Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

House OKs Bill Toughening Abortion Consent

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-27-05 06:21 PM
Original message
House OKs Bill Toughening Abortion Consent
(04-27) 16:16 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --

The House passed a bill Wednesday that would make it illegal to dodge parental-consent laws by taking minors across state lines for abortions, the latest effort to chip away at abortion rights after Republican gains in the November elections.

By 270-157, the House sent the bill to the Senate, where it has new momentum as an item on the Republicans' top 10 list of legislative priorities.

Reflecting rising public support for requiring parents' involvement in their pregnant daughters' decisions, the bill would impose fines, jail time or both on adults and doctors involved in most cases where minors were taken out of state to get abortions.

This was the third time since 1998 the House has approved the measure, sponsored by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla. The Senate has never taken it up and no vote has been set, but Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., has pledged to bring it up for a vote this summer.

more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/04/27/national/w160736D99.DTL

54 Democrats supported this bill and 11 Republicans opposed it:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll144.xml
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MaineDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-27-05 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
1. I'm really afraid to see how Mike Michaud voted
I bet I already know. :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaineDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-27-05 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Son of a gun...he voted "no"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Malva Zebrina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-27-05 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. I have been following his voting
Edited on Wed Apr-27-05 06:35 PM by Malva Zebrina
what's with this guy? Is he imitating Lieberman? Some lette might be in order here.

On edit he voted "no". I sent him a scathing letter on his other votes. Maybe some other Mainiacs did the same .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaineDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-27-05 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. He knows how I feel
I was ready to call his Chief of Staff and complain bitterly. But he came through on this one.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-27-05 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
2. and, as was said on NPR
this is ridiculous, as it would punish teens and their parents who cross state lines to get the abortion (requiring waits, etc). NPR wisely said that sometimes the best clinics are in other states. Hope the Dems get out this information so the Senate can vote it down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IntiRaymi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-27-05 06:34 PM
Response to Original message
5. So children are personal property of the parents?
Children only have the rights granted to them by their parents?
Is this what we are headed to?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-27-05 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. lol
over 3000 innnocent children have been killed in Iraq. Is this what we are headed to?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IntiRaymi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-27-05 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Reductio ad absurdum?
Edited on Wed Apr-27-05 06:54 PM by IntiRaymi
?????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-27-05 09:20 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. ah.. no, I misread your post BIG TIME...mea culpa.
was speed reading several threads at once (which you can do in Safari browser) and got majorly confuzzled.

I thought you were the saying the opposite of what you were saying.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Malva Zebrina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-27-05 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. No, little children have all the rights that adults have
even though they have not developed into adults.

They have the right to sue their parents. They have the right to rebel against their parents and they have the right to leave, and go out into the world on their own at the age of ten.

Except that many are not equipped mentally or cognitively to do so .

If you think they are, and can subsist without parental guidance, who often have their best interests at heart, being older and wiser and aware of their responsibilities as parents,then, I would say they at the age of ten, having rights should leave their home, get a job, contribute to the community, and live without the horror of parental direction---as their right of course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-05 07:30 AM
Response to Reply #5
18. Exactly my point. And, what if she's pregnant because of
rape, incest, whatever, and the parents make her keep it???

I don't understand this attitude that kids have no rights as citizens until they turn 18. It's bullsh*t. Like, I can NOT believe it's legal for kids to be taken to those crazy "boot camps," actually legally kidnapped and taken to other states or COUNTRIES. Not mandated by law, but because they are gay, or goth, or normal kids. It sickens me. They are American citizens, not chattel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ck4829 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-27-05 06:35 PM
Response to Original message
6. Maybe I was wrong when I said the RW'ers would never ban abortion
They are just going to make it harder and harder to get until it is impossible to receive an abortion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rebecca_herman Donating Member (494 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-27-05 09:26 PM
Response to Original message
12. I wish this was a perfect world....
Edited on Wed Apr-27-05 09:27 PM by rebecca_herman
I think every underage pregnant girl has the right to decide if she has an abortion or keeps her pregnancy. But the whole older boyfriend taking the girl out of state for the abortion to hide his crime just doesn't sit well with me. I don't think it happens nearly as often as the right-wingers insist it does, but I'm not stupid, it has to happen sometimes. Sigh. If it's her choice it's her choice but if a crime was committed the guy shouldn't be able to hide it. :( Whatever the case this law isn't the answer...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KamaAina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-27-05 09:29 PM
Response to Original message
13. This is obviously not about people crossing state lines..
This was the third time since 1998 the House has approved the measure, sponsored by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla.

