AsburySkinsFan Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 Proving yet again, that you can't give a minor an asprin without parental consent but you can give her an abortion! Grrrrr And we wonder why the words Planned Parenthood leave a bad taste in people's mouths. Abortion parental-notice law repealed POSTED: 9:42 p.m. EDT, June 29, 2007 CONCORD, New Hampshire (AP) -- Gov. John Lynch signed legislation Friday that made New Hampshire the first state to repeal a law requiring that a parent be notified before a minor receives an abortion. The 2003 law never took effect because of a court challenge, and the repeal took effect immediately. "I strongly believe parents should be involved in these decisions, providing important support and guidance. Unfortunately that is not possible in every case," Lynch said. Lynch cited the law's lack of a provision regarding the pregnant minor's health, agreeing with the judge who ruled the law unconstitutional in 2003. New Hampshire is the first state to repeal a parental notice law, said Dawn Touzin of Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. Washington state removed a parental consent law in 1991. Forty-four states have laws requiring parental notification or consent for a minor seeking an abortion. Nine laws, including New Hampshire's, were unenforceable, according to NARAL Pro-Choice America, which filed a brief supporting the lawsuit brought by Planned Parenthood. Republican Party Chairman Fergus Cullen said Lynch took a radical approach to a moderate law that could have been fixed. "One can be pro-choice and still believe that parents have a right to know whether their minor daughter became pregnant," said Cullen. "Gov. Lynch is saying that parents don't have a right to know their minor children became pregnant." State Rep. Fran Wendelboe, who fought to keep the law on the books, said its supporters have not decided whether to introduce a new law in January or wait until after the 2008 elections. Previously, the Legislature consistently voted for abortion rights before passing the law under then-Gov. Craig Benson, a Republican, and a Republican-controlled Legislature. Democrats took control of the statehouse in December, and abortion-rights activists moved quickly to strip the law from the books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 Absolute lunacy. There is no valid justification for this whatsoever; no legitimate argument in favor of repealing the law. It's depressing, and disgusting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 Absolute lunacy. There is no valid justification for this whatsoever; no legitimate argument in favor of repealing the law. It's depressing, and disgusting. I agree with you in scope and overall opinion, but I'm also torn because I feel that ALL abortion laws should be regulated at the state level and none at the federal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 I agree with you in scope and overall opinion, but I'm also torn because I feel that ALL abortion laws should be regulated at the state level and none at the federal.This is at the state level.Its stupid and its all about money. Planned Parenthood are killers for hire and they receive tax-payer funding. :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 This is at the state level.Its stupid and its all about money. Planned Parenthood are killers for hire and they receive tax-payer funding. :mad: ummm, of course thats why I said what I did? what are you getting at in regards to my post? I thought I was pretty clear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enter Apotheosis Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 Absolute lunacy. There is no valid justification for this whatsoever; no legitimate argument in favor of repealing the law. It's depressing, and disgusting. I'd imagine that there are circumstances where there is a legitimate reason for the bill - as it was - to be repealed. Granted, any such set of circumstances would have to be few and far between. I'd also imagine that a revised version of the bill would probably work out better in the long haul... but you have to consider that the legislative process is unbelievably slow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 I'd imagine that there are circumstances where there is a legitimate reason for the bill - as it was - to be repealed. Granted, any such set of circumstances would have to be few and far between. Fair enough. Give me one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enter Apotheosis Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 Fair enough. Give me one. Pscychotic, anti-abortion father (possibly also the one who got his daughter pregnant) who will physically harm his kid if he finds out. :whoknows: Again, definitely not high-frequency occurences but you do kinda need to be able to adapt to everything thrown your way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 Pscychotic, anti-abortion father (possibly also the one who got his daughter pregnant) who will physically harm his kid if he finds out.:whoknows: Again, definitely not high-frequency occurences but you do kinda need to be able to adapt to everything thrown your way. In your example, CPS should already be involved. If the father is deemed to be unfit, or is abusing the child, there are already laws in place to handle that situation. If the mother is in the home, and she allows such behavior to continue, then the blood is on her hands too, so to speak. Besides, if you're going to cite the "parent might have a fit of rage" argument, then kids should be locked in the cellar at all times. There are plenty of stupid things a kid can do (drinking and driving, wrecking a car and killing a friend) that have an equal or worse emotional impact on a parent than an abortion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 Pscychotic, anti-abortion father (possibly also the one who got his daughter pregnant) who will physically harm his kid if he finds out.:whoknows: Again, definitely not high-frequency occurences but you do kinda need to be able to adapt to everything thrown your way. food for thought.... less than one half of one percent