Asian Carp: 'Nice Try, Suckers'
Mariotti's Photo Scuffle?
Extra, Extra
Reappointment For Daley's Nephew
Tomorrow, the controversial law that requires physicians to notify the parents or guardians of girls 17 years old or younger who seek abortions will go into effect. Unlike in many other states, however, in Illinois parental consent is not required. There are ways around the notification: in the case of medical emergency or if the girl puts in writing that the pregnancy was a result of sexual assault, she may bypass the notification. A teen can also request a bypass of notification by appearing before a judge who would have 48 hours to rule. The ACLU of Illinois has set up a website designed to help guide girls through the bypass process. The law was actually passed in 1984 and updated in 1995, but that update was placed under a federal injunction which was lifted this summer by the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Tribune explains what the typical process would be:
For many local clinics, including those run by Planned Parenthood, staff will try to reach a parent or guardian by phone if the teenager requesting the procedure is younger than 18 and has not brought in a signed form."We will not leave a message," said Beth Kanter, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of Illinois.
Kanter said that if a staff member has not made contact after two phone attempts, he or she will send a letter by certified mail.
After 48 hours has passed, Kanter said, "the assumption is, by the courts, notice has been given," and the teen can have the procedure.
Opponents of the law are worried that it will force teen girls to possibly seek unsafe ways to terminate their pregnancy or will force them to carry the pregnancy to term while opponents insist that parents should be involved in the situation. According to the Trib, the Guttmacher Institute reported that in 2000, 4,640 abortions were performed in Illinois for girls between the ages of 15 and 17 years.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
This is just a game by the anti-choice mob to make it harder for women to make informed reproductive choices. The same bullies and fanatics who pushed for this law to protect the naive young girls also think teenagers should tried as adults and eligible for the death penalty. Most "pro-lifers" just love their death penalty.
I'm doubling my yearly donation to Planned Parenthood this year. The hoops they have to jump through to provide women with basic medical care is just sad.
This has nothing to do with the death penalty and trying teenagers as adults -- or even providing woment "basic medical care."
The Supreme Court determined that women -- not girls -- have a right to abortion. There are perfectly reasonable people (who are not extreme right-wing anti-abortion zealots) that favor parental notification laws because it protects the right of parents to be involved in the decisions or their children. (What other medical decision are children permitted to make without parental consent or notification?)
The abortion debate is one of the primary reasons why the political discourse in this country has become so toxic. Parental notification always seemed to me to be an issue on which the extremes on both ends of the spectrum might be able to compromise.
Nothing to do with the death penalty? Tell it to Dr. George Tiller. Tell it to the clinic workers whose names end up on death lists, who have to wear kevlar just to go to work or require security escorts to their cars.
There is no "rational" anti-choice movement, it's a false premise. Being pro-choice means you believe that women, even as you call them "girls", can make informed decisions about their bodies. Decisions that may, or may not, included terminating a pregnancy.
Personally, if I was asked by a female partner or friend my opinion, I think adoption is a much better choice. But that's my opinion, as a man and as an individual. It should not be the basis for law.
Your comparison to other medical procedures is also false. How many young women have been abused or disowned by family for a burst appendix? Or a broken arm?
The abortion debate has become toxic because rather than focus on reasonable means of preventing unwanted pregnancy (contraception, less complicated adoption laws, improvements in sexual education and offering more opportunities for teen women) the anti-choice mob has been busy making dead fetus posters, holding prayer circles and murdering medical practitioners.
I reject your idea that there are two sides to this. One side advocates the freedom of an individual to control their own body, the other believes that prayer and jesus will save you. One side is rational, the other is a tiresome pack of bigoted supernaturalists.
Yeah, I'm FUCKING PISSED off about this law. Another law that limits women in service of religion. BULLSHIT.
That's part of the problem, I think. Regardless of one's opinion, the failure to see that one's adversaries possess at least some non-bigoted, at least partially thought-out reasons for their positions--and this is the case for issues such as abortion and gay rights, among many, many others--can easily make one as blind and rabid as those adversaries seem to be themselves.
In short, one misreads and underestimates one's enemy, which makes victory that much more difficult. This is ancient wisdom that every generation, it seems, must relearn.
I may or may not agree with your views on abortion, but your views of the so-called prolifers are too general, simplistic and emotional. And to imply that the hard left side on this has always been rational--an implication you do make--is to ignore reality.
No, sorry, there is no rational anti-choice argument.
Opponents of choice would make it illegal for women to have abortions. It's a zero-sum game to them. They can't tolerate the idea of legal abortions and therefore they do everything they can to make abortions harder for women to access. I can't recommend enough a frontline documentary called "The Last Abortion Clinic". It's paradigm-altering.
If you're opposed to abortion on moral grounds then work to better the situation of those women most at risk for an unplanned pregnancy. Prevention is something Americans seem to have a real problem with, whether it's personal health care, the economy, or reproductive issues.
Again, if you have a personal objection to abortion, more power to you. Don't have an abortion, counsel those you love and will listen to you to do the same. That's your right and privilege.
The Anti-choice movement wants to take away the legal rights of women to have self-determination over their own bodies. That is not a rational position, no more so than if someone said a return to chattel slavery was a fine idea or called for the reinstitution of miscegenation laws. Both of which, like abortion and the death penalty, have strong "biblical" justification too, as any good bible-thumper will tell you.
Actually the extreme anti-choice people want to take away all forms of contraception. So no, I don't feel the need to compromise with them.
In a strange way, I think you added at least modest support to mss2400's point. No matter your view on abortion law (and don't try to guess mine, because you will fail), the point is a good one: This issue would seem to be among the few involving abortion that could attract support from at least some so-called pro-lifers and at least some so-called pro-choicers--even with the complications regarding kids who have bad, hateful or uninvolved parents, etc. Maybe not the "extremes"--an unfortunate word choice in mss2400's post, but at least with the center-left and center-right. At least in my semi-utopian world, I guess.
As well, those who want to take away ALL forms of contraception are hardly anything close to a majority, so let's not exaggerate the importance of that fringe. Still, I agree with you there: Compromise with the extreme fringes, left or right, is impossible and should not even be attempted. Ignore them as best we can, and try to whack them back into their mole hills when possible. Even though the Founders gave to us a wonderful example of compromise (seriously, have you read the history of the Constitutional Convention and ratification process?), some in this country, left and right, insist on being un-American with their inability to forge compromise, which seems criminally stupid in a nation of 300 million and who knows how many tribal and geographical varieties.
Good post Matilda, but I would argue that there's no "extreme left" that's very visible or involved in this issue. I'd see it as more of a general moderates vs. moderate right/far right issue. I don't see as Roe vs. Wade as an extreme left ruling.
I think we largely agree with what was probably your large point: Shrill screeching doesn't go very far in creating a dialogue.
They're killing and threatening reproductive clinic workers. It's domestic terrorism that's abated by the GOP.
If there's a shrillness in the voices of Pro-Choice advocates it comes from years of desperate struggle. The Bush years laid waste to decades of reform across the country, and the planet thanks to the evangelical Christian nonsense that was spread as medical doctrine by the administration.
"No, sorry, there is no rational anti-choice argument."
Look harder. Drop you biases and try to see the world through other eyes. It will make you stronger.
"They're killing and threatening reproductive clinic workers. It's domestic terrorism that's abated by the GOP."
A relatively small fringe is. Not all so-called pro-lifers are. Again, look harder.
I have a feeling we agree 99% on abortion rights, etc.. Still, you would dehumanize your enemy, which makes you less effective and leads to more partisan divide and tactical and strategic missteps. This is not a moral issue, only one of fighting as smartly as possible. Doesn't matter if the issue is actual war or social policy--a fight is a fight, and the same general wisdom applies.
The same holds true for the hard right pro-lifers.
No, sorry, you're trying to engage in logical fallacy that there are always two sides. Even the most "liberal" of anti-choice advocates ("Feminists for Life" as an example) would still outlaw a safe and accepted medical procedure simply based on a moral disagreement.
You see, the pro-choice position is the only rational one because it embraces the moral standing of anyone. You can be personally opposed to abortion and still be pro-choice. Many people are. The same can't be said of the anti-choice crowd.
And it's not just the fanatics. Look at the current mess in New York's off-year 23rd district election. A slightly moderate republican is being run off the ticket because the GOP as a whole can't abide someone who is anything less than an ideologue on abortion. The GOP has made the over-turning of Roe a key part of the party platform for more than a generation. No room for argument, no room for appeal. The wording they use "holocaust of the unborn" and "respect for life" are keyed in code language. It presents the idea that not only are pro-choice advocates in disagreement with a position, they are antithetical to founding principle of life. Fertile soil for fanatics.
Safe, legal and easily obtainable reproductive services are a basic human right. The anti-choice position would deny that and in choosing to do that deny themselves a place at the grown-up table.
The GOP has made the over-turning of Roe a key part of the party platform for more than a generation.
They have no true desire to overturn Roe v. Wade, lest they cede their greatest rallying cry to the other side.
"No, sorry, you're trying to engage in logical fallacy that there are always two sides. "
Well, usually there are more than two sides to any issue. The world is a wonderfully complicated place. I know I can't persuade you of this, so I won't even try. Enjoy the fight.
I wasn't referring to the pro-choice movement at large. FWIW I pretty much agree with you that there's not much to compromise on when it comes to such issues. At some point compromising with an unreasonable point of view means settling on 1+1=2.5 instead of 2. As long as the "pro-life" movement remains largely, pro death penalty, pro war, anti-sex ed, anti-contraception AND basically not too worried about life once it leaves the womb, they'll be arguing an unreasonable position..... from my *point of view* anyway...lol.
Yeah, it's the pro-death penalty, pro-war stuff that invalidates the pro-life opinion for me. At least be consistent about it, you know?
I'm not sure what you mean? Those things make it obviously hypocritical. On its face the argument's unreasonable, those things just show the hypocrisy of the larger movement.
That's what I mean, it's totally hypocritical. It's like their motto is "wait till you're born, then we can kill you."
Good point. We probably just have different labels, but I guess I was thinking of when the left wing of the Dem party years ago forced the cancellation of a big convention speech (I think) of Casey from Penn. I would also put supporters of no restrictions on abortion (save for third-trimester procedures) on the hard left, but that is my label and my label alone.
Personally, I'm pro-choice. I don't think medical decisions between a woman and her doctor are any of the government's business.
Regarding parental notification laws, if you're against those, then to be consistent, you should support the ability for any minor to have any medical procedure performed upon them without parental consent.
As somebody already mentioned most medical procedure's don't have the same implications as those that involve a person's sexuality. It also assumes that somebody in the teen's family isn't responsible for the trauma or need to see the doctor. Never mind the implications of what may happen to teens who may have violent fathers brothers and so on. You can't really just compare *any* medical procedure to abortion or seeing the doctor for other sexual issues.
"I don't think medical decisions between a woman and her doctor are any of the government's business."
Not to sound like a smart ass--really, not trying to--but I bet most people who say that don't really believe that, not 100%.
I mean, do you believe in the role and use of the FDA, for instance? Because their rulings do directly impact anyone who goes to the doctor, and what treatments/drugs are available, and in a very big way.
But there's a difference between "we don't want you to do this because it's terribly dangerous" and "we don't want you to do this because we said so."
Disagree.
I have a "friend" who just turned 17 when she got pregnant. She was able to get an abortion on her own, without parental consent and believe me...if she had to inform her parents about this she wouldn't be alive to tell the tale. Or her life would have been altered in ways that would have been detrimental to her life.
So, speaking from both sides of this issue, as someone with intimate knowledge and as a paren, now, too...I believe that any teenager should be able to do get an abortion without parental consent.
False comparison. The FDA provides guidelines on abortion procedures and abortificants based on their safety as an administered procedure or medication, not on their moral implications.
One of the main bulwarks of the pro-choice movement is providing safe and medically sound reproductive services in line with good scientific guidelines. Like those from the FDA.
One thing the Anti-choice rabble won't talk about is how if Roe was overturned or somehow nullified there would still be abortions. They'd just be less safe, cause more deaths among poor mothers while wealthy women are able to avail themselves of medical services in Canada or Mexico.
In my family I had a great aunt who took a "day trip" across the falls from Niagra after her rather wealthy husband and she decided that they were done having children. ...
So the right to privacy in a doctor's office is guaranteed if a young girl has the flu, but easily dismissed if she may be pregnant? Ridiculous.
Thanks Lisa Madigan!
"One thing the Anti-choice rabble won't talk about is how if Roe was overturned or somehow nullified there would still be abortions. They'd just be less safe, cause more deaths among poor mothers while wealthy women are able to avail themselves of medical services in Canada or Mexico."
Ever hear of the term "abortion orphans"? From the children that are left behind when their weary mom gets a back alley abortion and dies from it. This is what happens when abortion becomes illegal.
You're right...they dont' stop. ONly the wealthy will be able to get them and the rest be damned.
BINGO.
This is one topic that almost always makes me nauseous. I do, however, feel that with certain allowances in the case of abuse, a parent should at least be informed of a child's medical decision, if for no other reason than to watch for complications. Yes, abortion in the first trimester is one of the safest procedures available, but even so there can be complications in about 3% or patients, and serious complications in .5%. A parent needs to understand what's going on, as there's no guarantee a kid will.
Also, my read of the wording of this isn't that permission is required, just notification.
In the case of abuse, of course, I can see exemptions ... though I have to wonder just who we're protecting here. Are we saying, yes, you can have your abortion and then go back into the situation that brought you here in the first place?
The American Psychological Association weighs in.
http://www.apa.org/ppo/issues/pparentalconsent.html
"Psychological theory and research on cognitive, social, and moral development support the finding that adolescents, as a group, are able to understand, reason, and make decisions about important life situations."
- AND -
"Parental notification and consent laws can have harmful psychological and health consequences for the minors affected by these laws. These laws often have the following additional unintended effects:
Delayed timing of contraceptive services and/or abortion, which increases health risks and expenses (Ambuel, 1995; Lieberman & Feierman, 1999; Melton, 1987; Pliner & Yates, 1992);
Stress, fear, and anxiety for those adolescents who go to court to obtain a judicial bypass for an abortion (Crosby & English, 1991; O'Keefe & Jones, 1990);
Intrafamilial conflict in abusive homes (Ambuel, 1995; Melton, 1987; O'Keefe & Jones, 1990); and
Restriction of adolescent access to abortion resulting in teenage parenthood or the use of dangerous extralegal methods of abortion (Crosby & English, 1991; O'Keefe & Jones, 1990)."
Way to go Illinois!
Thank goodness. Plain and simple to all who give it a moments thought. My kids are not going to have ANY serious procedure done without my knowledge. To think that any child can go in and get their baby removed without me knowing is quite obviously insane in the membrane.
"A baby removed"? Inflammatory jibber-jabber.
It's not a "baby". It's a fetus. Should we start praying over tampons and heavy flow miscarriages now?
Abortions in the first trimester, are as safe as having blood drawn and often done with inducing medication. The rate of complications is stunningly low.
The notion that you think the government needs to enforce your parenting only makes me more convinced that the anti-choice right is some kind of elaborate performance art.
"Abortions in the first trimester, are as safe as having blood drawn and often done with inducing medication."
And yet the school had to send me a permission slip so my 16-year-old son could donate blood.
As they should. Duh.
Were any of the 16 year olds who came home with permission slips threatened with physical violence? Were any of them put out on the street for being "blood-giving whores"? Were any of the being exsanguinated at home?
Pardon me for stretching the metaphor.
The reality is, many young women who become pregnant and seek abortions face serious home life challenges. I've seen the girls who've had their arms broken by mother's who found out they were pregnant.
But that's beside the point, don't argue that it's unsafe, because it's not. And the idea that you own your child body and soul is patriarchal protectionist bullshit. This isn't about kindly parental concern, it's about limiting access to reproductive rights.
I agree that many young women face great challenges in their home life, but I ask again, just who are you protecting here? If somebody is subject to abuse due to their pregnancy, then I firmly believe the state SHOULD be involved ... and this law has provisions for that to occur. Simply allowing the abortion and then sending the kid home merely perpetuates a bad situation.
And again, complications do occur in just under 3% of first-trimester abortions. This is not an insignificant number, far greater than the incidence of complication involved in giving blood. A parent has a right and a responsibility to know their child's medical status.
They don't simply allow the teen to have an abortion then send them home. I do believe, and emphasis on believe, that they are required to have some sort of counseling either before or after they have received the abortion.
So my 6 year old can go have her arm removed without my consent if it might make slightly uncomfortable? It is also not a baby.
Only if they're replacing the arm with robotic picket sign or a sniper rifle to gun down clinic workers.
You're comparing a safe, legal medical procedure to optional physical mutilation?
You make a great argument there.
I'm gonna repeat what Erin posted upthread, maybe you missed it.
"Psychological theory and research on cognitive, social, and moral development support the finding that adolescents, as a group, are able to understand, reason, and make decisions about important life situations."
http://www.apa.org/ppo/issues/pparentalconsent.html
But hey, what do psychiatrists know about YOUR kid right?
But if your 16 year old makes an "adult" decision to have sex and would have to make an "adult" decision to have the baby and be a parent then they can certainly make the decision to terminate the pregnancy.
I wish everyone would follow the Simpsons' advice on the abortion issue: "Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others."
Everyone wins.
This is absolutely horrible. I don't remember when this decision was overturned but I missed hearing about it until yesterday. These idiot "Pro-lifers" (who don't care about living people at all) think this is a success but they could actually be harming the lives of girls under 18. This law could even cause suicides, but I'm guessing the could care less about that.
this is nothing but bad. disgusting.
are they thinking that they'll be scaring girls into not having abortions? what the fuck?
the next time someone refers to the victims as "innocent", think of the teenager, not the fetus. the victim here is the girl. Parents are not all the enlightened, understanding adults we want them to be.