Fla. Mulls Parental Abortion Notification

[Judi Lynn]

Fla. Mulls Parental Abortion Notification

By BRENT KALLESTAD
Associated Press Writer
Posted February 16 2004, 11:04 PM EST

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -- A Florida lawmaker Monday unveiled a proposed constitutional amendment ensuring parents could eavesdrop on their children's phone calls, snoop in their rooms and search their school bags.

The Florida Parental Rights Amendment also would clear the way for parents to obtain notice of an abortion -- a state law struck down last year by the Florida Supreme Court, supporters say.

"It will provide Florida voters with the opportunity to decide how much they value the rights of parents," said House Speaker Johnnie Byrd.
(snip)

"Quite honestly, Speaker Byrd's proposal today makes minors property of their parents," said Stephanie Grutman, executive director of Planned Parenthood of Florida. "They want to get at every aspect of our life. Privacy is our most fundamental, basic right."
(snip/...)

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-parental-notice,0,3921226.story?coll=sns-ap-nation-headlines

[grytpype]

1. The war against Dumbassery is never over. n/t

[demdave]

2. Sorry, I am on the "While you are under my roof" side of this.

You turn 18 and I am no longer responsible for you and we will discuss you moving and becoming an independent adult. Be careful what you ask for....you may get it.

[Taeger]

3. Agreed

We ask parents to be responsible for their children. How can you be responsible for someone if you don't have authority over the decisions that affect their lives.

To me, responsibility is the combination of authority and accountability. You will hold a parent accountable if the child steals or commits violent crimes. You will hold a parent accountable if the child does not get good medical care. You will hold the parent accountable if the child turns into a fucking asshole that disturbs school and beats up their classmates. Why would you rob them of their AUTHORITY to make sure that happens.

This extends to abortion as well. Would you allow a 16-year old to have a breast augmentation without parental consent???? Why??? It's invasive medical procedure that has inherint risks. Abortion is EVEN MORE risky!!! Why would you allow a child to have a procedure that could result in bleeding to death if they chose to hide their predicament from their parents?????

[Robb]

7. That's not the issue with parental notification

PN abortion laws are anti-choice, and here's why. NONE of them include any "loopholes" for the pregnant child if she can't find one of her parents. Wonder why? Because the statistics on teenage pregnancies and broken homes are pretty clear. This is where you legislate if you want to affect the most pregnant teens.

Child is pregnant, Mom is helping her evaluate her choices, but Dad is nowhere to be found. Court says you no longer have a choice if you can't find and "notify" Dad.

Responsible parents don't need this kind of law.

[Taeger]

14. Right ...

Your right, the consent of the primary guardian is all that should be required. If dad isn't in the picture, it's not his decision. Same thing goes if mom isn't in the picture.

[Robb]

59. How about if notifying the primary guardian

...would constitute a risk of retaliatory abuse? What if the child knew that Mom would burn her with a hot poker to get the devil out if she knew her child was pregnant? Or kill her?

And it's not a hypothetical question.

The trouble with parental notification laws is that they never include all these terrible what-ifs -- and of course they don't, because the statute would be a mile long. I think a good rule of thumb is that if the qualifiers to a law have to be 1,000 times longer than the law itself, we should find another way.

[iverglas]

17. and once again, the real agenda

... exposed by the willingness to make false claims in support of it:

Would you allow a 16-year old to have a breast augmentation without parental consent???? Why??? It's invasive medical procedure that has inherint risks. Abortion is EVEN MORE risky!!!

Got any facts to back that claim up? Didn't think so.

You will hold a parent accountable if the child steals or commits violent crimes.

Well, maybe *you* will, but I don't actually know of any sensible people who will. A parent may indeed have failed to fulfil some parental responsibility and that may have been a contributing factor in the child's actions ... but holding a parent "accountable" for a child's actions, the way a farmer is held accountable for damage done by his/her livestock ... well, you know: children, chattel ... . Children are human beings, not livestock, and cannot, and may not, be controlled by anyone the way livestock are. Thus, obviously, no one else can be "held accountable" for what they do, unless s/he caused them to do it, and that's a pretty sticky wicket in terms of proof.

You will hold the parent accountable if the child turns into a fucking asshole that disturbs school and beats up their classmates.

Well, again ... maybe *you* will.

But does that actually mean something? I'm at a loss. How exactly does one hold someone "accountable" in this situation. Impose a fine? a prison sentence? The PARENT did not cause any damage; the PARENT is not responsible for it. A parent's insurance policy may cover damage caused by a child, but a parent simply CANNOT be held liable personally for a child's actions. (Yeah, I'm sure there are places in the US where they may in fact be, but there are places in the US where all sorts of weird and unconstitutional things happen.)

Nonsense. Utter meaningless nonsense.


This extends to abortion as well. Would you allow a 16-year old to have a breast augmentation without parental consent???? Why???

Actually, when someone is proposing to interfere with someone else's fundamental rights, the question is not why someone should be "allowed" to do something, it is whether the first someone HAS JUSTIFICATION FOR PREVENTING him/her from doing it.

Children do have rights, despite muddle-headed claims to the contrary. Parents are vested with the authority to exercise children's rights on the children's behalf, thus necessarily in the children's best interests. Children really are not livestock, and parents really are NOT the final arbiters of what is in a child's best interests.

If you don't believe me, just try beating your child, or starving your child, or letting your 2-yr-old wander the streets at night. No matter how much in their best interests *you* might consider any of those things to be, you really won't be getting the final say.

.

[sangh0]

34. Bingo!

That's the sure-fire method of exposing the right's (and anyone else's) intentional misrepresentations. And it's not the only case. We also have liberals who happily misrepresent Roe v Wade as allowing govt inspection of the medical records for all third trimester abortions.

[nodehopper]

25. however

I can see that point of view...but what if you are a child of a hardcore fundamentalist who disowns or throws you out or hurts you for having an abortion?

[Jane Roe]

26. There are child abandonment and child abuse laws for dealing with this . .

no need to make the vast majority of teenagers suffer because of the child abuse or abandonment of a few.

[sangh0]

27. LOL!

Yes, we sure do put a lot of money into enforcing those Child Abuse and Neglect laws. They've done a fine job of eliminating child abuse and neglect.

[Jane Roe]

30. Maybe Democratic legislators should couple the notification law . . .

with enhanced funding for child abuse prevention, child abuse prosecutions and housing for teenage runaways.

That way the Democrats: (1) will be seem as less extreme on abortion; and (2) help tackle the child abuse problems we are now discussing.

[sangh0]

31. Or maybe not

The Dems should increase that funding regardless of any other laws. Since when do progressives favor making the protection of children contingent on restricting people's civil rights?

[Jane Roe]

37. when the two issues are related in fact

as you seem to think that parental notification and child abuse are. On this thread, it is being clearly argued that the parental notification requirement will increase child abuse and abandonment. If this is truly the case, then increased funding would help offset (or perhaps even outweigh) this abuse increase. Politically, this notification law provides Democrats with an opportunity to increase social services spending when such spending increases are notoriously difficult to get these days.

Personally, I doubt that many parents, even fundie parents, physically abuse or throw out their children because of pregnancy or abortion. Maybe this happened a lot in the 1950's, but I doubt it is as prevalent today. Of course, we have no statistics on this -- so, for the sake of argument, I am assuming that child abuse and parental notification are, in fact, linked and I am proposing sound political strategy based on that assumption.

[sangh0]

40. again, the real agenda exposed by the false claims in support of it:

Personally, I doubt that many parents, even fundie parents, physically abuse or throw out their children because of pregnancy or abortion.

Actually, I know this to be untrue, and I'd like to see you provide some factual support for this assertion. I think you pulled it out of thin air.

Of course, we have no statistics on this

Of course, you are wrong. Try Pew.

[Jane Roe]

43. Knowledge versus suspicion

1. I am the one saying I have a suspicion of what the true, relevant child abuse facts are, but I forthrightly admitted that this suspicion fell short of actual knowledge.

2. You are saying that you *know* the true relevant facts.

3. Since you know and I don't, the burden of proof most sensibly falls on your shoulders here.

4. Got a cite better than your cursory reference to "Pew?"

[sangh0]

46. Try Pew

1. I am the one saying I have a suspicion of what the true, relevant child abuse facts are, but I forthrightly admitted that this suspicion fell short of actual knowledge.

Your suspicions do no justify your assertions, which are based on nothing more than your suspicions

If you are truly interested in the real stats, you'd make some effort to locate them instead of making assertions that are untrue and have no basis in anything other than your own biases.

2. You are saying that you *know* the true relevant facts.

Confidentiality makes it impossible for me to share details.

3. Since you know and I don't, the burden of proof most sensibly falls on your shoulders here.

Nope, the burden falls on you for making the assertion while knowing that you have nothing besides your biased suspicions to back it up. I have backed up my assertion with a citation to Pew, a non-partisan and highly respected organization that has done a lot of study in this precise area.

4. Got a cite better than your cursory reference to "Pew?"

Yes. At home. I'll supply it to you as soon as you provide us with some factual support for your assertion. Even if it's just "a suspicion", I would hope your suspicion is based on some sort of fact, as opposed to having it conjured up out of thin air.

[iverglas]

36. sure

Maybe Democratic legislators should couple the notification law . . .
with enhanced funding for child abuse prevention, child abuse prosecutions and housing for teenage runaways.

And maybe they could also couple a law requiring African-Americans to live north of the Mason-Dixon line with enhanced funding for public schools in Chicago.

That way the Democrats: (1) will be seem as less extreme on abortion; and (2) help tackle the child abuse problems we are now discussing.

That way the Democrats: (1) would be seen as less extreme on racial equality; (2) help tackle the education problems in big cities.

Or lemme see. They could couple a law denying Spanish speakers access to counsel when they are arrested with funding for more after-school programs to keep Hispanic kids from getting involved in crime. Or a law preventing commies from publishing newspapers with higher taxes on the rich to address the income inequality that makes people want/need to read commie newspapers.

Pick yer own apples and oranges, folks, and sell a basketful to anybody you manage to fool into thinking that anybody else's rights can be denied as long as somebody else somewhere benefits.

Guantanamo, anyone?

.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

45. res ipsa loquitur (eom ... res loquituring ipsa, and all)

.

[demdave]

55. Name a law that has eliminated a the crime it addressed.

I can't think of one...can you?

[Taeger]

Privacy and Responsibility

Children are WARDS of their parents. They control the life decisions that their kids make. Why???? Because the parents are held accountable for the results.

Same thing when kids go to school. The school is held responsible for the safety and well being of the child. When they are at school many parental perogitives pass to the school while they are there.

In most states, when a child becomes 16, they have a right to liberate themselves and live on their own. Then THEY are responsible for themselves. At that point, they can do whatever they like.

[SaddenedDem]

8. So, tell me....

When the 16 yr. old child have been impregnated by her father (or stepfather) you would require her to ask HIM for permission to abort?

Stop incest and child rape first. Then we'll discuss parental notification.

[pintobean]

9. So parents should give up their rights

in order to better society. Let's write that into the patriot act, it seems to fit.

[Muddleoftheroad]

10. No, a good law would have a judicial oversight

And a route for children to perform in EXTRAORDINARY circumstances only. Rape by parent is one of them. Rape by someone else is not.

[Taeger]

13. That would be an exception

In that case, the child would need to go to the authorities and be placed in foster care. I'm sure even most fundamentalists wouldn't object to an abortion in that case because such a conception is considered an "abomination".

Yes, if a child is raped by someone OTHER than her father, they need parental consent to receive an invasive surgical procedure. Only in cases where there is a life threatening emergency should surgery be done on a child without adult consent.

[iverglas]

16. well I just give up

But then, I gave up on this one a long time ago. What the hell, though ...


They control the life decisions that their kids make. Why????
Because the parents are held accountable for the results.

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

Parents have authority for decisions about their children because they are responsible for the children's well-being. They are "held accountable" BECAUSE of that responsibility -- they don't get to make the decisions BECAUSE of the accountability.

But never mind the logical flaws. Let's just take it as it stands.

How exactly would a parent be "accountable" for a minor child's decision to have an abortion? Exactly what consequences of such a decision could be sent home to roost on the parent's head?

Indeed -- if a 2-yr-old is found wandering the streets at night, the parents will be accountable for their failure to protect the child -- NOT "accountable for" the child's decision to wander the streets at night, or the results of that decision -- accountable for their own actions.

What "result" of a minor child's decision to have an abortion would/could a parent possibly be "held accountable" for??

(And the first person who says "for the medical expenses of treating all the horrible dreadful nasty sequelae of the abortion" wins the booby prize. Again. For the lengths to which s/he is willing to go to prove the point that the child's well-being is NOT the concern of people who advocate parental-notification laws.)

Nonsense in the service of subjugating women and girls to their masters' will. That's all I see, and all I ever see, in this.

.

[Taeger]

20. Boob Job BAD.... Abortion GOOD ...

How exactly would a parent be "accountable" for a minor child's decision to have an abortion? Exactly what consequences of such a decision could be sent home to roost on the parent's head?

If the child starts hemorraging AFTER the procedure that they are NOT informed about, the parents are responsible for picking up the pieces including the possibility of coma and brain damage.

I go back to my original assertion. No responsible feminist would allow their daughter to have a breast augmentation or lipo-suction WITHOUT their consent. There are risks to ANY surgical procedure. No state considers CHILDREN as being mature enough to weigh those risks. Nor is a child in the position to recover if indeed the procedure DOES go wrong.

As someone pointed out earlier, minors need parental permission for piercings and tatoos. Why would you allow them to get an abortion without parental consent????

A parent has EVERY right to go over the physical and emotional ramifications of HAVING or NOT HAVING an abortion. They have EVERY right to know that their child has been impregnated. It is positively irresponsible to suggest that a minor should be able to hide this from her caretakers.

Ultimately, I DO think there should procedures in place for a young girl who is prepared to liberate herself from her parents in order to get an abortion. But such a girl must than accept the responsibility of being an adult.

[Voice_of_Europe]

21. CHOICE

I think a notification is absolutely in order:
"Your daughter has HAD an abortion."
Parents have a right to know.


But not!
"your child WILL have an abortion"
This would give the parents a chance to meddle and put pressure on their daughter.

My opinion is that it is the choice of the pregnant woman to decide abut an abortion.
It is HER BODY! She can decide if she wants a baby to grow inside or not.
She must care for the baby afterwards, not the people who told her abortion was bad.
The own body must be sacred!

The body of a woman is absolutely worth more than a bunch of stem cells growing inside her.

A child growing inside you which you do not want feels like a cancer!
Imagine you being forced to carry out a child you do not want! Only men can have such stupid ideas. (fyi I'm a man)

So my opinion is CHOICE under all circumstances...

[Taeger]

50. Who cares for the baby????

She must care for the baby afterwards, not the people who told her abortion was bad.


In my observation, it is often the childs parents who end up taking the most care of the baby.


Seriously, I would like to see legislation that would deny guardianship to underage mothers. If the parents want the child to keep the baby, they would have to assume guardianship until their child was old enough to fully assume that responsibility. Hopefully, this would encourage more adoption as opposed to woefully unprepared child mothers.


I think these area all decisions that virtually all 13-17 year old girls are unprepared to deal with. They have neither wisdom nor experience to guide them. They are often emotionally immature and do not compeletely grap the ramifications of the choices they make.

These types of decisions are best taken with family and potentially professional consultation.

[Jane Roe]

24. Important role for parents . . .

Eloquent expression of parental rights and interests.

I think parental notification can also be strongly in the child's interest because the parents can help choose a doctor to perform the procedure.

Not all ob/gyn doctors are equally talented and some of them seem to find themselves accused of abortion-related malpractice repeatedly. I think a teenager is unlikely to shop for a highly competent doctor nearly as well as a parent can and would. Also, the parents often would be able to provide the money if it turns out that the better doctors charge more.

[sangh0]

28. That's for sure

I have no doubt that the parents of a child --one who had to go to a judge instead of their parents to get an abortion-- will not hesitate to help that child get an abortion at the best price from the best doctor.

[Jane Roe]

32. Teenagers whose parents won't pay . . .

are generally stuck with the cheapest doctor. This is true whether states enact parental notification laws or not.

[sangh0]

35. "and once again, the real agenda..."

"... exposed by the willingness to make false claims in support of it"

Price is not the issue; Quality is, and numerous studies show that for any given procedure, the doctor/medical-facility that performs the procedure most often is usually that one that does it best. Free or cheap abortion clinics perform more abortions than higher-priced doctors, and therefore are reasonably assumed to be of higher quality.

So why don't you put up? Provide us with facts that show higher-priced abortions are higher-quality abortions.

[Jane Roe]

44. It is interesting that you believe quality goes down as price goes up . .

Maybe you are right. The US spends more capita on health care generally and seems to get worse results. However, this might be explained by uneven distribution of this tremendous spending -- not on your cheaper care equals better care philosophy.

However, I still maintain that however intuitive or counter-intuitive shopping for a quality doctor may be -- parents will strongly tend to perform this function better than their minor children. There will be (rare) exceptions: cruel parents who desire abortion malpractice, gifted children, etc, etc. However, I think most parents will have abilities and wisdom in the tricky area of doctor / health care facility selection that their children do not have. This part is true whether money is an issue or not.

[sangh0]

47. Interesting that you would twist my words

since I never said "quality goes down as price goes up". In fact, I said something quite different. I said price doesn't determine quality; the frequency the procedure is performed determines quality.

I still maintain that however intuitive or counter-intuitive shopping for a quality doctor may be -- parents will strongly tend to perform this function better than their minor children

And again, we see the real agenda by the willingness to repeat unsupported (by fact) assertions. Would you care to back up your assertion with some facts, or is that too much trouble?

And would you care to admit how you've twisted the facts by misportraying these decisions as "being performed...(by) minor children" when the truth is that judges and court-appointed social workers are involved in these decisions.

[kiahzero]

38. That's right, I'd forgotten

Anyone under age X has no Constitutional rights, except those granted by the parents.

Wait... which part of the Constitution said that again?

[Taeger]

4. Privacy and Responsibility

Children are WARDS of their parents. They control the life decisions that their kids make. Why???? Because the parents are held accountable for the results.

Same thing when kids go to school. The school is held responsible for the safety and well being of the child. When they are at school many parental perogitives pass to the school while they are there.

In most states, when a child becomes 16, they have a right to liberate themselves and live on their own. Then THEY are responsible for themselves. At that point, they can do whatever they like.

[Overkil]

5. The chances may be slim but.......

what happens if a Dr performs an abortion on my younger than 18 yr old daughter and there are complications involving hospitalization, etc? Does a parent have any recourse against a Dr that does a procedure that goes wrong when they never got consent in the first place? The guy at the mall that pierced my daughter's ears two weeks ago required parental consent.

[Muddleoftheroad]

12. There are recourses

They might not be legal, but heaven help the doctor who does ANYTHING to my daughter without my permission unless it's an emergency.

[gimme a break]

15. Do you remember the girl in CA

that died from complications from the day after pill? Her parents had no clue she had been pregnant until their daughter bled to death.

To block parental notification because it would restrict abortion rights is ridiculous. It's too dangerous. Girls who are afraid to tell are too afraid to get help if something goes wrong. They need support emotionally after the fact too.

Most parental notification laws require one parent's consent or legal guardian's. Absent parents don't matter. If a child is living with someone other than the legal guardian, a judge can quickly allow the procedure. It's irresponsible to not advocate for parental notification.

[iverglas]

18. get your facts straight, please

Do you remember the girl in CA
that died from complications from the day after pill?

Are you referring to this girl? --

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/16/eveningnews/main588846.shtml

Holly Patterson took RU-486 at a Planned Parenthood clinic and received the second pill to take at home. Days later, she went to the emergency room with bleeding and cramping and was given painkillers. She died a few days after that. California health officials and the FDA are investigating.

RU-486 is NOT the "day after pill" (usually called the "morning-after pill"). It is the medication used to induce abortion several weeks "after" - after fertilization and implantation.

In that particular case, I'd be looking at the medical professionals who treated someone with her symptoms by giving her painkillers, that's what I'd be looking at. Even had she not declared the medication she had taken to those professionals, a pregnancy test (blood test), as the least that was indicated in that situation, would have at least suggested what the problem was. The complications that she suffered are sometimes associated with abortion -- regardless of whether the abortion was induced or spontaneous.

So there's one horror story, pretty much debunked.

Anybody want to look at the pictures of what happens to women and girls when they do not have access to safe, legal abortions?

Anybody want to take responsibility for the first death of a girl who chose to self-abort, or go to an unskilled and unethical non-professional, rather than tell her parents or a judge what she wanted to do?

'Cause you know, that is exactly what some teenagers who are denied the access to private, legal, safe abortion are gonna do. We know that because that is what they did in the past, and some of them died or suffered permanent disability.

Hey -- can their parents be held accountable for THAT?

Of course, there are also those who just continue their pregnancies because they see no alternative and whose lives may be wrecked as a result (or heck, who may die or suffer permanent disability from their pregnancy or delivery, as more women do than from abortion).

Hey -- can their parents be held accountable for THAT? And ... how, exactly?

Many of them will continue their pregnancies in more or less complete secrecy, or denial, without seeking any pre-natal care and possibly without even having professional care for their deliveries ... and sometimes stuffing their infants in school washroom toilets.

Hey -- can their parents be held accountable for THAT?

Parental accountability; such a comfort to the victims of its champions.

.

[gimme a break]

19. What ever pill it was she's still dead.

There are just as many dangers for teens without parental notification as back alley abortions.

If there is no parental notification then there should be mandatory testing for HIV and STD's for anyone getting abortion, especially underage.

Teens who think they're invincible take more risks than grown women. It's not just abortion rights, it's the safety of our children at stake. There will always be young women who stuff babies in toilet and dumpsters. Even if there are baby Moses centers and abortion clinics. Some are just so desperate that no one ever find out they'll go to any lengths.

Of course, I could be a bit biased. My mother was a teen, unwed mother. I think she showed great courage in carrying me to term and giving me up for adoption. She could have gone to some shady place for an abortion. She could have run off to "relatives" to have me. She didn't. She faced it and took responsibility for me. I'm sure she had a really rough time of it. Especially when unwed pregnant women were looked down on, much more so than today. My parents apparently didn't want to get married. She wasn't capable of caring for me herself, so she gave me up to someone who could. In my mind she's the most courageous woman I never knew.

So we should do more to prevent teen pregnancies, I would like to see where we wouldn't have to weigh the issues of which option is the least dangerous, and then it would all be a mute point. We should teach more of why to postpone sex. Many teen girls have sex just so they can feel loved for a while. Surely we can help girls with self esteem issues. Surely we can teach more teens to wait until they are more prepared to handle the responsibility that comes with having sex. Abortions for teens is just treating a symptom not the illness.

And there will always be teens that have sex. We need to reduce that number. Meanwhile, women who have abortions need counseling and support. Where are these girls supposed to get that if parents are not involved? How are these girls going to get the help they need? How often can they sneak away without getting caught? Are they going to think they don't need counseling and suffer later?

And the ironic part, is "Roe" of Roe v Wade. Is trying to have the decision reversed.

[Voice_of_Europe]

22. difference of pills

Problem is not that she didnt tell her parents, but that an abortion should not be done so lightly and then the girl gets sent home!



The morning-after pill is something totally different.
Its hormone in stronger dose than contraceptive and makes it impossible for the fertilized egg to settle in the womb of the woman...
You could say it is an abortion after 24-hours.. there is no fetus or anything... just an egg...
You take this pill after you had sex and you are not sure if you MIGHT BECOME pregnant.
When your condom breaks, when you forgot your normal pill, etc...



RU-468 is an abortion pill. It makes your body reject a fetus that is already settled in your womb and connected with blood vessels and all.
I think you can use RU-486 in the first 3 months, or at least not much later.
The fetus is rejected and "born dead". Therefor the bleeding...
A woman should not just be sent home after that.. specially not young girls who try to keep it a secret and wouldn't get help even if they are slowly bleeding to death..

[iverglas]

23. quibbles

Its hormone in stronger dose than contraceptive and makes it impossible for the fertilized egg to settle in the womb of the woman...

It is indeed theorized that this could happen, but there is no proof of it.

What IS known, and what IS the purpose of taking the morning-after pill, and the reason why the medication is prescribed, is that it can prevent the release of an ovum from the ovary. Since sperm survives in a woman's body for some time, preventing the release of an ovum will prevent fertilization if an ovum is not already present.

I think you can use RU-486 in the first 3 months, or at least not much later.
The fetus is rejected and "born dead". Therefor the bleeding...
A woman should not just be sent home after that.. specially not young girls who try to keep it a secret and wouldn't get help even if they are slowly bleeding to death..

RU-486 has been used in Europe for years to induce abortions, and more recently in the US, with very little negative experience. The process is almost always completed outside a medical facility.

What it amounts to is a very early "miscarriage". It is *not* used as late as 3 months -- about 9 weeks after the last menstrual period (LMP), i.e. about 7 weeks after fertilization, is the general outside limit, and 8 weeks LMP is the cut-off commonly applied. At 7 weeks LMP, there is no "fetus"; there is an embryo that about 1/5 of an inch, 0.5 cm., long.

Spontaneous abortions ("miscarriages") are quite common at that stage, and can lead to the same complications as an RU-486-induced abortion (infection, incomplete abortion).

A woman who experiences either an RU-486-induced or spontaneous miscarriage and has indications of problems should of course seek medical attention -- which the young woman in the case in question did. It seems to me that the medical attention she got was inadequate. And that has nothing to do with RU-486; the problem and result would have been the same if she had been experiencing a spontaneous abortion. And would she have told her parents about *that* either?

.

[gimme a break]

51. Almost every liberal democrat I know freaks out when you mention

abstinence being taught in schools.

But, it makes sense if you really think about it. There will always be teens that have sex. But if you teach that absence is the best policy, many will listen. Right now, saying to ourselves that they are going to do it anyway so lets teach them to be safe, implies that society as a whole approves in some manner.

We make teens take a class and take "baby steps" prior to getting a full blown driver's license. We show videos of mangled bloody cars to emphasize dangers of unsafe behaviors. MADD puts a mangled car out for the teens to see around prom time, to remind teens of the dangers of drinking and driving.

Ads that make no big deal of getting genital herpes gives the impression that that STD is not so bad. Ads during Nick tunes tell you that the time to talk to your kids about sex, drugs, etc is sooner than you think. Sorry my 5 yr olds don't need a lot of information right now. Teens are looking at Brittany wearing next to nothing and think mom and dad are clueless and don't get what the big deal is and why mom and dad won't let them wear the same things.

There's only one country in Africa that is making a dent in the AIDS epidemic. The president of that country has backed absence education.

Teens shouldn't be having sex. They are not ready. Making it easier to keep things from mom and dad is wrong. I really agree with the "while you're in my house" ideal. If they were ready for it they wouldn't still be living in my house with me providing for their basic needs. How many girls are getting the support they need when they are so busy trying to keep this "dirty little secret" from mom and dad. Not only are they not getting support, they are afraid that mom and dad may find out. That puts a wedge between parents and teens that doesn't need to be there. Isn't there enough that separate parents and teens without adding something else?

I would be much more angry if my daughter got an abortion without my consent or knowledge than if we could have discussed it before hand. She can't get her tooth pulled without my consent, but someone could take her to get an abortion? I don't think so.

I know a girl who said when she first found out she was pregnant she threw herself down on the stairs stomach first hoping she would miscarry. Five years later that boy is the joy of her life. She can't imagine ever thinking of not having him now. In desperation she made a rash decision. She couldn't see past her dilemma. Parents can be the ones that are able to help teens see past right now. They can't see past "oh my God, I'm pregnant!" That same thinking is what makes someone try to outrun a cop. There are consequences. Emotional and physical consequences.

Teens aren't supposed to drink or smoke. Many do. But why are those laws in place? Why do they have to be a certain age to drive? Why can't a 13 yr old go buy beer?

This is not an issue about outlawing abortion. It's about the health and safety of our children.

Parental notification laws require the permission of one parent or guardian. If the other parent is not in the picture, so what? A parent's job is to train up their children to be mature, responsible adults.

[sangh0]

53. Then maybe you should expand your list of freinds and acquaintances

because this is one very liberal Democrat who has no problem with abstinence being taught in schools.

Like most of the liberal Democrats I know, I only have a problem with "abstinence-ONLY" being taught.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

56. interesting falsehood

"Speaking of Planned Parenthood. Interesting factoid. It was an organization started to keep blacks from having so many children."

Where *do* you get your news? Not from Martin Luther King Jr. or Coretta Scott King, that much we know fer sure.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about/thisispp/sanger.html
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/ABOUT/history/mlking2.html

Why you feel such an urge to spread such falsehoods, who knows?

.

[WillyT]

6. Cripes... Who Wrote That Headline ???

Who's aborting who here???

:shrug:

[CO Liberal]

11. How Do You Abort a Parent?

And how do you notify them of your intent?

:-)

[rocktivity]

29. No one has the right to stop anyone from having--or NOT having--a baby

Would I want my daughter to be able to tell me? Of course. Why? Because I'm her parent and I care. Regardless of her decision, I as a parent would want to be there to inform her of the full range of consequences. But that doesn't give me or anyone else the right to make the decision for her.


rocknation

[Muddleoftheroad]

33. That's ridiculous

If your 12-year-old daughter got pregnant and wanted to have the child and raise it, you'd be stuck more than her. Ten, 11, 12 and more are TOO YOUNG to make those choices without parental involvement.

[sangh0]

39. you went overboard

It's not parental involvement that's necessary; It's ADULT involvement that's needed. Orphans have no parental involvement, but many grow up to be productive law-abiding citizens. And in some cases, parental involvement is the last thing you want because sometimes, the parents are dysfuntional due to substance abuse, mental illness, etc

[Muddleoftheroad]

41. Adult involvement

For children with no parents, yes adult involvement is needed. For those WITH parents, parental involvement is needed. And, as I said earlier, there should be judicial review for EXTREME cases. However, if you want to remove parental involvement, you should have to prove they are unfit.

[sangh0]

48. That's fairly reasonable

but please note that the law being considered in Fla would not allow what you suggest.

[Muddleoftheroad]

49. I do understand that

It is Florida after all.

[ms_splash]

57. Judicial review?

How long would that take? Long enough to make abortion a moot point? While that might bring about a conclusion YOU agree with, it may not bring about a fair conclusion or a conclusion that is in the best interest of the young woman.

[Muddleoftheroad]

58. No, fast track

I sure don't want a judge to PREVENT an abortion. I simply want judicial oversight and an option in case of really bad parenting.

[Mushroom]

52. Ahhhh, feeling the trust

Parents can be sneaky, slob politicians and their slob lawyers can be sneaky, but daughters sure as hell better NOT be sneaky. Anyone notice that there were no feminine nouns or pronouns in this callous article? You'd think there would be.