Home - List All Discussions

The Child Custody Protection Act is headed for Senate

Urge you senators to support it

by: Shiprahagain

Here's the letter I was sent from Feminists for Life
Feminists Urge Senate to Pass Child Custody Protection Act
Girls Deserve Better than Abortion
Feminists for Life applauds the U.S. Senate for considering the Child Custody Protection Act, and encourages its ultimate passage. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, M.D., (R-TN) announced July 19, 2006, that the bill will be given time on the U.S. Senate floor this week.
If passed, the Child Custody Protection Act would prohibit taking a minor across state lines for an abortion in order to circumvent state laws requiring parental notification.
"It is all too common for sex predators to seek vulnerable young girls - and when a pregnancy results, abortion has been used to cover up their crime," said FFL President Serrin M. Foster. "Without the input of a custodial adult, teens risk their health. Will a sex predator ensure she takes her antibiotic as directed after surgery?
"Teenage boyfriends are typically no more helpful," said Foster. "Do we really believe that he will take her take her promptly to the hospital if she hemorrhages? What if she becomes septic?"
Fifteen year-old Tamia Russell died in 2004 as a result of an abortion performed in the sixth month of her pregnancy. The sister of Russell's 24 year-old boyfriend drove her to obtain the abortion, for which her boyfriend paid. Russell's mother was not informed before the procedure, and misinformation from the clinic led to Russell's death from sepsis.
'"How many teenagers have to die before we protect them and give them the resources and support they need?" Foster asked. "Teenage girls who are too afraid to tell their parents will put their health on the line when they experience complications from an abortion - and those who prey on teens know it."
Dr. Bruce Lucero, a pro-choice advocate who performed more than 45,000 abortions, lobbied alongside Foster in support of the bill when CCPA was first introduced. "n most cases," he wrote to the New York Times in 1998, "a parent's input is the best guarantee that a teen-ager will make a decision that is correct for her.... And it helps guarantee that if a teen-ager chooses an abortion, she will receive appropriate medical care." Teenagers seeking abortions out of state, Lucero noted, often delay until the procedure is more expensive and riskier, and they are less likely to return to clinics for follow-up care or tell their parents they are suffering complications.
"The best interest of girls and the rights of parents are not at odds here," Foster said. "That's why the majority of Americans favor laws supporting parental notification, and laws prohibiting the transportation of minors across state lines by those who wish to usurp the law. The health and safety of girls across the land is at stake here," she added. "We need the Senate to pass the Child Custody Protection Act."

reply from: 1003

Lets all get behind the Grandma Imprisonment Act

reply from: Shiprahagain

Spoken like a rapist.

reply from: 1003

spoken like a racist.

reply from: NewPoster1

I've yet to understand why anti-choicers incessantly push for legislation that they know to be unconstitutional. This bill contains a provision that abortion providers in restriction-free states comply with the notification/consent requirements of the home state of the teenager who seeks an abortion, this is blatantly unconstitutional, as you can't compel citizens of one state to abide by the laws of another state. If this law is passed, it's enforcement will be enjoined by a court order within hours, and it will be struck down within a few months.

reply from: Shiprahagain

I've yet to understand why abortion is legal since it's unconstitutional -- we're guaranteed the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Besides, there are laws that forbid the crossing of state lines -- like when someone is a felon. You can prevent the crossing of state lines with the intent of preventing crime -- you are just to indifferent to child rape to support such a statute. Show me where in the constitution such a thing is forbidden. Also tell me what you would do to stop child rape?

reply from: coco

Just wondering do gays in america have that same right to the persuit of happiness??

reply from: Shiprahagain

Since that's not related to abortion, please PM me.

reply from: coco

I think it does because if all babies have those rights inutero and born then why not all americans I beleive ALL AMERICANS SHOULD in the womb or outside of the womb

reply from: NewPoster1

This depends, what's your definition of "child-rape"? I'll be starting 10th grade in the fall, if I were to become sexually active with a 9th grader would this make me a "child-rapist"? What if it were with an 11th grader, would they then in turn be the "child-rapist"?
If an 18 year-old boy takes his 17½ year-old girlfriend for an abortion out of state, is he a "child-rapist"?

reply from: Shiprahagain

I'm talking about the girl in the scenario. Besides, now that I realize you just finished the 9th grade, I'm aware that your perspective in the matter is skewed. We need laws to protect people like you who aren't aware of the dangers.

reply from: AshMarie88

Coco, you can edit your posts with the "edit" button instead of replying, just to let you know if you didn't.

reply from: coco

thanks for the tip ash

reply from: NewPoster1

If an 18 year-old boy takes his 17½ year-old girlfriend for an abortion out of state, is he a "child-rapist"?
Nevermind this, I just read the full text of this bill and it doesn't even require that the "transporter" be 18 or over, considering this, I'll reword.
If a 15 year-old boy takes his 17½ year-old girlfriend for an abortion out of state, is he a "child-rapist"?
I'm just dieing to hear the anti-choice response.

reply from: AshMarie88

Nope.
Now, if a sick father took his 17 1/2 year old daughter in for an abortion, that would be child rape.

reply from: NewPoster1

Nope.
Now, if a sick father took his 17 1/2 year old daughter in for an abortion, that would be child rape.
So a 15 year-old deserves to be placed in federal prison for a year and fined $100,000 for helping someone 2½ years older than him travel out-of-state and obtain an abortion?

reply from: NewPoster1

The absolute stupidity of all this just dawned on me, if 2 pregnant 17 year-olds helped each other travel to an out-of-state abortion clinic, under this law, they would both be placed in a federal prison for a year and fined a $100,000 for allegedly violating the other's parents' rights, how incredibley logical!

reply from: Shiprahagain

Just as you cannot transport a convict out of state, this law is valid for the same reason.

reply from: NewPoster1

That only applies to convicts who are on parole/probation, which means they're still technically serving their sentences. If a convict has completed their sentence 100% the state can't restrict their ability to leave.
As to the validity of this bill, tell me, can you list a single example where a law that prevents/restricts a person's ability to travel to another state to do something that's perfectly legal there, has been upheld as constitutional?

reply from: Shiprahagain

But the point is, we have set a precedent for interstate laws when we deem it necessary. To oppose this law is to say that the protection of young girls from sexual abuse just isn't important enough for a similar situation. Especially when the reason for the law is the same -- public safety from criminals.

