I was leaning toward voting for prop 73, until I found out it defines abortion as "causing `death of the unborn child, a child conceived but not yet born.`"
Very sad. I can`t vote for it now, because it has broader implications than just parental notification, which I support.
What about the "family members" who rape her, bring her in for an abortion (and thus hide the evidence of rape), and then continue to rape her? It sure does happen.
And geez, last time I knew, children had to have their parents permission/notification to take Tylenol at a school nurses office or to be admitted to a hospital for surgery or emergency treatment. Shouldn't it be the same for any surgery or major medical procedure preformed at an ambulatory surgical clinic? Sounds like political interest in protecting abortion rights/access is really the issue here.
Rachel, I agree with all you just said, and I was leanikng toward voting for the bill (though a bit worried about some cases -- I knew someone who told her parents she was pregnant, thinking they would understand, and her father beat her very badly). Political interest in protecting abortion rights is in fact why I will vote against it.
L.,
How are the implications broader? It will do nothing to make abortion illegal. The state of California has defined the unborn as a child in their prenatal protection law since something like 1967. Remember Scott Peterson. Two murders, not one. Yet abortion is still legal in California and your tax dollars pay for probably around $50,000 abortion a year.
Parental consent wouldn't have mattered in the Patterson case- she was 18, therefore an adult.
Yes, Holly Patterson was 18, so parental-involvement laws would not have protected her. Her case is really more about sloppy practices with RU-486, and why "medical" abortions need to be much better regulated than they are.
However, Holly's case is certainly an example of why parents should be involved in abortions. Holly died because she skipped the follow-up protocol to complete the RU-486 abortion. If her parents had known about the procedure, might they have reminded her? Might she still be alive today? It's not sure, but I'd give it a good chance.
Hi J. California`s prenatal protection law does not refer to "unborn child."
From http://www.nrlc.org/
Unborn_Victi...laws092302.html
California: California Penal Code ｧ 187(a) says, "Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought." The words "or a fetus" were added by the legislature in 1970. The California Supreme Court later interpreted "fetus" to apply "beyond the embryonic stage of seven to eight weeks." (People v. Davis, 1994) In addition, Penal Code ｧ 190.2(3) makes a defendant eligible for capital punishment if convicted of more than one murder, and the California Supreme Court ruled that fetal homicide is included under this provision as well (People v. Dennis, 199
.
It seems to me that once an embryo/fetus is designated an "unborn child," a pro-life group would have grounds to sue an abortion doctor for "murder, with malice aforethought."
Another thing that bugs me about prop 73 -- it protects a minor from being coerced into an abortion by her parents (which is GREAT!), but it lacks a similar provision for forced gestation. If a judge does not allow the girl to have an abortion, the parents are free to force their minor daughter to carry the pregnancy to term and give birth. This does not seem right to me.
How did that gratuitous smiley face get in there????? Creepy.... must have been some random puncuation, playing tricks....
It doesn't use the term unborn child but it still allows for someone to be convicted of murdering an unborn child and yet abortion is nowhere near becoming illegal.
Why couldn't they sue the abortionist now if what you say is true? I don't see how the new definition wouldn add anything new to their case.
Plus, doesn't California law make a clear distinction between "murder" and "abortion" so abortionists can't be sued/charged?
I`m not a lawyer -- but I would guess that defining a fetus/embryo as an "unborn child" would be the logical first step in making abortion illegal here, since as far as I know, children have a legal right to life.
"but it lacks a similar provision for forced gestation. If a judge does not allow the girl to have an abortion, the parents are free to force their minor daughter to carry the pregnancy to term and give birth. This does not seem right to me."
Try the parents often times will be dissapointed in their child at first, but in my experience many do come around and express they willing to help the teen parent as complete her education and find a job. This is not "forced gestation", this is giving a teen alternative options. If the teen is in danger of receiving a beating for becoming pregnant, then she needs to be removed from the home and placed in a safe place, in the care of relatives if possible. Usually, in the case of abusive parents, it's not just a single issue that will cause them to blow up, if it weren't pregnancy, then it could be anything to cause beatings. Giving her an abortion and sending her back home is not a good solution.
But what if the teen really wants the abortion, and her parents force her to have the baby instead? I`m imagining myself here.
Had I been raped and impregnated as a young teenager, I would not have wanted to carry the pregnancy to term. My Catholic parents would never have given me permission to abort -- I would have been sent away to have the baby. Of course, this is a hypothetical situation, because thank God it never happened to me, but I imagine that if I had been forced to carry a rapist`s baby, I would have tried to self-abort, or attempt suicide.
Sometimes the parents do NOT make the best decisions for their children -- I equally oppose forced abortion AND forced gestation.
Why they need a separate law is beyond me, take the emotion away, and abortion is an invasive medical procedure. I'm not sure if any of the 7 states (including Ca.) I've lived in allowed invasive medical procedures to be done on minors without consent. So rephrase the current laws, and get on with the notifications.
Bob, I agree. I`m pro-choice -- and I support parental notification, as long as the pergnant minor is still allowed to decide for herself whether to gestate or abort.
One interesting twist I`ve heard from some people arging against prop 73 -- they say they`ll vote for it, as long as the parents of the fetus/embryo/unborn baby`s father are notified, too. Now THAT might reduce the teenage pregnancy rate!
But L. in other states the the unborn are defined as children in prenatal protection laws (http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/
Statehomicidelaws092302.html)
yet abortion isn't illegal in those states. Your reasoning for opposing this law is completely irrational.
The chances are parents will make much better and well-thought out decisions than their teenage child. It's almost as if you believe that teenagers make better decisions than their parents.
L. - you don't agree with Bob at all - he's saying that any invasive medical procedure (including abortion) should require the consent of the parents. You think the teenage daughter should have almost complete control and your going to vote against parents even being notified.
I`ve given this a lot of thought overnight, and I know think that I can`t vote for ANY parental notification law. Just because I would want to hear about my own daughter`s abortion when she has one someday doesn`t mean that every parent should -- or even that I should.
I know abortions among teenages are by and large older teenagers -- but I don`t think even a girl of 12 or 13 should be forced to either have a baby, or have an abortion. Involving parents in the whole process would prevent some problems but create othes. Right now, there are probably girls forced into abortions by older boyfriends -- this bothers me. But telling parents about her abortion isn`t the answer to that specific problem, and will just lead to more teenage girls having babies instead of abortions, which I can`t possibly support because I think that`s worse.
Prop 73 is lopsided -- it insures that my daughter could have a baby without my permission, but what about my parental rights if I want to encourage her to have an abortion instead? Why should parental rights only extend to gestation, not abortion? If I have the ultimate control and responsibility over my daughter`s body, why shouldn`t I be able to choose to end her pregnancy?
I don`t know. I was initially inclined to vote for prop 73, but I don`t think its passage would help.
Telling parents certainly could be a solution to boyfriends forcing girlfriends into abortion. Parents (who are more likely to have the girl's best interests at heart) could talk to their daughter and see what she is truly feeling.
Giving birth to children is worse than killing them? That's a pretty horrible statement - it also contradicts the "pro-choice" mentality of supposedly supporting the "choice" not the abortion.
I also find it disturbing that as a mother you don't think that you should know if your teenage daughter is undergoing a medical procedure. Step back for a minute from idea that the medical procedure is an abortion and think about that.
You know what? If this is a simple matter of parental rights, why does choice even come into it? Why can`t I force my daughter to have an abortion? I am stepping back, and realizing that this bill would permit my daughter to have a baby without my permission, even if I, her parent, decided that an abortion would be in her best interests.
It is true that I would want to know if my daughter had an abortion. But if she doesn`t want to let me know, I would respect that. I certainly didn`t tell my parents when I went to Planned Parenthood for abortificent contraception, when I was a minor.
For one, you're now equating notification with complete control.
Why can't you force your daughter to have a breast enhancement? Or a leg amputation? Because we recognize that parents have certain rights over their children (such the right to be notified if they are having an elective surgery) but not complete and total control over their child (such as the right to force one's daughter to have breast implants).
Giving birth isn't a elective medical procedure like abortion. A woman who is 9 months can't just decide that the child will go away on its own.
What abortifacient contraception did you purchase? Even if the contraception was abortifacient, isn't there a difference between a surgery and whatever you got.
I got birth control pills at PP (I didn`t purchase them -- they were given to me free). My Catholic parents would not have approved. Had their permission been required, I would not have sought contraception, but I believe I still would have had sex, anyway. I believe those pills likely saved me from either an abortion or a crisis birth.
Excuse me, but giving birth is an entirely elective procedure!
And yes, notification is one judge away from giving parents complete control. Sorry, I don`t completely trust our judicial system nowadays -- and I doubt you do, either.
L.
There isn't actually much objective, scientific evidence that points to birth control pills being abortifacient. My friend Serge actually has a very informative post on that subject - http://www.imago-dei.net/
imago_d..._christian.html
Saying that giving birth is an elective procedure doesn't make it so. You can elect to abort a child but if you don't sooner or later the baby is coming out.
I trust the judgement of parents much more than I trust the judgement of teenagers. I trust the judgement of judges more than I trust the judgement of abortion clinic counselors.
Do you actually KNOW any abortion/birth control clinic counselors? Have you ever been to a Planned Parenthood clinic, for any reason besides protesting?
I will read you birth control link. It was always my understanding that one of the two main hormones in the pill prevents an egg from attaching, if one did manage to slip out and get fertilized. I have also used an IUD, which I believe is a true abortificient -- baby pesticide.
I read the link. There are all kinds of pills, wih all different hormone levels, but progestin not only makes the cervical mucous hostile to sperm penetration -- it also makes the endometrium hostile to fertilized egg implantation. But if people can live the rare possibility that an egg may be fertilized, then I am the last person who would ever complain about it.
L.
I don't personally know any abortion counselors - and I've never been to a Planned Parenthood (not even to protest).
When discussing whether the pill is an abortifacient with people who believe it is - I always ask something like, "If the main mechanism of how the pill works (preventing ovulation) fails then wouldn't it be odd that the supposed tertiary mechanism (thinning the lining of the uterus) would work?"
I guess the question isn`t whether or not preventing implantation is the pill`s main function -- it clearly is NOT. But I know many Catholics who refuse to use the pill because of the remote possibility that this could happen -- that an egg can slip out and get fertilized. (And yes, devout Catholics don`t use any contraception at all besides NFP.)
Also, my doctor told me there are different understandings about how an IUD works -- whether it can kill a fertilized egg, or just sperm.
Commenting by HaloScan
