Error editing post! Your message is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 5 characters.
They didn't. They are simply making it a crime to circumvent state laws. Sort of like when California gets pissed at you for registering your car in Oregon to avoid taxes.
Never stand begging for that which you have the power to earn.
The truth lies in a man's dreams... perhaps in this unhappy world of ours whose madness is better than a foolish sanity.
Miguel de Cervantes (1547 - 1616)





They can.
They will.
Its only a matter of time.
Just as a side note to your link...
harmless question here,not ment to start a war.ASHINGTON, April 27 - The House passed a bill on Wednesday making it a federal crime for any adult to transport an under-age girl across state lines to have an abortion without the consent of her parents.
If you had a 16 year old daughter,what would you want???
Ive had two pass that,and have one now,I know what i want.
Head on a stick.(legaly speaking of course)
1.the person who took her across state lines.
2.the nurse who signed her in.
3.the doctor who kills my grandchild.
4.the nurse who assists.
5.anyone else who can be proven in assisting in the killing of my grandchild.
And to lesson the flameable retorts i have in reserve for a topic such as this...
dats all im gonna say on this thread,scouts honor.
I would like to read peoples answer to the question if they would like to answer.
We have places in Texas where they can drive your pretty white little teenage daughter for abortion without consent. Its called Mexico, it isn't that far, and you can drive in and out without showing ID 95% of the time. THIS is the place where many young girls will be going to get it done if its illegal. Enjoy the fruits of your pro-life labor people.![]()
"Have you ever been to American wedding? Where is the vodka, where's marinated herring?" - GB
"And do the cats give a shit? No, they do not. Why? Because they're cats."-from The Onion
Originally Posted by Mia M





Actually, this bill probably grew as an unintended consequence of the recent Supreme Court decision banning capital punishment for any person under the age of 18 ! The legal premise the Supreme Court used to ban the death penalty for minors was that, as minors, they couldn't be held as totally and completely responsible for their own actions. The same principle must then be applied to pregnant girls who are minors, thus this new bill calling for the pregnant girl's parents to be involved in making a 'life or death' decision regarding the girl's baby.
Blue states will undoubtedly claim states rights to regulate abortion in any way they choose, with some states still allowing abortions on demand for minor girls. However, the federal law will effectivelu limit states authority in this area to their own state's residents, by preventing girls from adjacent states (where state laws presumably aren't as accomodating) from simply popping across the state line. This probably grew as an unintended consequence of the Massachusetts supreme court decision regarding gay marriage, which created a situation where the federal gov't and red states were forced to seek legal 'angles' to stop that state's law from migrating past state lines.
As I have posted about in earlier threads, IMHO we seem to be on a path where the divisions between red states and blue states get wider and wider. This will eventually lead to many many people being forced to 'vote with their feet' and actually move to particular states where state laws are in keeping with their personal principles and preferences.
Am I reading the article completely wrong? Seems all the states want to do is require (as they do in all other cases) their citizens to follow their laws. In Mass. you can't cross state lines to avoid sales tax on a car - they tap you when you register the car. Technically, it's illegal to go to NH (with no sales tax) for any purchases....why shouldn't they put the same protections in place for abortions...clearly a MUCH bigger decision?
Sorry to be a prude here but I'm with the states and the parents on this one. Just because a girl CAN get pregnant doesn't mean she (or her lover) are READY TO or ABLE TO HANDLE IT. If the voters of a state decide the parents have no role in their kids sex life (a dumb idea IMHO) that's one thing...but if voters decide differently the state HAS A DUTY to try best it can to enforce the law.
I don't agree theres' any big anti-abortion theme here (maybe by some advocates, but not in the letter and spirit of the law) and I certainly don't see it as a big issue or a "Civil War Colors" issue (damn I wish red and blue bullshit would just go away)...
DD,
You say "Technically, it's illegal to go to NH (with no sales tax) for any purchases....why shouldn't they put the same protections in place for abortions...clearly a MUCH bigger decision?
"
Technically the commonwealth of Mass. cannot do a damn thing about a person going to another state to buy any thing. It is explicit in the commerce clause of the US constitution. What Mass. and other states do is put a usage tax on stuff bought in other states. You bought it, not in Ma. you pay the sales tax on your state tax bill. It is right on the income tax form. That is 100% legal.
True...the state doesn't (and can't, as you point out) care where an item is bought...they CAN care that their sales tax laws are being evaded - and that was my point. Why do people accept that the state can protect its sales tax laws but not its parent right to know laws??





