Wednesday, November 30, 2005

It's not always about Roe...

It's times like this that I get extremely annoyed with "abortion-rights" (i.e. pro-abortion) activists, as I do with many so-called activists who seem to care about taking their particular issue, and every tangentially related issue, to its furthest extreme.

And they wallow in their hypocracy as they do it.

Also notice that I didn't say "pro-choice" - there's a difference between pro-choice advocates and pro-abortion activists.

No, this isn't an article about the pros and cons of legalized abortion. Nor is it yet another unwinnable discussion on the definition of life - although I will add that whether or not you believe a fetus is a human life, there is no debate over the fact that a fetus, left intact, has the full potential of becoming human life.

There is also no debate over the fact that an abortion is a medical procedure, and one that can be risky at times - one that should be performed by qualified medical personnel. This in fact has always been part of the argument for the availability of legal abortion.

So it is with much disdain that I consider the debate over parental notification of abortion by a minor.

I am amazed, as the New Hampshire law requiring parental notification goes before the Supreme Court, to see abortion rights activists take a stand that quite honestly doesn't protect abortion - it instead actively promotes abortion as a righteous ideal by putting abortion itself as a higher personal right than any other legal right, including parental rights. And it puts the right to an abortion above all other concerns or objections, regardless of age, relationship, etc.

I'm also amazed to see pro-abortion groups using outlandish spin to turn this case into something it's not. For example, Jennifer Dalven, attorney for Planned Parenthood, stated "In an emergency, a woman needs to go to the hospital not a courthouse." No one disputes that. But the decision to have an abortion is not an emergency medical need that a 48 hour wait period would effect. And if there were a true need for emergency medical treatment, the fact that an abortion was part of the mix would be a moot point.

And, we see how well these activists understand the concepts at issue here as they walk around with their signs which say "Save Roe!"

Save Roe? Roe was about the right to privacy of an adult woman. It was about making abortion a safe procedure performed under medical supervision and not performed in a back alley. It was about the right of an individual to have an abortion without fear of legal prosecution. Roe was all about personal responsibility.

Roe was not about scared minors not wanting to tell their parents, and the stripping of legal guardians of their rights.

The argument that this case somehow threatens Roe is, rationally, an argument based on camel dung. Not every case involving abortion is about Roe.

As we progress further into the 21st century we see a shift towards more parental responsibility towards their minor children's actions. If my son drinks and drives and kills someone, even though I had no idea he was drinking, and I was not around, I can be found liable for his actions and can be sued or prosecuted. So, I am expected to have increasing parental responsibility, but my parental rights are going to be considered unconstitutional? This doesn't seem odd to anyone?

But what if we don't even consider the parental rights issue at all. Then what? Is there still an argument here?

My daughter can't enter into a binding legal contract at age 13, nor can she legally make her own medical decisions at 13, or schedule surgery, or get prescriptions, or be treated in the hospital, or even take an aspirin at school without my written permission.

Yet she can get an abortion without my even knowing about it?

Let's not forget that an abortion is a medical procedure - one that does carry potential risk. Can a scared 13 year old who wants an abortion, who also has a medical condition that would prevent a doctor from performing the procedure, be expected to tell the truth about her medical history and disqualify herself from the procedure? I don't know of any 13 year old who would.

That's part of what parental rights are about - the right to protect your children, not only from others, but also from themselves.

And if you're worried about children where notifying their parents could be a life-threatening event, well the courts already allow exceptions for that. But that's much different than a child who merely wants to avoid punishment from her parents. Sorry, welcome to the world of being a child.

Don't let the activists confuse you. This case is NOT about emergency services, legal abortion, or Roe. It is about stripping parental rights. It is about allowing medical procedures to be performed on children without the knowledge (much less the consent) of their parents. It is about putting children at risk so adult activists can fulfill their agenda.

If my knowing about my child's medical procedures is deemed unconstitutional, then maybe the Constitution isn't the document I once thought it was.



Post a Comment

<< Home