissibly vague, and I agree with the conclusion as to the constitutionality of the section that is implicit in the multitude of past decisions affirming convictions for illegal abortion, and for murder where death was the result of such an act.
I would affirm the judgment.
McCOMB and SULLIVAN, JJ., concur.
http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/belous.htm
Here is also a history of California abortion laws, so you can understand where I am coming from.
In Ballard vs. Anderson, the state court rules that:
As long as the minor is willing to seek her parents’ consent, and the parents are willing to give consent, the state imposes no additional burden. But if she is unwilling to have her parents know of her pregnancy, or unable to secure their consent to the procedure, her right to decide to procure an abortion is effectively nullified.
As a general rule, parental consent is a prerequisite to medical treatments of a minor. This requirement, often criticized as a vestige of the feudal notion that children were the property of their parents, derives from the common law of torts as well as the nature of the parent-child relationships. Any nonconsensual touching of a person’s body is at least a technical battery. Unless the physician first obtains consent, any medical treatment rendered to any individual, whether swabbing a child’s scraped knee or performing a major surgery on an adult, may expose the doctor to civil liability.
It has been stated that privacy concerns the freedom of an individual to make basic decisions regarding his life and destiny without unreasonable and unwarranted interference from the government and without fear that the decisions he makes will be exposed to public scrutiny. In Roe, the court declared the right to be “founded in the fourteenth amendment’s concept of personal liberty”
The District of Columbia superior court-family division held that a minor was entitled to an abortion without parental consent on the grounds that “the bill of rights apply to juveniles as well as adults”
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1071972?seq=4
so the court reason against parental consent or notification is that if a child is the property of her parents and she experience some sort of accident that require a medical procedure like she being hit by a car, her parents can sue the doctor for not getting their consent in performing a life saving procedure.
I can’t believe that I am discussing about a teenager’s uterus with a white male who uterus will never be affected by this nor will the boys. This is a personally thing because we are talking about my uterus and sexual health after all. So yes, on Election Day, I will be voting against Prop 4 because it is a personal issue not a psychological or medical one. All the logics in the world that you give me will not prevent me for voting for my interest.
This is a personally thing because we are talking about my uterus and sexual health after all. So yes, on Election Day, I will be voting against Prop 4 because it is a personal issue not a psychological or medical one. All the logics in the world that you give me will not prevent me for voting for my interest.
you're not voting personally, based on your own uterus. Because if you're voting, it means you're over 18 and the bill doesn't affect your uterus or its contents anyway.
"What a crazy random happenstance!"
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog
Read my Blog!
no, i am voting for my future adopted daugther's uterus and to prevent the antichoice crowds from naming birth control as an elective abortion.
Here is what the court had decide, now if you want to use science as a reason why a teenage girl need a permission slip from her father to even breath, than you can take it up to the courts.
Its already been done (the part about asking the Court to decide the constitutionality of these laws, anyway...the part about needing a faither's permission for a girl to breathe is just more of the inflammtory bullshit that you keep making up in order to distract from the many the rational flaws in your argument), as I noted for you above. To repeat the relevant passage from Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, 546 U.S. 320 (2006) for you here, the High Court in that decision ruled unanimously that...
The state court had already made a decision.
And the Supreme Court has contradicted the State Court's ruling. Guess which one wins.
Proposition 4 is not using science as the reason to justify parental notification and this is not a court case. The purpose of the bill is delayed a teenager’s pregnancy though a giant beauracy so that when it is over, it would already be too late to get an abortion. This had nothing to do with parenting.
It is unfortunate that some pro-life groups want to usurp the legitimate concerns as a stealth tactic for inserting their illegitimate ideological beliefs into the laws. Those tactics, however, don't change core argument that supports my argument. If you have a beef with the motivation of pro-life pundits, please take it up with them. I will be happy to join you in that confrontation. Please refrain, however, from engaging in this obtuse insistence that everyone who supports these laws does so for the same reasons.
I can’t believe that I am discussing about a teenager’s uterus with a white male who uterus will never be affected by this nor will the boys.