reply from: NewPoster1

First of all, what constitutes, as you put it, "sexual abuse", varies considerably from state to state and therefore must be enforced on an individual basis. Secondly, in most states, the age of consent is 16, which means that a 16 or 17 year-old can't be the victim of statutory rape or "sexual abuse" as you put it. Thirdly, even if a person is below the age of consent, virtually all states still allow them to consent to sexual activity with a person who's only a certain amount of years older than them. Finally, this law makes absolutely no distinctions, as I pointed out in my earlier posts, people the same age as or even younger than the pregnant teenager would be sent to federal prison for a year and fined $100,000 for helping her obtain an abortion out-of-state, do you mean to tell me that a 15 year-old boy who takes his 17½ year-old girlfriend out-of-state for an abortion is a "criminal" who threatens "public safety"?
Why do you anti-choicers try to maintain this charade that parental "obstruction" laws are about "preventing sexual abuse" and "promoting family communication"? This is such an obvious lie. You know why? If this were actually the case, you'd only seek parental notification laws and you wouldn't make it virtually impossible for a teenager to get a judicial bypass. The fact that you settle for nothing less than Draconian parental consent laws and raise Caine whenever a judge grants a judicial bypass is irrefutable evidence that your one true concern is that radical, anti-choice parents have the absolute power to veto their daughter's decision to have an abortion.

reply from: Shiprahagain

So why does the law have pro-choice support?
Dr. Bruce Lucero, a pro-choice advocate who performed more than 45,000 abortions, lobbied alongside Foster in support of the bill when CCPA was first introduced. "n most cases," he wrote to the New York Times in 1998, "a parent's input is the best guarantee that a teen-ager will make a decision that is correct for her.... And it helps guarantee that if a teen-ager chooses an abortion, she will receive appropriate medical care." Teenagers seeking abortions out of state, Lucero noted, often delay until the procedure is more expensive and riskier, and they are less likely to return to clinics for follow-up care or tell their parents they are suffering complications.
"The best interest of girls and the rights of parents are not at odds here," Foster said. "That's why the majority of Americans favor laws supporting parental notification, and laws prohibiting the transportation of minors across state lines by those who wish to usurp the law. The health and safety of girls across the land is at stake here," she added. "We need the Senate to pass the Child Custody Protection Act."

reply from: NewPoster1

What's your point, I bet there've also been radical, anti-abortion activists who for whatever reason have supported a law that's considered to be pro-choice. You shouldn't make so much of one person breaking with their side.
It's inherently flawed to attempt to use this article to begin with, in 1998 only a few states had parental notification laws and none, to my knowledge, had parental consent laws.
Except the delay isn't caused by the fact that they're having an abortion out-of-state, it's caused by the fact that their home state has made it virtually impossible for them to obtain an abortion where they live.
It seems to me that this is addressing parental "notification" laws, not parental "consent" laws. Of course their best interests aren't at odds here, even if the teenager's parents are hellbent against her decision to have an abortion, there's not a damn thing they can do about it.

reply from: Shiprahagain

The reason you give for teens delaying their abortions is just your (10th grade) speculation. The fact is the main reason someone other than a teen's parent transports them out of state to avoid a parental consent abortion law is sexual abuse -- 14 year old girls with 40 year old "boyfriends." It's extremely naive to think otherwise.

reply from: NewPoster1

Since the majority of abortions (performed on persons under 18) are performed on 16 and 17 year-olds, the majority of the time "sexual abuse" can't be the motivating factor. Even if this weren't the case, if the only intention were to prevent the concealment of "sexual abuse", the law would only apply to females under the age of consent and it would only prosecute those who have commited statutory rape.
Since my previous statement may have been overlooked, I repeat...

reply from: Shiprahagain

Since the majority of abortions (performed on persons under 18) are performed on 16 and 17 year-olds, the majority of the time "sexual abuse" can't be the motivating factor.
You need a source for this. You're just speaking off the top of your head -- and you seem to have no clue about the prevalence of sexual abuse.
Even if this weren't the case, if the only intention were to prevent the concealment of "sexual abuse", the law would only apply to females under the age of consent and it would only prosecute those who have commited statutory rape.
It does only apply to girls under the age of consent. And the thing is, if you only prosecute those who have commited statutory rape, the rapist just gets his best friend to drive her across state lines.
Since my previous statement may have been overlooked, I repeat...
And I repeat, obviously not true as pro-choicers support the law. You oppose it because you are a teenager who is desperately unaware of the realities of sexual abuse.

reply from: Virginia

In another thread I thought I saw Shiprahagain & AshMarie88 claiming that Coco was unfairly using AshMarie's age against her.
Funny - ageism is suddenly acceptable when you have nothing else to argue with! I didn't see a slightly logical point in this thread..except for what came from NewPoster1.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Let me clarify. Coco was mocking Ash's age in a way that had nothing to do with the content of her posts. What I'm saying about New's age is that her very unwillingness to deal with the reality of sexual abuse is the reason why the law is needed -- to protect girls her age from sexual abuse. I'm commenting on her age b/c it is directly related to the subject.

reply from: 1003

no. you're using it as a discredit. unless you can somehow explain how
is NOT patronizing....

reply from: coco

actually i was doing the samething that you did ship but i did not put it in the same words as you did ship

