Charity on July 26th, 2006

I wonder if the people over at Green Mountain Daily are at all concerned that their latest scare-people-out-of-voting-for-Republicans post contains blatant falsehoods that any two-bit hack could fact check against ANY news site over the past 24 hours.

From GMD:

Say you’re a 14-year-old girl and you’re pregnant because your father raped you. And say that you live in a state that requires parental notification. Under a bill passed by the Senate yesterday it would be a federal crime for a supportive friend or family member to help you get the abortion you need, even if your life is at stake. That’s right, even in cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother, a majority of the House and Senate have voted to allow parents, no matter how culpable or abusive they may be, to prevent pregnant minors from obtaining the health care they need.

Even this biased and misleadingly titled article from the Burlington Free Press, “Senate criminalizes interstate abortion,” notes that “the bill contains an exception for abortions performed in this manner when the pregnancy posed a threat to the mother’s life.”

By the way, Free Press, the senate did not “criminalize interstate abortion.” I, a woman and not a child, can go anywhere I damn well please and have as many abortions as I want. Not a crime.

Whether or not you agree with this law, let’s have some FACTUAL debate on this. Can we at least do that?

While I’m at it, here’s one more fact that you might care to ponder: a child rapist, whether a relative or not, would most likely want his victim to have an abortion to destroy the evidence of his crime, not keep her from having one.

And why isn’t this “supportive friend or family member” going to the police and/or social services about the fact that the girl’s father is raping her? I don’t get that.

Update: I forgot to add that the senate version contained an amendment that made an exception for cases of incest.

13 Responses to “Spin is not just a wash cycle”

  1. It would be interesting to see what the different candidates for national public office would have to say about this recent legislation. My guess is that Rep. Sanders, State Sen. Welch, and Adj. Gen. Rainville would all be against the legisltion. I also venture to say that Lt. Col. Parke and State Sen. Shepard would probably be for it. I’m not so sure about Mr. Tarrant. Maybe Vermont voters should call and ask them.

  2. How do you feel about the use of embryonic stem cells for medical research, or in fertility clinics, for that matter? If it’s taking a human life to cause a blastocyst to die so you can study it, then isn’t it also a sin to throw extra blastocysts away when a fertility patient becomes pregnant, or whatever?

    Abortion is a tough one too. Call me a Libertarian on this one. I would never want a woman with my child to have one, but I agree that it wouldn’t be my decision. While in my heart I believe abortion takes a life, I also believe a woman has sovereignty over her body and has the right to expel any invader from it, including a fetus. Sounds harsh, I know. But if you believe someone has the right to shoot an intruder breaking into his house, then you’ll recognize my logic, whether you agree with it or not. Not that abortion doesn’t leave an irreparable hole in a would-be mother’s heart. It does I think, but the option to do it safely is important for those women who would do it, regardless. I’d rather focus on education, birth control, family planning, adoption, socializing medicine and generally creating a better village for children to be born into. I think these things will lead to abortion becoming very, very rare.

  3. How can you compare an innocent unborn child to a criminal breaking into a house? If you opened the door wide and waved the guy in, you really shouldn’t be shooting him.

  4. Haik,

    Good to see you. Man, those anonymous posters just lurk waiting for you to post something so they can bust your chops! Good point he/she had though. A fetus doesn’t exactly force its way in.

    Anywho, it is interesting that you jumped right in with the right to life line of questioning. To me, parental notification is about parent’s rights, not abortion rights.

    A school needs a parent’s signature to take a child on a field trip, yet a child should be able to have an invasive medical procedure performed on her that could lead to serious complications without so much as a word to the parents? I do not follow that logic.

    I don’t buy the “girls from good families will tell their parents” line of reasoning, either. I had a good friend in college who was wicked close with her mother and didn’t want to disappoint her. I ended up taking her to the clinic, but she was too far along and needed to go to Montreal, so I made her call her mother. Her mother was super supportive, which she needed, but never would have gotten if she was able to have the abortion done in Vermont. When she got all depressed over break, her mother never would have known why and would not have been able to support her. And this was an 18 year old! I can only imagine how it would be for a younger girl.

    Abortion is pushed on girls, I know because it happened to me when I got pregnant in college with my oldest son. I think girls and young women deserve better than that. They deserve a real choice, not some pro-abortion clinic worker telling them that their life is over if they have a baby.

    The other point about this is that the people in states with parental notification decided on that law for their communities through their democratic processes and for an individual to be allowed to just go to another state to circumvent the law violates the very spirit of it. It should not be legal.

  5. Actually, the claim that there is an incest exception is not true. Here’s what the bill says about incest:

    `Notwithstanding section 2431(b)(2), whoever has committed an act of incest with a minor and knowingly transports the minor across a State line with the intent that such minor obtain an abortion, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.’.