Horsepuckey. While I do agree that the burden on the women generally represents a more significant interest (since, obviously, she bears the primary burden to her health due to the pregnancy), but to suggest that men are "never" affected by these situations is a pretty gross misrepresentation of the facts, not to mention a disturbingly mean-spirited dismissal of the emotional effects that these situations have on the men involved on them, too.
This is a personally thing because we are talking about my uterus and sexual health after all. So yes, on Election Day, I will be voting against Prop 4 because it is a personal issue not a psychological or medical one. All the logics in the world that you give me will not prevent me for voting for my interest.
By all means, vote your consience for now. Perhaps when you are older (and your brain has matured), you may see this issue from a different perspective.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
Here is my point,
I believe that this is a slippery slope to banning usage of birth control. There are anti-choice people out there that believe that birth control caused abortion.
Now, I don't personally believe that birth control caused abortion but here are some anti-choice crowd’s arguments:
If life begins at conception, than any attempts to deny that life their constitutional right to life is against the constitution.
Therefore, abortion and EC should be ban because abortions terminate a life or take that life right to life and EC prevents a life from planting itself into a woman's uterus.
More than that, when a woman chose to used birth control, she is denying that life the constitutional right to life by not allowing the sperm to fertilize the egg. Condom should also be banned because it also prevents a sperm from joining an egg therefore dying a life right to being created and conceived.
These antichoice crowds justify that their works in based on equality (?) for the unborn child just like the abolitionist and the women rights movement.
slaves were consider property not human being until the 14th amendment and women was also consider a property (though marriage) but the women right movement change all of that, so recognizing the life of fetus is similar to that of slavery and women.
a life is not the property of the mother just as slaves and women are not the property of their white slave master or women, and that is why it should be protected from the womb until it is born.
See how nutty these anti-choice people are?
if we allowed the anti-choice crowds to win a single victory by invading a teenager's privacy than what is there to stop them from saying that birth control should be ban because it is an abortion or that teenagers should get parental notification before they can get a prescription of birth control because birth control, which caused abortion, is an elective procedure and not a necessary?
Besides, what if some anti choice crowds want to gets a proposition recognizing a zygote as person? Just like in Colorado, who is currently campaigning for to amend Colorado bills?
The Human Life Amendment, also known as the personhood amendment, says the words "person" or "persons" in the state constitution should "include any human being from the moment of fertilization." If voters agreed, legal experts say, it would give fertilized eggs the same legal rights and protections to which people are entitled.
The ballot initiative is funded by Colorado for Equal Rights, a grass-roots antiabortion organization. Its purpose, initiative sponsor Kristi Burton said, is to lay a legal and legislative basis for protecting the unborn. Its passage would also open the door to modifying other laws for the same purpose, she said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/12/AR200807...
I just hope that this bill don't passed but if it did, I hope that this don't influence the anti-choice crowds to banned birth control because it is an abortion method.
Beside, do you know what it is like to be 19 and living in a world that thinks that you should be put into a shell so that you might not be influence by bad people and that a 19 year old is not smart enough to make her own decision?
Now, I don't question your motives based on your arguements but I do question the motives of the people for are pushing for this amendement given that they believes that birth control is a form of abortion.
...the "slippery slope" argument is more often than not used when the commentator is unable to present a convincing argument about the subject at hand, and so attempts to shift the argument towards a more easily defended subject. This argument is one of the classic fallacies of informal logic.
Whether or not anti-choice folks might attempt to use the precedent to further their political ends has absolutely nothing to do with the establishment of an appropriate age-of-majority for giving consent for a major medical procedure. In fact, I would suggest that your admission to this motivation in your opinion indicates that your position is based on a political strategy, and NOT on any real concern for the welfare of these children.
As for whether or not a 19-year-old can make her own decisions, that too is irrelevant (though as I stated above, I would probably support a move to raise the basic age-of-majority), since the issue isn't whether a legal adult can consent to an abortion. This is whether very young children should be able to consent to a procedure the long-term consequences of which which, frankly, very few can truly even understand.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.