reply from: Virginia

NewPoster1 showed no unwillingness to deal with the reality of "sexual abuse." The insanity of The "Child Custody Protection" Act was simply pointed out and instead of being challenged, the reply was one assuming inability to understand such an issue based on age. The Act is a radically anti-choice attempt to control other people and their bodies by claiming it's to protect girls from "sexual abuse." Something that protects anyone from sexual abuse does not also allow for a 15 year old to be arrested for transporting his 17 year old girlfriend across state lines for an abortion!! That has nothing to do with sexual abuse, it has to do with making decisions for other people and what they will do with their bodies. I just wish that the anti-choice "movement" would be honest in their attempts to criminalize abortion instead of being juvenile enough to claim it has to do with sexual abuse! That is insulting and demeaning to people who have gone through sexual abuse.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Here's the letter I was sent from Feminists for Life
Feminists Urge Senate to Pass Child Custody Protection Act
Girls Deserve Better than Abortion
Feminists for Life applauds the U.S. Senate for considering the Child Custody Protection Act, and encourages its ultimate passage. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, M.D., (R-TN) announced July 19, 2006, that the bill will be given time on the U.S. Senate floor this week.
If passed, the Child Custody Protection Act would prohibit taking a minor across state lines for an abortion in order to circumvent state laws requiring parental notification.
"It is all too common for sex predators to seek vulnerable young girls - and when a pregnancy results, abortion has been used to cover up their crime," said FFL President Serrin M. Foster. "Without the input of a custodial adult, teens risk their health. Will a sex predator ensure she takes her antibiotic as directed after surgery?
"Teenage boyfriends are typically no more helpful," said Foster. "Do we really believe that he will take her take her promptly to the hospital if she hemorrhages? What if she becomes septic?"
Fifteen year-old Tamia Russell died in 2004 as a result of an abortion performed in the sixth month of her pregnancy. The sister of Russell's 24 year-old boyfriend drove her to obtain the abortion, for which her boyfriend paid. Russell's mother was not informed before the procedure, and misinformation from the clinic led to Russell's death from sepsis.
'"How many teenagers have to die before we protect them and give them the resources and support they need?" Foster asked. "Teenage girls who are too afraid to tell their parents will put their health on the line when they experience complications from an abortion - and those who prey on teens know it."
Dr. Bruce Lucero, a pro-choice advocate who performed more than 45,000 abortions, lobbied alongside Foster in support of the bill when CCPA was first introduced. "n most cases," he wrote to the New York Times in 1998, "a parent's input is the best guarantee that a teen-ager will make a decision that is correct for her.... And it helps guarantee that if a teen-ager chooses an abortion, she will receive appropriate medical care." Teenagers seeking abortions out of state, Lucero noted, often delay until the procedure is more expensive and riskier, and they are less likely to return to clinics for follow-up care or tell their parents they are suffering complications.
"The best interest of girls and the rights of parents are not at odds here," Foster said. "That's why the majority of Americans favor laws supporting parental notification, and laws prohibiting the transportation of minors across state lines by those who wish to usurp the law. The health and safety of girls across the land is at stake here," she added. "We need the Senate to pass the Child Custody Protection Act."

reply from: coco

IN SHIPS WORDS "I have noticed that when older people start attacking your age and not your arguments, it shows you've threatened them with your intellectual ability so Ash -- my hat's off to you. If coco disagrees she can get a source to back up her claims. " I believe the SAME thing goes for you ship
The reason you give for teens delaying their abortions is just your (10th grade) speculation. The fact is the main reason someone other than a teen's parent transports them out of state to avoid a parental consent abortion law is sexual abuse -- 14 year old girls with 40 year old "boyfriends." It's extremely naive to think otherwise.

reply from: NewPoster1

Since the majority of abortions (performed on persons under 18) are performed on 16 and 17 year-olds, the majority of the time "sexual abuse" can't be the motivating factor.
You need a source for this. You're just speaking off the top of your head -- and you seem to have no clue about the prevalence of sexual abuse.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5407a1.htm#tab5

According to this chart, in 2002, in all reporting states...
Under 15 year-olds had 4,198 abortions...
15 year-olds had 7,550 abortions...
16 year-olds had 13,984 abortions...
17 year-olds had 20,899 abortions...
If you do the math, this means 74.8% of the abortions performed, (on those under 18) were performed on 16 and 17 year-olds, who, in most states, can legally consent to sex and can't be the victims of statutory rape.
No it doesn't, in most states the age at which a person can legally consent to sex is 16, this law applies to all who are under 18.
And I repeat, obviously not true as pro-choicers support the law. You oppose it because you are a teenager who is desperately unaware of the realities of sexual abuse.
You've shown evidence that 1 person who's pro-choice supported this law, in 1998.
I'm actually quite aware of the "realities" of "sexual abuse" and apparently I'm going to have to fill you in on some of them.
A teenager who has reached the age of consent (typically 16 and up), cannot be the victim of statutory rape, regardless of her partner's age.
A teenager who hasn't reached the age of consent (typically 15 and under), cannot be the victim of statutory rape, unless her partner is many years older than her.

reply from: NewPoster1

Hey, guess what? If there weren't draconian parental "obstruction" laws in place, she probably would have obtained an infinitely safer first-trimester abortion and would still be alive today. The problem here isn't that she had an abortion out-of-state, it's that her home state's laws made it impossible for her to obtain an abortion until her pregnancy had advanced to a point where it was extremely dangerous to do so.

reply from: NewPoster1

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Jul-22-Sat-2006/news/8639132.html

reply from: Shiprahagain

Since most rape isn't father-daughter incest, 1003, you would prevent infinitely more rapes by using parental notification.
I, at age 19, am above the age of consent and am not one of the target ages of pedophiles which New is. My comment on age was solely in that context. I'm not saying that at 19 I have more wisdom than a tenth grader. I have never said I'm wiser, in a general context, merely because of my age which is what I have taken umbrage to. I don't doubt that in specific contexts age is beneficial, but I have protested when age alone was used to dismiss an idea or carries more weight than all other arguments or when someone believes their age makes them wiser on all issues. A three year old might not understand why the rule about not accepting candy from strangers is a good idea. An eight year old probably does. A fifteen year old might not understand why parental notification is a good idea. At age 19, the age of consent and legal responsiblity, I do.

reply from: Shiprahagain

1003, this incest victim was forced into abortion http://www.afterabortion.org/testimo.html

This is one reason we need the act:
http://www.cwalac.org/article_358.shtml

and another:
http://www.nrlc.org/federal/CCPA/CarrollTestimony030305.html

and another:
http://www.nrlc.org/federal/CCPA/why_we_need_CCPA.htm

How many do you need?