With all due respect to the anti-abortion position, I shudder at the thought of a parent forcing their teenage daughter to bring a pregnancy to term. It also makes me really sad to think about some poor kid getting knocked up who can't talk to her parents about it. But I get angry when I think of the jerks who don't want to inform teenage girls about and allow them access to sex education and birth control so situations like these can be fewer.





I agree with you here , I sometimes think way to much as to why did nature make it this way must of been for a reason and not because it shouldn't happen ! Too bad the biological clock didnt start just a few years later .Originally Posted by Susan Wayward
Setting aside the fact that hormones in food and Genetically altered foods have helped accelerate many forms of human development and growth...and our society makes sex interesting and available at younger and younger ages....nature made it this way because:
a. without medicine, lifespans would be 30 -40 years...15 is then middle age
b. continuation of the species needs bodies...not limits on procreation as we now require for stable society
c. take away the complexities of modern life, it is POSSIBLE a "child" of 15 (if helped by the other parent) could survive, run a household, etc. On the farm, natural community, no need for further education etc
Our society is different from the natural outcome.





A)So if we can prolong life with medications and such why not make a pill ( besides everyday b-control ) that will reflect the laws or limits we have set to be an adult and a responsible part of our society . If it doesnt fit into the present society and seems to be the root of so many problems ( pro or not ) prevent it before it happens not after ,is that such a far reach for mankind ? I am talking before the pro / or abortion part even gets close to happening .I can feel the bibles beating me to the ground already whatever finish the book already .Originally Posted by discretedancer
B.Continuation of the species needs limitations we have perfected the ability to reproduce .
C.Yes I am sure the Quakers have some room for this and you may as well shitcan all the equality that women have been working on since 1848 .





Bringing this thread back around to the topic, the point is that the new federal law is at least in part a result of the 'slippery slope' precedent in the recent Supreme Court decision which outlawed the death penalty for persons under 18. If the USA now considers a person under 18 to be inadequately equipped to make a life and death decision and bear the full consequences of that decision, i.e. deciding to murder someone yet not bearing the full consequences of that decision in the form of the death penalty, then the very same decision making inadequacy of persons under 18 must also apply to a 'life and death' decision regarding an abortion. It was the liberals who opened the door for this new law, not the conservatives.





You know I love ya Susan lol...Anyway I have gotten into trouble on here in the past for my EXTREME pro-life stance...That won't change today either. I understand where you're getting at Susan, but the purpose of sex is to have kids. I'm sorry, but if you are a teen who gets pregnant then you need to DEAL WITH IT. Not just sweep it under the rug and continue (excuse my french) hoe-ing around with every tom, dick, and harry. Now dont jump down my throat ok..I'm not sayin that all teens who get pregnant are having sex with any and everybody, what I'm saying is is that they need to be responsible for their actions.Originally Posted by Susan Wayward
Trust me teens of today know what time it is! Now dammit I'm tired..I've been at work all night so I'm in a bitchy mood lol. When I get up in the afternoon lol..I know that my PM box will be filled with "HATE MAIL" LOL. But hey I'm used to it! Love ya all!
Some Douchebag: "[Pimp C] 12:43 am: its true we got to stick together the black people on SW CK you is teh condoleeza of SW"





I've racked my brain trying to come up with a better analogy than the 'adjacent state sales tax', which completely misses the point. While nothing really works 100%, the following analogy is better than nothing at illustrating the real point of this new law.
Imagine two adjacent states. One state allows unlimited tattoos, such that any teen can walk into a tattoo parlor and get any tattoo af their choice. The adjacent state has passed laws which require that any person under the age of 18 must have parental consent in order to get a tattoo. The new federal law makes it illegal for a third party to transport a person under the age of 18 who lives in the second state across the state line to the first state so that they can get a tattoo without having to ask/tell their parents. Thus the new federal law, based on interstate commerce authority, provides for the ability of individual states to enforce their own laws on their own citizens.
I would also add that this new law also takes an additional step down a different 'slippery slope'. Imagine what will happen the first time that irate parents sue a bus company, airline etc. who sold their daughter a ticket so she could travel to a different state to get an abortion. Based on fear of such lawsuits, the 'slippery slope' has the potential of creating a situation where persons under 18 will not be allowed to travel out of state without their parents' permission.





Seems to me the less choices you give someone in this situation the more desperate they become and they will most likely make a dangerous decision . Never seems to be ge a good antidote for this , the best I can think would be more education on the matter then at least it was put out there if they didnt want to listen so be it .A lot of parents won't even approach there kids on these issues its to bad .Originally Posted by Melonie
I'm also very much anti-abortion (pro-lifer to the core) and I find it hard to comprehend how on one hand, people are anti-abortion, but on the other, they're anti-birth control or sex ed. I don't agree that sex is made solely for procreation (I think babies, like orgasms, are lovely benefits of getting one's groove on), and feel that people can have as much sex as they want with whoever they choose, but PLEASE use some form of birth control. Abortion is NOT a form of birth control.
I honestly have mixed feelings about parents forcing their child to carry a child to term OR have an abortion. I would hope that parents in that situation would help their child/ren understand the repercussions and of both decisions and support the child/ren either way.
They don't ask for ID in Juarez. Try to find a doctor on a back street in Nuevo Laredo to file the lawsuit against. I saw a dead dog lying in the middle of people-packed Plaza Mayor in Matamoros a few months ago......THIS is the slippery slope, at least for southwestern states, if they pass this law............
"Have you ever been to American wedding? Where is the vodka, where's marinated herring?" - GB
"And do the cats give a shit? No, they do not. Why? Because they're cats."-from The Onion
Originally Posted by Mia M
Sadly, all too often it is used as birth control of the last resort.Originally Posted by Amethyst
I rarely get into the abortion issue since my own views don't fall cleanly into either camp. However, I do have pretty strong opinions when it comes to parent's rights. If your kid goes to the school nurse with a headache, she won't even give her a tylenol. Yet that same kid can go down to Planned Parenthood and they will perform an abortion, a medical/surgical procedure on her. The parent is not asked for permission, consulted, not even notified. How can that be right?
Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle
Destiny;...that's basically where I stand also. Should parents force kids to carry babies to term....I dunno. Stuff on both sides of it (like :don't do the crime if you can't do the time:...leading to probable adoption...),'
But for a parent NOT TO BE ALLOWED TO KNOW AND ADVISE the child during the most scary, most adult, most confusing and most important (to date) moment of her (hopefully their..if the BF isnt a prick) life....I don't see the benefit there.





Some factions see a definite benefit. If parental consent is required for an underage pregnant girl to obtain an abortion, it clearly interferes with the following agenda ...But for a parent NOT TO BE ALLOWED TO KNOW AND ADVISE the child during the most scary, most adult, most confusing and most important (to date) moment of her (hopefully their..if the BF isnt a prick) life....I don't see the benefit there
"Modern Eugenics: How Abortion is Getting Rid of "Undesirables"
John J. Donohue III (professor of law at Stanford University) and Steven D. Levitt (professor of law at University of Chicago) say: "Legalized abortion contributed significantly to recent crime reductions." Their study was published in the second quarter, 2001 Harvard's Quarterly Journal of Economics.1 According to the authors, "Crime began to fall roughly 18 years after abortion legalization." Since 1991, homicide rates are down 40 percent, violent crime and property crime are down 30 percent. After controlling for other factors, Donohue and Levitt conclude: "Legalized abortion appears to account for as much as 50 percent of the recent drop in crime."
Donohue and Levitt say that poor women and teenage girls are "substantially more likely" to have abortions, and children born to such mothers have a higher than normal probability of committing crimes between the ages of 18 and 24. However, they go beyond these assumptions and examine the affects of abortion across racial boundaries. It turns out that abortion has not been uniformly used by all races, ethnic and social groups. Abortion has had only modest effects on the fertility of white women, but large reductions in teen fertility and teen out-of-wedlock fertility among blacks. Donohue and Levitt come to the conclusion that, "Given that homicide rates of black youths are roughly nine times higher than those of white youths, racial differences in the fertility effects of abortion are likely to translate into greater homicide reductions." In other words, by reducing the number of black babies born in the United States, abortion has lowered the crime rate.
Abortion proponents have always said that it is better that children not be born rather than be "unwanted." Abortion providers, such as Planned Parenthood have been peddling abortion to minorities as a means of reducing births among these groups. Abortion is a modern, politically correct form of eugenics - elimination of undesirables, such as minorities who are more likely to commit crimes. If you are a minority, you should be outraged that the liberals have convinced your teenaged daughters that abortion is the solution to unaccountable behavior.(snip)"
"They" not only can but, given nature of Court's longstanding "5-4 split" on basic issue and O'Connor's age/failing health (she's consistently been the "swing" or "deciding" vote in cases involving this issue), could easily find themselves in the long-awaited position of actually having the votes they need to do so at any time now.
And FYI - insofar as the "go to Mexico," etc. stuff is concerned, there's a very real possibility that "they" will find the kinds of laws which would be necessary to shut that down as well constitutional in the very near future, as there are some relatively new provisions not yet fully tested that actually attempt to criminalize behavoir of U.S. citizens abroad when their purpose for travelling is to engage in the behavoir that has been deemed to be prohibited in the statute. Best example is statute prohibiting travel abroad for purposes of engaging in sexual acts with minors (aimed at shutting down burgeoning child prostitution market in Thailand).
"That's your answer Old Man? I guess you're a Hard Case too...."
- Luke
"Some men, you just can't reach...."
- Boss, re Luke
If there's one thing in my life these years have taught me,
it's that you can always see it coming, but you can never stop it.
-Cowboy Junkies





It's actually even simpler than that. With many states granting ID documents such as driver's licenses to illegal aliens, if the Real ID bill doesn't make it through congress it is extremely likely that the US federal gov't is going to start requiring the use of US Passports for Federal ID purposes such as crossing Mexico/Canada border and Airport ID. If/when this happens, although the pregnant 15 year old could certainly get to Mexico and certainly have the abortion done, it's very likely she could NOT get back into the US without her parents coming to the border and showing their passport !And FYI - insofar as the "go to Mexico," etc. stuff is concerned, there's a very real possibility that "they" will find the kinds of laws which would be necessary to shut that down as well constitutional in the very near future, as there are some relatively new provisions not yet fully tested that actually attempt to criminalize behavoir of U.S. citizens abroad when their purpose for travelling is to engage in the behavoir that has been deemed to be prohibited in the statute. Best example is statute prohibiting travel abroad for purposes of engaging in sexual acts with minors (aimed at shutting down burgeoning child prostitution market in Thailand).
All I can think is that if abortion is made illegal than there will be more back room abortions - screw Mexico - think someones dirty apartment with a metal clotheshanger... life threatening, not sterile, etc ... anyone see Dirty Dancing? Abortion WAS illegal in the past and there were still abortions here in the US...
Teenagers will find a way around anti-abortion laws... they have for years and they will for years to come.
As per teenagers KNOWING about BC etc.. I had an abortion at 14 then got knocked up at 16... youd think teens learn their lessons but a lot dont. Why do most teen moms have more than 1 kid by 18? After I had my daughter I got the noraplant and honestly.. if I didnt have it I wouldnt doubt if Id have another kid or 2... who knows? I am obviously pro-choice. How is a 13 year old supposed to raise a child? As per 15 being middle age. THIS IS HOW IT MAY HAVE BEEN AT ONE TIME but is not our society anymore nor will it ever be again... coulda, shoulda woulda bee... IT ISNT so theres no point in saying that...
15 year olds cant even be hired at most places (at McD you have to be 18 now) so how are they supposed to raise a baby? What if their parents have your thoughts . YOU GOT YOURSELF INTO THIS SITUATION DEAL WITH IT. OK, so now we have a 15 year old mom, a helpless baby living on the streets with no food and no shelter.. thats a MUCH better situation.
I had a good friend when I was younger. She got pregnant at 14 and wanted an abortion. Her mom said no, deal with it. Parents kicked her and her baby out, she ended up going place to place to have shelter. In the end she started hooking to take care of her baby... he got older and it got harder. How do you put a child in school with no ADDRESS, no HOME? He ended up getting taken away from her and guess whos fighting for custody? HER PARENTS. Hows THAT for DEAL WITH IT... lots more happened. Her beating her son because she just couldnt deal. She never WANTED him, in her eyes all he did was drag her down (this is the reason we stopped being friends) So, is THAT what you want for your grandkid? Your daughter beating him and leaving him with every dick, tom and harry that comes about because she hates this kid she was FORCED to keep? Maybe thats not how you see it (I dont see it like this either) but its how SHE saw it... so heres your grandkid with no home, no food, a mom who HATES and BEATS him... wonderful - GO PRO LIFE...
It's a horrible dilemma....there's so much emotion on both sides. ULTIMATELY:
If the girl is carrying, then she must decide what to do with the baby/fetus/name it as you want. HOWEVER, I shudder when we start deciding there are areas of our child's lives parents can't or shouldn't know about...that starts a slippery slope that can turn REAL bad REAL fast.
No right answer...not even the 19th century "family takes care of it" solution (as happened in my family more than once...) solution works....
As to the point of the thread, YES the right can be taken away if the people show apathy toward it or support toward the other side. Unlikely but possible.
Pro-choice (with balance) is ONE of the areas on which I base my votes...not THE issue...but one
Bookmarks