of ALL aborted babies are from conceptions that were incest or rape. again, as much as I deplore the heinous act of abortion, I still feel that our constitution allows for the states and not the fed to make their own rules. I hate the NH decsion here, but I am forced to support their right to do so. Gosh it's hard to be true to my ideals at times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enter Apotheosis Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 food for thought....less than one half of one percent of ALL aborted babies are from conceptions that were incest or rape. No kidding. Was it not apparent that I was somewhat familiar with the percentages involved? In your example, CPS should already be involved. If the father is deemed to be unfit, or is abusing the child, there are already laws in place to handle that situation. If the mother is in the home, and she allows such behavior to continue, then the blood is on her hands too, so to speak. I'd imagine that CPS doesn't know about the majority of all instances of child abuse. You also have to consider that the kid may not always be willing to fully divulge the circumstances under which they ended up pregnant out of fear or shame. Besides, if you're going to cite the "parent might have a fit of rage" argument, then kids should be locked in the cellar at all times. There are plenty of stupid things a kid can do (drinking and driving, wrecking a car and killing a friend) that have an equal or worse emotional impact on a parent than an abortion. As a cop, if you knew that a kid who wrecked his dad's car and broke an arm would get his other arm broken when he got him would you facilitate the process? My position is that the child has to give a legitimate reason for not notifying their parents, in which case a little research can be done to verify the claim and the situation can be handled/supervised in an appropriate manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 I'd imagine that CPS doesn't know about the majority of all instances of child abuse. You also have to consider that the kid may not always be willing to fully divulge the circumstances under which they ended up pregnant out of fear or shame. Sure you do. All the more reason to notify the parents. I mean, afterall, if the circumstances were that traumatic, counseling would certainly be in order. Heck, counseling is probably a good idea for ANY kid that has an abortion. But if you take parental rights out of the equation, you make it that much more difficult for the child to receive the care she needs. As a cop, if you knew that a kid who wrecked his dad's car and broke an arm would get his other arm broken when he got him would you facilitate the process? Of course not. But at the same time, I certainly had the resources available to get kids out of abusive situations when I worked in law enforcement. Not only that, but if there was proof of child abuse, we were required to make an arrest and provide all the information we had to CPS. There was no officer discretion in such cases; nor should there be. Now, on the other hand, if the kid's going to get cracked on the *** for doing something stupid. Well then, I guess next time he'll make a different decision, won't he? My position is that the child has to give a legitimate reason for not notifying their parents, in which case a little research can be done to verify the claim and the situation can be handled/supervised in an appropriate manner. Don't you think every teenage girl in that situation would try to come up with a "legitimate" reason for not notifying the parents? In which case, you're tying up resources that could be used in the other legitimate abuse cases we talked about earlier. I would not be averse to the child explaining to the parents what happened in a controlled environment, such as with a counselor or CPS worker. However, I do think parental notification should be mandatory. Abortion is an invasive procedure, and it's the only medical procedure in the country a minor can have (in some places) without parental consent. And that, my friend, is ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enter Apotheosis Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 Sure you do. All the more reason to notify the parents. I mean, afterall, if the circumstances were that traumatic, counseling would certainly be in order. Heck, counseling is probably a good idea for ANY kid that has an abortion. But if you take parental rights out of the equation, you make it that much more difficult for the child to receive the care she needs. In case you haven't picked up on it yet, I'm not a proponent of hiding things from the parents without good reason. Don't you think every teenage girl in that situation would try to come up with a "legitimate" reason for not notifying the parents? In which case, you're tying up resources that could be used in the other legitimate abuse cases we talked about earlier. Well, all that means is that you need incentive for the girl not to lie and to be personally responsible. If that means some sort of a small fine, then so be it. I would not be averse to the child explaining to the parents what happened in a controlled environment, such as with a counselor or CPS worker. However, I do think parental notification should be mandatory. And I don't disagree. You just have to make sure that you're prepared for even the most extreme circumstances... thats my chief point of argument. Abortion is an invasive procedure, and it's the only medical procedure in the country a minor can have (in some places) without parental consent. And that, my friend, is ridiculous. Depends on depends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 Pscychotic, anti-abortion father (possibly also the one who got his daughter pregnant) who will physically harm his kid if he finds out.:whoknows: Again, definitely not high-frequency occurences but you do kinda need to be able to adapt to everything thrown your way. There are laws against that type of behavior, EA. That such a situation exists, and could be remedied by those laws, is not a valid reason to allow our children to undergo surgery without the