Rep. Ros-Lehtinen (R-Complete and Utter Wacko) represents the Miami area. There is not a state line within 400 miles of Miami. Therefore, this can only be about denying the most vulnerable women access to abortion, any way, any time they can get away with it. :grr:

Think before you ban, morans! There are places where the local clinic is across a state line (the part of WI just east of St. Paul, Bristol, TN/VA, Rossville, GA next to Chattanooga, etc.). So you're now forcing young women to travel a hundred miles from home, but within their state. Brilliant. :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-27-05 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Please don't take this move as anything other than
intentional.

They were not making "dumb law"; from their point of view, this deviousness and underhandedness is perfectly acceptable as long as it gets the job done. Note: They never ever EVER address why people get abortions, and try to deal with those issues.

Not. Once. EVER.

Fucking hypocrites, the whole lot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KamaAina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-05 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #15
38. There is, alas, no contradiction between stupidity and evil
if there were, obviously, Bush** could not exist.

And like Bush**, this law combines stupidity with evil. It brings them both down full force on scared young women. This opens up huge opportunities for fake clinics ("crisis pregnancy centers", etc.) to ensnare these women and atempt to convert them to Fristianity while they are at a crisis in their lives. :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-27-05 09:32 PM
Response to Original message
14. Do you support this bill?
By the way, you avoided my question on the bankruptcy bill more than once, too. Real curious to see just what kind of bills you support. Is this one of them?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-05 07:22 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. Yes, I think that this is a fair bill
Kids can't get tattos or go on school trips without parental consent. States that have parental notification/consent laws usually have a judicial bypass which allows minors to go to a judge to get permission if there is a risk of abuse.

As for the bankruptcy bill, I originally opposed it. I bought the line that this was something that big business and the banks would use to screw the little guy. But then I found out the the Credit Unions supported it, I took a second look and changed my mind.

http://www.cuna.org/gov_affairs/legislative/issues/bankruptcy_whysupport.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaineDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-05 07:25 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. "judicial bypass"
Is that part of this bill?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-05 07:32 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. It is part of state laws which require parental consent/notification
This bill does not require parental consent/notification. It simply makes it illegal for an adult to take a child across states lines in order to circumvent parental consent/notification laws.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-29-05 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #16
39. Thank you for the honest answer. Makes it easier to understand you.
I, of course, disagree completely with both bills, and think you are mistaken in thinking they are worth the paper they're written on, but I do thank you for your answer.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moderator DU Moderator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-05 03:53 PM
Response to Original message
20. kick to combine
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-05 03:53 PM
Response to Original message
21. (US) House Passes Abortion Restrictions for Minors (not just FL)




http://story.news.yahoo.com/s/nm/congress_abortion_dc;_ylt=AondnZyK38BZe5UMZNIlvw_fB2YD;_ylu=X3oDMTBhYmRqbGx2BHNlYwNsbjE2OTM-
House Passes Abortion Restrictions for Minors

Wed Apr 27, 8:00 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The House of Representatives passed legislation on Wednesday that would make it a crime to take a minor across state lines for an abortion and create a national requirement for parental notification for underage women seeking to terminate a pregnancy.

The vote was 270-157, with most Republicans and more than 50 Democrats backing it.

The bill is broader than legislation passed by the House several times in recent years that has died in the Senate. But with anti-abortion forces gaining strength in the last elections, people in both parties say it is now more likely that similar legislation would pass the Senate.

The House bill was approved after acrimonious exchanges in which Democrats accused Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee of grossly distorting their amendments.