    It doesn’t say you can get an abortion if the pregnancy is the result of incest, it just says that the father can’t force you to have the abortion. Very different, wouldn’t you agree?

  6. Yes I would agree, but according to the information I read, there is an exception for incest.

    If you look at the bill before and after amendment, you will see they also added this:

    “Any parent who suffers harm from a violation of subsection (a) may obtain appropriate relief in a civil action, unless the parent has committed an act of incest with the minor subject to subsection (a).” (Emphasis added.)

    This bill is not about abortion, it is about “abridgement of the right of a parent.” It is about a parent, whose parental rights have been violated, having some recourse. The above portion expressly says if the parent has committed incest, that parent cannot use this statute to redress that grievance.

    At this point, I still believe that what I read is true, which is that this statute will not be applied when the girl was a victim of incest.

  7. It’s true that that language is in the bill, but it only applies to the parents suing for damages. It doesn’t provide any protection against criminal prosecution even if the pregnancy was the result of incest.

    Veering from facts into opinion, I think it’s absurd to claim that this bill has anything to do with protecting parents’ rights. I sure didn’t hear any conservatives speaking up for Michael Newdow’s right not to have his daughter subjected to religious indoctrination in the public schools, and it’s not just a question of who the custodial parent was.

  8. “Veering from facts into opinion, I think it’s absurd to claim that this bill has anything to do with protecting parents’ rights.”

    The language is right in the bill. It might be true that certain people with an agenda to outlaw abortion support this as an incremental step in that direction, I am not involved in that movement. I happen to support this bill because I feel that a young girl will need her parents’ support after such a physically and emotionally traumatic procedure. It is a parent’s right to know when their daughter has undergone such a procedure. Like I said above, a parent’s permission is needed for most other things, why not this? Explain that logic.

    You will find that my stance on parents’ rights is solid and not simply lip service to support a particular issue.

    “I sure didn’t hear any conservatives speaking up for Michael Newdow’s right not to have his daughter subjected to religious indoctrination in the public schools, and it’s not just a question of who the custodial parent was.”

    There are a couple of issues here.

    First, saying “one nation under God” is not religious indoctrination. I said The Pledge in school and I was an atheist for many years. The girl was being raised Christian by her mother, so I would bet that The Pledge was pretty inconsequential.

    Second, the schools indoctrinate kids with all kinds of crap that parents do not agree with. Parents have no control over it. That’s partly why I took my kids out of school and started homeschooling them.

    If there was “religious indoctrination” going on in a public school, even if was my own beliefs, I would be the first to oppose it. My religious freedom is only as secure as everyone else’s. I know many, many conservatives that share my view.

  9. I’ll just focus on one point here: How would you feel if every day the kids in public school were required to listen to the teacher refer to “on nation, under Allah”, or “one nation with no god above it”? Would that be religious indoctrination? You bet it would. So is the new phrasing of the Pledge of Allegiance.

    The supporters of keeping god in the Pledge of Allegiance know that it can’t be constitutional if it means what it says, so they argue that it isn’t really a religious expression. Of course, the only way they can maintain that claim is by denying the facts both of what was put in the Pledge and what the president and congress said when they added it.

    A look at Iraq, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, or Egypt should remind people of the dangers of religious intolerance. Unfortunately, the message doesn’t seem to be as clear to people in the religious majority.

  10. “How would you feel if every day the kids in public school were required to listen to the teacher refer to “on nation, under Allah”, or “one nation with no god above it”?”

    Hmm, probably how I felt when my second-grade kid had to listen to other kids tell him that only liars and bullies supported President Bush (when my son knew we supported Bush) and the teacher AND the guidance councilor did nothing about it.

    Or how I felt when my kid told me God did not create the earth because he learned at school that it got this way over billions of years.

    Yeah, public schools suck. Kids hear and learn about all kinds of things that parents object to. That’s why I homeschool. Get over it.

    (Actually, I started homeschooling because the academics at the public school suck. The fact that they no longer have to listen to leftist drivel is gravy.)

  11. Your kid was not taught that god didn’t create the earth. If your kid was taught that the universe, including earth, was not created in six days the way the Bible claims, then your kid was told the truth.

  12. Teachers may not explicitly state that it was a godless process, but the implication is there in the way the subject is taught and I do not know why people continue to deny that.

    I do not keep my kids from an education in science. In fact, I bet they have learned more about evolution at home than they ever would at school at this age.

    Somehow they never come away from a lesson saying there is no God. Amazing.

    My point is that the public schools can never make everyone happy. They will always be teaching something that goes against the beliefs of the parents.

    And I still do not agree that “one nation under God” is religious indoctrination.

  13. Here are some links that I believe will be interested