knowledge of their parents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enter Apotheosis Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 There are laws against that type of behavior, EA. That such a situation exists, and could be remedied by those laws, is not a valid reason to allow our children to undergo surgery without the knowledge of their parents. If such a situation exists and is currently unnoticed by the laws in place, you don't want to report the situation automatically without some sort of safeguard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mass_SkinsFan Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 Pscychotic, anti-abortion father (possibly also the one who got his daughter pregnant) who will physically harm his kid if he finds out. I think you missed something, EA.... Under the former law she would have to get his consent BEFORE the procedure was carried out. It wouldn't be a matter of the doctors telling him it WAS done, but rather of telling him that she wanted to HAVE IT done. Unfortunately, in the situation you mention, he's probably going to beat her when he finds out she's pregnant ANYWAY. Regardless of who the father is, or what she wants to do with the child. That's the situation where this young woman needs to go to the state Department of Child Welfare (or whatever the state calls it) and talk to the people there about what protections they can provide for her, and her potential emancipation options before she even goes to the clinic to consider aborting the fetus; because no matter what option she chooses, he's likely going to physically abuse her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted June 30, 2007 Author Share Posted June 30, 2007 If such a situation exists and is currently unnoticed by the laws in place, you don't want to report the situation automatically without some sort of safeguard. The problem is that if a Doctor suspects child abuse they are obligated to report that abuse, obligated. Interestingly enough as a pastor I am under that same obligation, and I can be charged if I do not comply and report even a suspicion of child abuse. Therefore, when the Doctor was to verify with the parent about the abortion and found the crazy father situation that you describe then Children Services would be brought in, thereby respecting parental rights, and protecting the child at the same time. Repealing this law does neither, instead it allows Doctors to bi-pass parental rights, and it does nothing the ferret out the crazy father because the father remains out of the equation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#98QBKiller Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 And people wonder why abortion is such a hostile issue...there has to be some strict regulation here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted June 30, 2007 Author Share Posted June 30, 2007 And people wonder why abortion is such a hostile issue...there has to be some strict regulation here. Exactly, there could be some middle ground found if groups like Planned Parenthood would stop pushing the extreme and advocating complete deregulation, they just wonder why concerned parents get furious with stuff like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#98QBKiller Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 Exactly, there could be some middle ground found if groups like Planned Parenthood would stop pushing the extreme and advocating complete deregulation, they just wonder why concerned parents get furious with stuff like this. Agreed. Middle ground is where this issue ultimately should fall. There are circumstances in which I feel the choice must be there but it shouldn't be available for every teenage hooker who gets herself pregnant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted June 30, 2007 Author Share Posted June 30, 2007 Agreed. Middle ground is where this issue ultimately should fall. There are circumstances in which I feel the choice must be there but it shouldn't be available for every teenage hooker who gets herself pregnant. Agreed. See, now if you and I can do this why can't we as a nation? Makes me sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#98QBKiller Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 Agreed.See, now if you and I can do this why can't we as a nation? Makes me sad. I don't know, I think it has something to do with the "mob mentality" that grabs people when they get in large groups...I have faith in the country though, I think eventually people will start to understand that being on the side that screams the loudest doesn't get us anywhere as a whole. BTW, I thought your sig was for some obscure candidate and I googled it only to come up with a picture of Robin Williams in a white wig. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted June 30, 2007 Author Share Posted June 30, 2007 I don't know, I think it has something to do with the "mob mentality" that grabs people when they get in large groups...I have faith in the country though, I think eventually people will start to understand that being on the side that screams the loudest doesn't get us anywhere as a whole. I don't know if I share your optimism, but hey we can hope. BTW, I thought your sig was for some obscure candidate and I googled it only to come up with a picture of Robin Williams in a white wig. :laugh: Yeah, I can't in conscience vote for any of the jokers out there, so I had to find a candidate, and I figured I couldn't go wrong by picking Tom Dobbs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RideorDieChic Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 There is so much wrong with this decision, I don't know where to start. I'm not anti abortion, however, allowing a minor to make that type of decision is just absurd, I would rather young girls and boys be allowed to get BC shots w/o parental knowledge rather than allowing them to have a surgical procedure under wraps. Our society is slowly decaying.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 Can everyone just realize that the abortion issue was settled thirty years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.