"I've never seen anything like this," said an incensed New York Democratic Rep. Jerrold Nadler (news, bio, voting record), who had offered an amendment exempting grandparents or clergy from prosecution if they helped a girl travel to get an abortion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CWebster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-05 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. And this is what making it "rare" really means
Edited on Thu Apr-28-05 08:42 AM by CWebster
The slow erosion of availability instead of the outright challenge. And then see an increase of back alley abortions, possibily performed later, teen pregnancies, babies born in bathrooms and thrown in the trash, poor women condemned as whores or demonized as evil welfare mothers--while those in Hillary and Howard Dean's class, they will always have access to abortion.

Shame on you, Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton, for enabling, through conforming to the Right's framework which enables the slow erosion at the expense of women's lives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-05 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. i do not think Hil. will vote for this in the Senate. "rare' for means
Edited on Thu Apr-28-05 08:50 AM by rodeodance
education, and sensible sex education including use of condoms--and availability of contraceptives to PREVENT unwanted pregnancies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CWebster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-05 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Even suggesting that should be "rare" undermines the issue
by attaching a moral stain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
athenap Donating Member (136 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-05 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. Not necessarily...
...if you look at it like I do, as a medical procedure that's somewhat major...sure, it should be rare. Who'd really want extra surgery?

But I really really hope this gets voted way the hell down in the Senate. For one thing, I've got my own morals--I don't need elected government reps to do my moralizing for me (especially as most of 'em would fall way short), and for another...once again, legislating morality will not make people change their minds or views. All this would do is make more people break the law, or die because of an inability to get care.

But hey, at least those hussies are getting punished for having sex, and that's what's really important. :sarcasm: /end reframe, because this is what's really going on. If Phyllis Schafly is all up in arms over not being able to put 'em to death right after their born, then she doesn't get to have a say in making 'em get born in the first place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CWebster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-05 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #26
30. I don't like root canals either
But I don't go around saying they should be rare. Maybe nose jobs and liposuction should be rare, but I don't see anyone leading the crusade.

There will always be unplanned pregnancies--that is a fact of life, whether they are reduced or not is irrelevant to protecting a woman's right to choose. Since it happens to women and not men, it is an issue that impacts on the lives of women.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
athenap Donating Member (136 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-05 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. That was the point I was trying to make
Who'd want to get a root canal if they could avoid it? There will always be unplanned pregnancies...but it's my hope that they are reduced by other means first...quality sex ed, freely available and reliable birth control, and the means and education to use it properly, health care to allow it to be had cheaply or freely, that sort of thing.

Either way, I don't want the government butting its nose in. Because I see it as a small step from saying "you can't" to saying "you must." Neither one do I want to have happen to any woman against her will and her decision.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HockeyMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-05 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #24
27. Foster home girl we knew
She was taken away from her mother at 8. The mother was a prostitute and drug addict. Her father was God only knows who. The girl went from one foster home to another. At 15 Rosita ran away from the foster home and lived on the streets for a short time until her older half brother got a job, an apartment, and she moved in with him.

Now suppose Rosita got pregnant. How in the world would she get consent from her parents? Nobody knew where or if her mother was even alive. Nobody knew who her father was. I guess with this law even her adult brother would have no say in it either. Girls like Rosita and that one in Florida are exactly the ones who will be hurt by all of this - the POOR from broken homes. For the vast majority, their parents will simply give their consent or even take them themselves to another state. They won't cut down on the number of abortions to girls from stable families who have the MONEY to take them out of state.

As an aside, Rosita got very lucky. She eventually went back to one of her foster parents who legally adopted her. She finished HS, got a basketball scholarship, and is now in her 3rd year of college studying to be a teacher.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jdj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-05 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #27
34. Go Rosita!!!
that does my heart good to read that!

if I ever get in the position financially, I want to adopt an older kid like this!!

Go Rosita Go!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-05 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. Enable what?
Dean & Clinton are not standing down on abortion. They,like myself, are sick of how the repukes vilify us with harsh terminology. Maybe instead of blaming Dean or Hillary (which she will would never support this law), why not consider the 50 democrats who sided with the republicans - many of them lifetime anti-choicers.