reply from: Shiprahagain

Adult Male Sexual Partners and the CCPA
The majority of today's teenage mothers are being impregnated by adult men. In its 1995 Report to Congress on Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reported that "evidence . . . indicates that among unmarried teenage mothers, two-thirds of the fathers are age 20 or older, suggesting that differences in power and status exist between many sexual partners."
[U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Report to Congress on Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing, September 1995, Executive Summary, p. x].
A study of 46,500 school-age mothers in California, published in the American Journal of Public Health in 1996, provides further evidence of this. This study of California school-age girls found that two-thirds of the girls were impregnated by adult, postschool fathers, with the median age of the father being 22 years. [Mike Males and Kenneth S.Y. Chew, "The Ages of Fathers in California Adolescent Births, 1993," American Journal of Public Health, vol. 86, no. 4 (April 1996)].
In another study, which was conducted on a national scale and published in Family Planning Perspectives, it was found that "alf of the fathers of babies born to women aged 15-17 were 20 years of age or older." Furthermore, the study revealed that on average, the baby's father was four years older than these 15-17-year-old mothers. The age disparity was such that the study's authors noted:
While a certain degree of age disparity between mothers and fathers is common in the United States, wide age gaps between young teenage mothers and older fathers merits some concern. One in five mothers aged 15-17 have a partner six or more years older. This type of age difference suggests, at the least, very different levels of life experience and power, and brings into question issues of pressure and abuse.
[David J. Landry and Jacqueline Darroch Forrest, "How Old Are U.S. Fathers?" Family Planning Perspectives, vol. 27, no. 4 (July/August 1995)].
Obviously, many of these males are vulnerable to statutory rape charges, a strong incentive to pressure the much younger girl to agree to obtain an abortion without revealing the pregnancy to the parents. Currently, such a male often can evade parental consent requirements by transporting his victim across state lines, but under the Child Custody Protection Act, this would compound rather than reduce the male's legal risk. While we are unaware of statistical data on the incidence of interstate transportation by the impregnating males, it is noteworthy that 58 percent of the time it is the girl's boyfriend who accompanies a girl for an abortion, when her parents have not been told about her pregnancy.
[Stanley Henshaw and Kathryn Kost, "Parental Involvement in Minors' Abortion Decisions," Family Planning Perspectives, vol. 24, no. 5 (September/October 1992)].
There is a precedent -- for New who says such interstate laws are against the Constitution:
In the past, the federal government has exercised its interstate commerce authority to prohibit other interstate activity that it deemed harmful to minors and their families. For example, in 1910, Congress used its constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause to prohibit the interstate transportation of women or minors for purposes of "prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose" (commonly referred to as the Mann Act). The Supreme Court upheld the enactment of this law as a constitutional exercise of Congress' power over transportation among the several states. Moreover, the Court reasoned that if men and women employ interstate transportation to facilitate a wrong, then their right to interstate travel can be restricted.
[Hoke v. United States, 227 U.S. 308 (1913)].
With respect to state laws requiring parental or judicial involvement in minors' abortion decisions, federal legislation is warranted because of the acknowledged scope of the practice, and because of the profound physical and psychological risks of an abortion to a minor. As the Supreme Court has observed, "[t]he medical, emotional, and psychological consequences of an abortion are serious and can be lasting; this is particularly so when the patient is immature."
[H.L. v. Matheson, 450 U.S. 398, 411 (1981).]
Opponents of the Child Custody Protection Act insist that adult sexual partners, aunts, mothers-in-law, and strangers have a "constitutional right" to take minor girls across state lines for secret abortions. Some also argue that the bill is unconstitutional because it applies even if someone believes that an abortion is advisable for a girl's "health."
The argument for a "health" exception is without merit. The bill merely prohibits circumvention of the state parental involvement laws that are already in effect, which have been written to comply with detailed Supreme Court doctrine. Moreover, it is the parents or legal guardians -- not boyfriends, strangers, or meddling in-laws -- who are generally best able to weigh the risks of various courses of action in light of their often-unique knowledge of the girl's medical history, psychological makeup, and other crucial factors.
Opponents of the CCPA also argue that the bill should be amended to exempt numerous individuals from its scope. The list of family members who it is argued deserve exemption from the bill has gone so far as to include first cousins. [See proposed amendment to the CCPA, H.R. Rep. No. 105-605, 105th Cong., 2d Sess., at 23 (1998).] Such amendments would gut the purpose of the bill by allowing noncustodial relatives -- such as first cousins -- to take a minor girl across state lines for a secret abortion, without a parent's knowledge or consent.
http://www.nrlc.org/federal/CCPA/why_we_need_CCPA.htm

reply from: Shiprahagain

http://www.abortiontv.com/Lies%20&%20Myths/RapeAndIncest.htm

Of those giving an opinion, 94 percent of rape victims and 100
percent of incest victims said abortion was not a good option for other
women in their situation.
Read more at the link.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Sheryle Bowers didn't take part in research for Victims and Victors [a book by the Elliott Institute, a pro-life research group --ed], but her testimony tells the same story. She was just turning 12, and her family was in turmoil. Sheryle's mother, Mary, was doing her best to care for her five children after her alcoholic husband left them. Then a suitor entered her life. She was attracted to him and appreciated the attention he gave her children. But unknown to Mary, the 29-year-old man, whom she would eventually marry, began a sexual relationship with Sheryle.
"He told me we needed to be very careful not to tell anyone," Sheryle recalls, "or we would get in big trouble." Sheryle's childish desire to protect her mother from further pain caused her to keep the terrible secret.
Undetected, the abuser continued the incest for years, even through his marriage and divorce from Sheryle's mother. Desperately wanting to escape, Sheryle tried again to end it when she was 18. In return, he caused her to become pregnant, hoping to force her to marry and go away with him.
The pregnancy finally revealed the awful truth, and the abuser left. Sheryle's family rallied around her. Her mother, in Sheryle's words, "scooped me up." Though dealing with shame, guilt and embarrassment, Sheryle's Christian beliefs kept her from abortion, and she gave birth to Christopher, who is now 21.
"I cried for two days in the hospital," she recalls. "It's not your ideal way to have a baby. But does that mean, for our convenience, we take his life?"
Overcoming the abuse took years, but Sheryle attributes her healing to God, and she credits Christopher's birth as the beginning. "Finally God fulfilled a promise He had given me: 'The LORD has taken away your judgments, He has cast out your enemy. The King of Israel, the LORD, is in your midst; You shall see disaster no more' (Zephaniah 3:15).
"My son was really a gift from God because he created a way of escape," Sheryle says. "The natural thing is to stay in the dark, to cover [the incest] up. Abortion is another way [for abuse] to stay hidden."
http://rhinocrisy.blogspot.com/2006/03/pox-on-abortion.html

I hope you can see, abortion doesn't help sexual abuse victims. We really need this law.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Do those of you who oppose this law believe that a parent has any right to protect their child at all, because if they do, shouldn't they be able to say a child shouldn't have to face these risks?
The following quotations are taken directly from medical studies on teen abortions.
Teenagers, who account for about 30% of all abortions, are also at much higher risk of suffering many abortion related complications. This is true of both immediate complications and of long-term reproductive damage. Wadhera, "Legal Abortion Among Teens," 1974-1978, Canadian Medical Association Journal, 122:1386-1389, (June 1980).
The younger the patient, the greater the gestation (time into the pregnancy), the higher the complication rate...Some of the most catastrophic complications occur in teenagers. M. Bulfin, M.D., OB-GYN Observer, Oct.-Nov. 1975
Women under 17 have been found to face twice the normal risk of suffering cervical damage due to the fact that their cervixes are still "green" and developing. Schulz, et al., "Measures to Prevent Cervical Injury During Suction Curettage Abortion," The Lancet (May 18, 1983) 1182-1184. Wadhera, "Legal Abortion Among Teens," 1974-1978, Canadian Medical Association (June 1980), vol. 122, 1386-1389
The number and types of physical complications resulting from abortion are as diverse as the various abortion methods. Depending upon the type of abortion performed, physical complications can be as follows:
Cervical tearing and laceration from the instruments.
Perforation of the uterus by instruments. This may require major surgery, including hysterectomy.
Scarring of the uterine lining by suction tubing, curettes, or other instruments.
Infection, local and systemic.
Hemorrhage and shock, especially if the uterine artery is torn.
Anesthesia toxicity from both general or local anesthesia, resulting in possible convulsions, cardiorespiratory arrest, and in extreme cases, death.
Retained tissue, indicated by cramping, heavy bleeding, and infection.
Postabortal syndrome, referring to an enlarged, tender and soft uterus retaining blood clots.
Failure to recognize an ectopic pregnancy. This could lead to the rupture of a fallopian tube, hemorrhage, and resulting infertility or death, if treatment is not provided in time.
Dr. Warren Hern, Abortion Practice, c. 1980 & Hern, W. "Long Term Risks of Induced Abortion," Gynecology and Obstetrics, 6:63 (1994)
Some women experience immediate psychological problems from abortion. Other women repress feelings of guilt, delaying emotional reactions sometimes for several years and oftentimes triggered by their first planned pregnancy.
These complications include:
Sad mood.
Sudden and uncontrollable crying episodes.
Deterioration of self-concept.
Sleep, appetite and sexual disturbances.
Reduced motivation.
Disruption in interpersonal relationships.
Extreme guilt and anxiety.
Psychological "numbing."
Depression and thoughts of suicide.
Listing provided by David Reardon, Ph.D., the Elliot Institute and Paul C. Reisser, M.D. and Teri Reisser, M.S., "Identifying and Overcoming Post-Abortion Syndrome," (Colorado Springs: Focus on the Family, 1994), pg. 11.
National statistics on abortion show that 10% of women undergoing abortions suffer from immediate complications, of which one-fifth were considered major. Grimes and Cates, "Abortion: Methods and Complications," Human Reproduction, 2nd ed., 796-813
The cervical damage which results during abortion frequently results in a permanent weakening of the cervix. This weakening may result in an "incompetent cervix" which, unable to carry the weight of a later "wanted" pregnancy, opens prematurely, resulting in miscarriage or premature birth. According to a study entitled "Cervical Incompetence-Aetiology and Management" which appeared in the Medical Journal of Australia, symptoms related to cervical incompetence were found among 75% of women who undergo forced dilation for abortion.
Another research study entitled "Sexual Activity and Its Consequences in the Teenager" published in Clinics in Ob&Gyn, found that among teenagers who aborted their first pregnancies, 66% subsequently experienced miscarriages or premature birth of their second "wanted" pregnancies.
In a 5-year study, 25% of women who have had abortions sought out psychiatric care, versus just 3% of women who have not had abortions. "Report on the Committee on the Operation of the Abortion Law," p. 321, Ottawa, 1977
The relative risk of secondary infertility among women with at least one induced abortion and no spontaneous miscarriages was 3 to 4 times that among non-aborted women. D. Trichopoulos et al, "Induced Abortion & Secondary Infertility," British Journal OB/GYN, vol. 83, Aug. 1976, pp. 645-650
A new study published in the June, 2004 issue of American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse strengthens the case for a connection between abortion and substance abuse. The study found that among women who had unintended first pregnancies, those who had abortions were more likely to report more frequent and recent use of alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine.
The researchers reported that the elevated rates of substance use among women who had abortions might be linked to higher levels of anxiety, depression, and unresolved grief which have been measured in other studies of women with a history of abortion.
http://www.teenbreaks.com/abortion/complicationsgirls.cfm

reply from: coco

yes women can have complications with an abortion that can affect if they maybe able to bare children later on in life.

reply from: Shiprahagain

So my point is, unless you are taking away the parents right to protect their child, you shouldn't take away the parent's right to deny such a harmful procedure.

reply from: 1003

i'm not going to reveal any personal information... but you are wrong. let's not address age. lets address abortion.

reply from: coco

concered i think that newposter1 is going to be in the 10th grade

reply from: NewPoster1

If a state chooses to enact a parental "obstruction" law, it only applies to abortions performed within it's borders.
This is why a teenager who travels from, say, Mississippi to New York, has the 100% right to have an "unobstructed" abortion, the only law that matters is the law of the state she's presently in.
Likewise, if a teenager travels from New York to Mississippi, she's going to face an "insurmountable wall of obstacles" before she can have an abortion, because that's the law of the state she's presently in.
This is what anti-choicers seem to have a problem grasping, if Mississippi enacts a draconian parental consent law, it doesn't apply to all teenagers (under 18) who currently live in Mississippi, it applies to all teenagers (under 18) who seek an abortion within Mississippi's borders. You have no right logically, legally, or constitutionally, to make laws "track" a person and "follow" them in whatever state they go to.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Do you seek to nullify all laws that insist on parental consent before medical care?

reply from: NewPoster1

No, because with virtually all other things, 99.9% of parents would immediately consent and if they refused, they'd be charged with neglect and a judge would immediately consent to the procedure.
Hypothetically, if this series of events became the standard with regards to abortion, I'd no longer object to parental consent laws.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Why shouldn't a parent have the right to deny consent to something that can cause all this?
Teenagers, who account for about 30% of all abortions, are also at much higher risk of suffering many abortion related complications. This is true of both immediate complications and of long-term reproductive damage. Wadhera, "Legal Abortion Among Teens," 1974-1978, Canadian Medical Association Journal, 122:1386-1389, (June 1980).
The younger the patient, the greater the gestation (time into the pregnancy), the higher the complication rate...Some of the most catastrophic complications occur in teenagers. M. Bulfin, M.D., OB-GYN Observer, Oct.-Nov. 1975
Women under 17 have been found to face twice the normal risk of suffering cervical damage due to the fact that their cervixes are still "green" and developing. Schulz, et al., "Measures to Prevent Cervical Injury During Suction Curettage Abortion," The Lancet (May 18, 1983) 1182-1184. Wadhera, "Legal Abortion Among Teens," 1974-1978, Canadian Medical Association (June 1980), vol. 122, 1386-1389
Another research study entitled "Sexual Activity and Its Consequences in the Teenager" published in Clinics in Ob&Gyn, found that among teenagers who aborted their first pregnancies, 66% subsequently experienced miscarriages or premature birth of their second "wanted" pregnancies.
In a 5-year study, 25% of women who have had abortions sought out psychiatric care, versus just 3% of women who have not had abortions. "Report on the Committee on the Operation of the Abortion Law," p. 321, Ottawa, 1977
You love the word draconian -- as if parents deny their daughters abortions just to exert tyranncial authority. A parent has the right to protect their daughter from a 66% chance of future miscarriage, breast cancer, infertility, damaged cervix, etc. I think that denying a parent the right to keep their daughter safe from a brutal proceduce is draconian. Insisting that parents have no right to keep their child out of harm's way is cruel.

reply from: NewPoster1

Not exactly. The laws of my state apply to the citizens of my state. Your state has no right to abridge the laws of my state by allowing my child to cross into your state in order to supercede the legislation we have enacted within ours. The Child Custody Act is a rational and necessary response designed to protect the rights of the people in my state to enact our own legislation without the legislation of another state interfering with, even nullifying, our efforts.
Not exactly. The laws of your state only apply to the citizens of your state, if they're actually, physically inside of, the borders of your state.

reply from: 1003

LOL
wherever you pulled that from, itwasn't one of my posts...

reply from: Shiprahagain

Exactly. If you just travel to one state to do what's illegal in another, no state's law has any meaning.

reply from: yoda

That's true to a point, but it passes that point when one transports a minor accross a state line to avoid compliance with a state law. That IS a crime.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Thanks, Yoda. That's what I was trying to express.

reply from: NewPoster1

No, but I would insist that your state has no constitutional right to pass a law that...
forces abortion providers in my state to comply with abortion restrictions that don't exist in my state...
and...
restricts a person's right to come to my state, to do something that is 100% legal in my state.

reply from: NewPoster1

If you dislike this, than I recommend that you start lobbying your state's legislators to secede. Any law that restricts a person's right to travel to another state, to do something that's perfectly legal in that state, will always be struck down as unconstitutional. Crossing state lines to get around idiotic laws is something that happens millions of times a day, for millions of reasons other than abortion. This is something that inevitably occurs when a country is divided into states and each state creates it's own laws.

reply from: Shiprahagain

It's not unconstitutional. If it were this law would be, too:
In the past, the federal government has exercised its interstate commerce authority to prohibit other interstate activity that it deemed harmful to minors and their families. For example, in 1910, Congress used its constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause to prohibit the interstate transportation of women or minors for purposes of "prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose" (commonly referred to as the Mann Act). The Supreme Court upheld the enactment of this law as a constitutional exercise of Congress' power over transportation among the several states. Moreover, the Court reasoned that if men and women employ interstate transportation to facilitate a wrong, then their right to interstate travel can be restricted.
[Hoke v. United States, 227 U.S. 308 (1913)].

reply from: Shiprahagain

Thanks, Concerned Was your career involved with law, or do you just have a passion for it? (It sounds like you frequent the law library.)

reply from: NewPoster1

This is completely uncomparable. First of all, this seems to primarily address human trafficking/people being transported against their will, even if this isn't the case, this law restricted something that was illegal in every state. The "offender" in this case would be crossing state lines to do something that was illegal in their destination state, this isn't the case when a person helps someone cross state lines to obtain an abortion.

reply from: Shiprahagain

The fact remains that such interstate laws are not unconstitutional.

reply from: NewPoster1

No, but I would insist that your state has no constitutional right to pass a law that...
And exactly where in the Constitution do you find a minor childs right to leave the state without the knowledge and consent of the parent or guardian? If it's not in the Constitution, I believe my state has every right. That's how it works, right? Your state doesn't get to decide how my state is governed, and neither do you. You may "insist" ad nauseum, but it is not unconstitutional just because your state disagrees.
The legislation we pass in my state doesn't affect the citizens of your state. Don't tell me we can't enact legislation that prevents your state from usurping the parental responsibility and authority of the citizens of my state. If you all decide your children should make their own decisions without parental consent, I can't do anything about that, but I will fight for my rights as a citizen of my state, and I'm not going to have your state legislature dictate how the citizens of my state must raise our children. I don't think you fully comprehend what you're messing with here. Don't get between me and mine, son.
I was referring to the fact that this proposed "law" would force abortion providers (in non-restrictive states) to comply with the parental consent/notification requirements of a teenager's home state, before he/she could perform an abortion. This is blatantly unconstitutional, as you can't force a person practicing in, say, New York to abide by, say, Mississippi's laws. A state can only dictate the laws within it's borders, it can't (constitutionally) force people in other states to abide by them.
I fully comprehend what I'm "messing with" here. It's the absurd, ignorant, backwards, radical, ultra-conservative belief that any person under the age of 18 has no legal rights and is nothing more than the property of his/her parents. Rest assured, if I knew one of your daughters in person and they asked for my assistance in obtaining an abortion, either in-state or out, I wouldn't hesitate to do everything in my power to help them, as I would for anyone.
We're not just talking about any person here, we're talking about my minor child for whom I, and only I, am legally responsible. As long as abortion is legal, an adult doesn't need to cross into your state to get an abortion.
If either of my daughters (one is 13, the other 15) want to walk across the street and visit the neighbors, they need my consent. I have the authority to forbid it if I see fit to do so. Why should they be allowed to leave the state without my knowledge or consent? Who has the right to supercede my parental authority? I believe it is wrong to harm another human being, but if I found out you took off across the state line with one of my daughters behind my back for any reason, I'm not 100% confident in my ability to do the right thing.
One day you may have children of your own, then you might understand. In the mean time, trust me. You might think it's O.K. for somebody to do it, but you don't want to be the one.
I dare say, if you think it's acceptable to "harm" a tenth-grader, who helps another tenth-grader travel out-of-state for an abortion, than you really have some issues that should be resolved.

reply from: Shiprahagain

As you can see from the example, the law is constitutional. Calling the law absurd, radical, or ultra-conservative doesn't make it so. The fact that you would help my daughter (had I one) get a surgery that at her young age would damager her body to the point that she risked breast cancer, a damagaed cervix, and a 66% chance of miscarrying her next child isn't "help" it's indifference to someone's health and well-being. It's like "helping" somebody by getting them some drugs. It seems you feel that help means enabling people to do anything no matter how morally wrong or dangerous. The fact is, as you can see from prior examples, even teenagers (particularly boyfriends) coerce their girlfriends into outer-state abortions. The fact is, any law less specific than that one, would leave girls vulnerable to such coercion. And if you really care about other teenaged girls, you'd give up your "right" to sneak one past her state's border so that some other rape victim could be protected.

reply from: NewPoster1

So, we're back to this whole "sexual abuse" thing, eh?
I'll requote myself...
"Why do you anti-choicers try to maintain this charade that parental "obstruction" laws are about "preventing sexual abuse" and "promoting family communication"? This is such an obvious lie. You know why? If this were actually the case, you'd only seek parental notification laws and you wouldn't make it virtually impossible for a teenager to get a judicial bypass. The fact that you settle for nothing less than Draconian parental consent laws and raise Caine whenever a judge grants a judicial bypass is irrefutable evidence that your one true concern is that radical, anti-choice parents have the absolute power to veto their daughter's decision to have an abortion."
Not to mention, I presented, in an earlier post, evidence that 74.8% of (under 18) abortions are obtained by 16 and 17 year-olds, who, in the majority of states, can legally consent to sex.
So, I'm stiil waiting for a single anti-choicer to respond, if the only intention is to prevent "sexual abuse", than why do these laws require "consent" instead of "notification", and why do they apply to 16 and 17 year-olds?

reply from: Shiprahagain

Parental notification laws are so vague that even grandparents count. So a forty year old guy can rape a 16 year old, she can tell her grandparents it was her 16 year old boyfriend who got her pregnant, grandparents are too distant to know the difference and they sign off (ignorantly complicit in rape.) Rape is so pernicious, nothing but parental consent can protect a girl.

reply from: NewPoster1

This is such an obvious lie, an equally small proportion of parental notification and parental consent statutes allow grandparents to substitute. It's not as though "grandparent exemptions" are exclusive to one or the other.
Why don't you just come out and admit what both you and I already know? The only reason a parental consent law would be acceptable and a parental notification law unacceptable, is because the latter doesn't give anti-choice parents the ability to veto their teenage daughter's decision to have an abortion. Neither is more or less effective than the other at preventing, as you put it, "sexual abuse".

reply from: Shiprahagain

It's not a lie that parental notification laws are lax and pro-choicers are forever trying to make them more lax, opening them to include aunts, cousins, and the like. Such laws are forever beind distended. Let's put it this way, are you doing anything to oppose the tightening of parental notification laws? Exactly. They're vulnerable to being extended to non-custodial relatives, even ones complicit in sexual abuse.

reply from: NewPoster1

It is so, only 6 states, with a parental "obstruction" law, allow "other adult relatives" to substitute. Of these 6, 4 have a parental consent law and 2 have a parental notification law.
States with parental consent law with other adult relative exemption...
North Carolina
South Carolina
Virginia
Wisconsin
States with parental notification law with other adult relative exemption...
Delaware
Iowa
Your claim that "other adult relative" exemptions are only affecting parental notification laws and not parental consent laws is completely inaccurate, as more parental consent laws than parental notification laws have an "other adult relative" exemption.
I'll reiterate...
"Why don't you just come out and admit what both you and I already know? The only reason a parental consent law would be acceptable and a parental notification law unacceptable, is because the latter doesn't give anti-choice parents the ability to veto their teenage daughter's decision to have an abortion."
This is the only difference between the two.

reply from: NewPoster1

This is completely uncomparable. First of all, this seems to primarily address human trafficking/people being transported against their will, even if this isn't the case, this law restricted something that was illegal in every state. The "offender" in this case would be crossing state lines to do something that was illegal in their destination state, this isn't the case when a person helps someone cross state lines to obtain an abortion.
If they were transported against their will, the law would be unnecessary since kidnapping was already illegal. Nice try, though.
You seem to have overlooked the "even if this isn't the case" in my response. Regardless of this, the final sentence was the most pertinent portion of my post.
"The "offender" in this case would be crossing state lines to do something that was illegal in their destination state, this isn't the case when a person helps someone cross state lines to obtain an abortion."
This is the crucial difference between the two, it's what makes one constitutional and the other unconstitutional.

reply from: Shiprahagain

He can't perform an abortion on my child if my child remains in my state, not legally anyway. If my state doesn't allow her to go to your state without my permission, that in no way interferes with your states legislation. If I don't let my child enter the ice cream parlor, does that violate Baskin Robbins right to sell ice cream? Your argument is equally ridiculous.
Excellent analogy.

reply from: NewPoster1

He can't perform an abortion on my child if my child remains in my state, not legally anyway. If my state doesn't allow her to go to your state without my permission, that in no way interferes with your states legislation. If I don't let my child enter the ice cream parlor, does that violate Baskin Robbins right to sell ice cream? Your argument is equally ridiculous.
If my daughter is not allowed to cross into your state, how does the law affect anyone in your state? As long as she remains in my state, the law in your state is irrelevant to us! Don't you get it? That's the whole purpose of the legislation in question! To ensure that my family in my state is not subjected to the laws of your state!
This, so-called, "Child Custody Protection Act" would make it a crime for an abortion provider practicing in my state to perform an abortion on a teenager from your state, without having first met the notification/consent requirements of your state, even though both of them would be physically within the borders of my state. This is what's blatantly unconstitutionally. An abortion provider practicing in my state can't constitutionally be compelled to abide by the abortion restrictions of your state, even if the teenager seeking the abortion is from your state.
This from someone who insists that an unborn child is the property of its mother to do with as she wishes, and is indignant that I would attempt to interfere with her "choice" to kill her own child. Now that my child has been spared, you would imply that I have nothing to say about decisions that will affect her life! How hypocritical!
No, I would imply that you have no right to infringe on your daughter's right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
If you knew my daughters personally, you would know they wouldn't have anything to do with someone who supports killing babies. You probably don't "hesitate" much online, but I think you'd sing soprano and pi$$ your panties in my front yard before you'd try to run off with one of my kids.
It's not "acceptable" to harm anyone. It's not "acceptable" to kill a baby just because it's not very big yet and dependant on it's mothers womb for survival. Last but not least, it's surely not "acceptable" for you to run off with my daughter to help her kill my grandchild. Acceptable or not, I'd put my foot in your 10th grade a$$ if that's what it took to stop you. We're not just talking about disagreement on legal issues now. You're telling me you would defy the law and my parental authority so my minor child can have her way if she thinks it would be cool to kill her child and my grandchild. You're telling me you could care less about my rights and the laws of my state.
No, I'd be telling you that your parental authority doesn't entail the right to force your daughter to remain pregnant against her will and any law along the lines of the CCPA would never stand constitutional muster.
I'm a bit curious, what gender are you presuming I am in these responses? Are you only willing to physically assault tenth-grade boys or are tenth-grade girls fair game as well?
What about a ninth-grader? Or an eighth-grader? Or even a seventh-grader? How young would someone have to be for you to decide physically harming them was no longer acceptable?
What stages of the process would you consider physical aggression to be acceptable in? What if someone was already in the process of transporting your daughter to an abortion clinic, would you consider ramming them off the road to be acceptable? What if she was already in the abortion clinic, would forcing your way in by physically assaulting the staff be acceptable? What if it was afterward, would physically harming the person who transported her be acceptable?
What level of involvement would be necessary for you to consider physical aggression to be acceptable? What if the person only accompanied her to the abortion clinic, but wasn't the transporter? What if they only bought her a bus ticket? What if they only gave her the location and directions?
What if someone helped her obtain a judicial bypass? Are you going to physically assault police officers if they attempt to prevent you from preventing her from traveling to an abortion clinic?
What if 3 years from now, your 18 year-old daughter helped her 16 year-old sister travel out-of-state for an abortion, what would her punishment be?
As do I with regards to you. Physically assaulting anyone, especially someone who's several decades younger than you, is likely to result in a lengthy prison sentence. Not to mention, last time I checked, "attempting to prevent person from assisting daughter in obtaining an abortion" wasn't a justifiable defense to assault and battery.

reply from: NewPoster1

My mistake, 1 state, Nevada, allows legal prostitution, though I highly doubt that this was the case in 1910 when the law was upheld. Even then, attempting to compare a 96 year-old law's constitutionality with a current law is inherently flawed, as every single member of the supreme court is different and their opinion is all that matters.
http://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/abortion/26183leg20060719.html

An excerpt which I posted earlier...
Finally, the Child Custody Protection Act is unconstitutional and tramples on some of the most basic principles of federalism. In the words of legal scholars Laurence Tribe of Harvard University and Peter Rubin of Georgetown University, the legislation "violates the rights of states to enact and enforce their own laws governing conduct within their territorial boundaries, and the rights of the residents of each of the United States and of the District of Columbia to travel to and from any state of the Union for lawful purposes, a right strongly affirmed by the Supreme Court...."
My prediction, most, if not all of the justices will vote to strike this law down, because, if for no other reason, it unconstitutionally forces abortion providers practicing in state A to comply abortion restrictions from state B, if the abortion seeking teenager originates from state B. This clearly violates the constitutional right of each state to enact and enforce it's own laws, within it's own borders.

reply from: yoda

Why don't you just admit that your whole reason for being on this forum is to promote the killing of as many babies as possible?
Why not just be honest for a change?

reply from: Tam

A point I've made about self-defense (and defense of one's children, of course) is that if I have no choice but to use physical force to defend myself, then the moral burden of that is on my attacker (or, in this case, my child's kidnapper). I would use as little force as possible, but if it became necessary to use lethal force to stop a murder, rape, kidnapping--then the fault is on the attacker, not on the one who has to resort to that force to stop him/her.

reply from: yoda

I have taught self-defense (with firearms) to women, and there's a couple things I stressed. When you allow someone to get within about 10 feet of you, you have no defense. They can, and often do leap at you and grab you or your firearm before you can get off a shot. The other is that "wounding" a person sometimes just makes them very angry, but doesn't disable them, kind of like a wounded animal. The point is, don't walk too thin a line with that philosophy.

reply from: Tam

Ok, ok. I hope I am never in that sort of situation! But if some lunatic is attacking me, I'll be sure to make my self-defense a priority over sparing his health or even his life. I still would try to avoid it if I possibly could, but thanks for the self-defense advice from someone who actually knows and has taught it!

reply from: yoda

Sure, that could happen. And the opposite could happen, also.... a woman could wait too long and be killed by an unarmed attacker. It's a judgement thing, knowing when someone is behaving in a threatening manner by approaching you, and there is no way to safeguard both parties at the same time. There will always be over reactions, and under reactions to threats, and imagined threats.... that's human nature.

reply from: Shiprahagain

The law passed http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/26/AR2006072600229.html and Hillary Clinton shows her true (nasty) colors. Instead of whining about sacrifing girls lives she should read up on the dangers of teen abortion. Why is it people worry about "bad" parents preventing their kids for abortion when even an abortion gone "well" wreaks the havoc of abuse on a girl's body. See up thread.

reply from: Shiprahagain

This the latest update I got from Feminists for Life.
Senate Votes on Child Custody Protection Act: Good News and Bad News
Feminists for Life President Serrin M. Foster thanks all members who contacted their Senators regarding the Child Custody Protection Act (S.403). "There is good news and there is bad news," said Foster.
The good news: Child Custody Protection Act passed the U.S. Senate last night, with the support of both Democrats and Republicans, on a vote of 65-34. The Act would prohibit taking a minor across state lines for an abortion in order to circumvent state laws requiring parental notification.
During the floor debate, the only amendment added to the bill was a compromise amendment agreed to by the bill's sponsor, Senator John Ensign (R-NV), and Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA). This amendment passed by a vote of 98-0 and ensures the bill does not protect those committing incest. Senator Feinstein (D-CA) did not introduce her amendment that would have permitted clergy and grandparents to transport minors across state lines for an abortion.
The bad news: Senator ***** Durbin of Illinois, the assistant Democratic leader, objected moving the bill to a conference committee, where the Senate can reconcile their bill with the previously passed House version (H.R. 748). Due to this - despite wide bipartisan support in the House and Senate - both bills are now stalled in their respective chambers.
"Although passage of the Child Custody Protection Act is a great victory, teenage girls still don't have the protection they deserve," said Foster. "The lives of young girls will be irrevocably changed as they are transported across state lines by a non-custodial adult for a secret abortion. Girls deserve better - and America knows it. We will persevere."
The official vote count on S.403 can be found at http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_109_2.htm.
Feminists for Life is a 501(c)3 organization. All contributions are tax deductible to the extent allowed by law.
___________________________________________________
This is the information list for Feminists for Life.
Are you a member and is your membership current?
Go to http://www.feministsforlife.org/support/index.htm and join online or donate today!

reply from: Shiprahagain

Most americans support the act http://poll.gallup.com/content/?ci=23905

reply from: yoda

It's probably a good thing that my daughter is all grown up and married now. If someone had taken her accross a state line for an abortion while she was still a minor and under my care, they would've lived only as long as it took me to find them.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics