S.403 & H.r.748 (1 Viewer)

[jennyb]

:shock: "How many people really think it's in the best interest of young people to be sexually active outside of marriage?" "Does anything positive ever come of that?", tom coburn -r-okla. asked. he also stated "abstinence is the best way to prevent teenage pregnancy."
well, the answer to the first question is,of course it isnt in the best interest, but will that stop it?, and maybe abstinence is the best way to prevent it, but will that stop it? will a bill stop teens from having sex and prevent pregnancy...? the answer to this in my opinion is ,of course not. since when have teens not had sex to prevent pregnancy?
the remarks of sen.coburn were in regards to a bill which passed the senate tues.,making it a crime, punishable by a fine and a year in prison for taking an underage girl across state lines,for the purposes of evading the parental consent of abortion. majority whip mitch mcconell-r ky, "this is a fundamental right". it is? since when do we own our children?
the famous democratic fourteen (who might as well be republicans,always voting along republican lines) and 51 republicans voted for the bill. republican sens. chafee-ri, susan collins r- main, and olympia snow-r- maine and arlen spectet-r pa, voted against the bill.. notice the men think they know what is best for females.
democrats bowed to theGOP 55-44 majority, but tried spending the day fighting for an exemption for confidants to whom a young girl with abusive parents could turn to for help. this was rejected in negotiations on the floor. 6 states have no parental consent laws and 9 states have blocked the law through legal challenges. that is 15 states. a proposal to protect from prosecution, confidants such as grandparents, priests and rabbis , or others to whom a young girl might turn to for help was rejected, and only in a "last minute" deal,between sen boxer-d calif and ensign-r-nev. was the ability of men who impregnate their OWN daughters,to cross state lines for abortions and suing those who help get the procedure in other states stopped!!!
this last minute deal is particularly disturbing, since what it was saying, in essence was,the republican party has a problem with a young girl,who, impregnated by her FATHER,to have an abortion or to confide in a grandparent, priest or rabbi, whom they are telling that they have been sexually abused and most probably raped by a parent, can receive jail time! this puts the republican party on the side of the abusive parent, telling him it is 'okay' to rape your daughter, impregnate her, and she must suffer in silence.
are these the new christian conservative morals? to hell with the girl as long as she doesnt have an abortion or harm her unborn? isn't this backwards and cruel?
the bills are S.403 ans H.R.748
www.newsyahoo.com/interstate_abortion_22

 

[Jerry]

Jennyb, I know I can seem like an asss sometimes, but I want you to know that I do enjoy your posts.

:shock:
"How many people really think it's in the best interest of young people to be sexually active outside of marriage?" "Does anything positive ever come of that?", Tom Coburn -R-Okla. asked. He also stated "Abstinence is the best way to prevent teenage pregnancy."

Well, the answer to the first question: Of course it isn't in the best interest, but will that stop it? Maybe abstinence is the best way to prevent it, but will that stop it? Will a bill stop teens from having sex and prevent pregnancy...?

The answer to this, IMO, is: Of course not. Since when have teens not had sex to prevent pregnancy? The remarks of Sen. Coburn were in regards to a Bill which passed the senate Tues., making it a crime, punishable by a fine and a year in prison, for taking an underage girl across state lines for the purposes of evading the parental consent of abortion. Majority Whip Mitch Mcconell-R Ky, "this is a fundamental right". It is? Since when do we own our children?

The famous Democratic Fourteen (who might as well be Republicans,always voting along Republican lines) and 51 Republicans voted for the bill. Republican sens. Chafee-Ri, Susan Collins R-Main, and Olympia Snow- R-Maine and Arlen Spectet-R Pa, voted against the Bill.

Notice the men think they know what is best for females.

Democrats bowed to the GOP 55-44 majority, but tried spending the day fighting for an exemption for confidants to whom a young girl with abusive parents could turn to for help. This was rejected in negotiations on the floor. 6 states have no parental consent laws and 9 states have blocked the law through legal challenges. That is 15 states. A proposal to protect from prosecution, confidants such as grandparents, priests and rabbis, or others to whom a young girl might turn to for help was rejected. Also, only in a "last minute" deal, between Sen. Boxer-D Calif and Ensign- R-Nev. was the ability of men who impregnate their OWN daughters, to cross state lines for abortions and suing those who help get the procedure in other states stopped!!!

This last minute deal is particularly disturbing, since what it was saying, in essence, was that the republican party has a problem with a young girl who became impregnated by her FATHER to have an abortion or to confide in a grandparent, priest or rabbi, whom they are telling that they have been sexually abused and most probably raped by a parent, can receive jail time!

This puts the Republican party on the side of the abusive parent, telling him it is 'okay' to rape your daughter, impregnate her, and she must suffer in silence.
Are these the new christian conservative morals? To hell with the girl as long as she doesnt have an abortion or harm her unborn? Isn't this backwards and cruel?
the bills are S.403 ans H.R.748
www.newsyahoo.com/interstate_abortion_22

Your link doesn't work, but I'll give you commentary on your words.

Well, the answer to the first question: Of course it isn't in the best interest, but will that stop it? Maybe abstinence is the best way to prevent it, but will that stop it? Will a bill stop teens from having sex and prevent pregnancy...?

Law doesn't stop those who are determined to perform a given action. Gun control doesn't stop illegal gun use. Speed control laws don't stop speeding. The law can only guide and denture, not stop.

The answer to this, IMO, is: Of course not. Since when have teens not had sex to prevent pregnancy? The remarks of Sen. Coburn were in regards to a Bill which passed the senate Tues., making it a crime, punishable by a fine and a year in prison, for taking an underage girl across state lines for the purposes of evading the parental consent of abortion. Majority Whip Mitch Mcconell-R Ky, "this is a fundamental right". It is? Since when do we own our children?

It's not a matter of "ownership", but of parental rights.

Anyway, yes, it is a "fundamental right".
From TROXEL -v- GRANVILLE

(a) The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause has a substantive component that “provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests,” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720, including parents’ fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children, see, e.g., Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651. Pp. 5—8.

Source

Notice the men think they know what is best for females.

I still don't here you complaining about Roe-v-Wade.

A better way to say it would be “Notice the fathers think they know what is best for their daughters?".

Democrats bowed to the GOP 55-44 majority, but tried spending the day fighting for an exemption for confidants to whom a young girl with abusive parents could turn to for help. This was rejected in negotiations on the floor. 6 states have no parental consent laws and 9 states have blocked the law through legal challenges. That is 15 states. A proposal to protect from prosecution, confidants such as grandparents, priests and rabbis, or others to whom a young girl might turn to for help was rejected.

This is because "confidants" have no "fundamental right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of [other people's] children". It's called "kidnapping", if nothing ells.

Also, would you like to become a priest? Go here and you can become a fully legal priest (for a modest fee, of coarse). Do you now see how easily that "proposal to protect confidants" would have bypassed the entire Bill?

This last minute deal is particularly disturbing, since what it was saying, in essence, was that the republican party has a problem with a young girl who became impregnated by her FATHER to have an abortion or to confide in a grandparent, priest or rabbi, whom they are telling that they have been sexually abused and most probably raped by a parent, can receive jail time!

A girl in such a situation can tell whomever she wishes and will NOT receive jail time. Hopefully she will tell the police while at the hospital getting a rape kit don, shortly before downing a dose of MAP.

This puts the Republican party on the side of the abusive parent, telling him it is 'okay' to rape your daughter, impregnate her, and she must suffer in silence.

Calm down and come back to your senses. You have provided no evidence that any such problem exists in one political affiliation any more or less than another political affiliation.

Are these the new christian conservative morals? To hell with the girl as long as she doesnt have an abortion or harm her unborn? Isn't this backwards and cruel?

You are making all the wrong assumptions. If you can show that such a Repub. problem exists, then perhaps we could continue down this path.

I'd wager that those who were committing such crimes, if any are, are not Christian.

 

[ngdawg]

They may not 'be' Christian, but they'll swear they are. A minister in Tennessee was a child molester who molested his own daughters. A recent 'docudrama' covered the crimes of a 'Christian' father in Canada who sodomized two of his children as his form of punishment. Many news magazines have reported on the polygamous Mormon men who take in 'wives' as young as 15.
This would seem to be an addendum to the Mann Act: In 1910, Congress passed the Mann Act which makes it a federal crime to transport individuals under the age of 18 across state lines to engage in any sexual activity.
The original intent of the law was to stop prostitutes from being moved from one locale to another or out of the country. It now also applies to an adult taking a consensual minor to another state.
What makes it rather touchy is that the parents can press charges, etc., even if they're unfit parents, simply because they have parental rights. And then you'd have to get into the definition and proof of being unfit, yada yada...
Maybe the hearts of these congressmen were in the right place, but from reading your post, doesn't sound like it was very thought out. Ideally, someone in a compassionate position of authority, ie; priest, rabbi, social worker should be exempt from this. On the other hand, I truly doubt a priest would take a girl for an abortion and have some doubts about a rabbi as well.

 

[Jerry]

They may not 'be' Christian, but they'll swear they are. A minister in Tennessee was a child molester who molested his own daughters. A recent 'docudrama' covered the crimes of a 'Christian' father in Canada who sodomized two of his children as his form of punishment. Many news magazines have reported on the polygamous Mormon men who take in 'wives' as young as 15.
This would seem to be an addendum to the Mann Act: In 1910, Congress passed the Mann Act which makes it a federal crime to transport individuals under the age of 18 across state lines to engage in any sexual activity.
The original intent of the law was to stop prostitutes from being moved from one locale to another or out of the country. It now also applies to an adult taking a consensual minor to another state.
What makes it rather touchy is that the parents can press charges, etc., even if they're unfit parents, simply because they have parental rights. And then you'd have to get into the definition and proof of being unfit, yada yada...
Maybe the hearts of these congressmen were in the right place, but from reading your post, doesn't sound like it was very thought out. Ideally, someone in a compassionate position of authority, ie; priest, rabbi, social worker should be exempt from this. On the other hand, I truly doubt a priest would take a girl for an abortion and have some doubts about a rabbi as well.

Any pro-choice average Joe can become a fully lawful priest in 5 minutes and $20, so yes, there are those who would take children across state lines and help place those minor children at a reasonable medical risk without the parent's knowledge or consent.

 

[blastula]

the remarks of sen.coburn were in regards to a bill which passed the senate tues.,making it a crime, punishable by a fine and a year in prison for taking an underage girl across state lines,for the purposes of evading the parental consent of abortion. majority whip mitch mcconell-r ky, "this is a fundamental right". it is? since when do we own our children?

So you think parents should have no fundamental right to their children? And strangers who bear no responsibility and know nothing of a child's medical history should have that right?

You asked, "since when do we own our children?". The correct question should be: since when do strangers own our children?

If you want to surrender your parental right and let strangers take your children out of state or out of the country without your consent, then go ahead to "live and let live...for crying out loud". But, if anything unfortunate happened, the law and society will come down hard on you for being an irresponsible parent and for child endangerment and neglect.