What Dean & Clinton want is smart - reducing the number of abortions through better education and family planning. No one in the world is "pro-abortion" including the most strictest supporters of choice. What we need to do is a better job of educating our children other than bizarro slogans of abstinence that do nothing to prevent 2 horny kids from having sex.

Abortions should be legal, but rare yet oddly enough under the Bush administration they have increased the number of abortions by making sex education & family planning illegal
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CWebster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-05 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. So they triangulate on the issue?
That only strenthens their crusade. And that is what it is, a moral crusade at the expense of women. Look at the Church, the new brain-dead fascist of a Pope so much as stated that reasonable Catholics were free to disgree on capital punishment and war, yet there would be no wiggle room on abortion- all this while he brushes pedophile priests under the carpet. Those are the priorities, this is what is at stake:

http://www.progressive.org/april05/com0405.php

How sad that party chairman, Dean and major player, Clinton feel it is necessary to parse words while the reality is more voters are pro-choice, and yet they pander to a loud minority of reactionary fundamentalists, reacting to and playing defense, rather than standing up to bullies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NVMojo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-05 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #21
29. more invasion of our privacy in the USA!!
Edited on Thu Apr-28-05 09:27 AM by NVMojo
snip...

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., intends to bring such a bill to a vote this summer as one of his top 10 legislative priorities, according to spokeswoman Amy Call.

If enacted, it would be the fifth law passed to reduce abortions since President Bush took office in 2001.

No one knows how many minors cross state lines for abortions to circumvent laws in their home states requiring parental consent. But like many who oppose abortion rights, Frist told reporters this week that that there's more at stake than the number of abortions prevented.

"No matter how few people it affects, it's an important bill on the principles," said Frist, a Tennessee Republican and doctor who is considering seeking his party's presidential nomination in 2008.

more...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/ABORTION?SITE=NVLAS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-05 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #21
32. They Should Call This The "Leave Your Newborn In A Dumpster" Bill
Because that's what's going to happen when the poor young girls are either too afraid to tell their parents or can't tell them because they're pregnant because their (Republican) dad raped them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0rganism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-05 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #21
33. I expect this to pass with over 60 votes in the Senate, too (nt)
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jdj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-05 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #21
35. One of the things that is so upsetting to me about this is that
I have come to the conclusion that all of the moralizing and all of the proselytizing and all of the jugement and name-calling and restrictions placed on young girls and women with regards to their sexuality are at their root about one thing, and that is keeping her reproductive organs off limits until she is married off and/ or in some more enlightened cultures, on her own and no longer a financial burden to the parents. Period. It isn't about morality of any sort, because these same restrictions in no way apply to young men; that is why men have to keep a sub-group of socially contemptible yet sexually accessible women around for them to get their rocks off in. It is about dividing women into two classes where both lose and each only has half a life and the other half is off limits.

But all this bunk I was taught was about morality was no such thing, it is economics based pyschological abuse used to break young girl's spirits because the parents no way in hell want to be financially responsible for her offspring. That's it. So then restricting these young women's access to abortion? all they are doing is encouraging the advent of more and more coat hanger and knitting needle abortions.

May God have mercy on your soul, all parents who support this...may you never come home to find your female teenage child dead on the floor of the bathroom or bedroom, surrounded by an ocean of blood that hemorraged out of her when she perforated her internal organs. Live with that image for the rest of your life, and then think about whether you'd rather she had an abortion done by a professional in another state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-05 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #21
36. I'm from an incredibly ignorant country.
What cruel petty vindictive ass wipes. Absolutely no understanding of the human condition. No clue whatsoever about the world they live in...so long as they can attack abortion, these throwbacks don't care who they harm in the process.

When they open the Crayola box all they see is the black crayon and the white crayon...because all the other colors are beyond their mental grasp ....and don't even attempt to explain gray to them. They go tharn and shut down.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Massacure Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-28-05 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #21
37. Are they also going to ban putting clothes on coat hangers?
Edited on Thu Apr-28-05 03:51 PM by Massacure
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Megahurtz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-29-05 02:53 PM
Response to Original message
40. Fuck Them, Fuck Them, Fuck Them!!!!!
Why the fuck did ANY Democrats support this heinous bill??

:wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 05:08 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC