Recently, an upset teenager fussed to the media because she sought an abortion but was delayed by parental notification laws and ended up having the baby.
I don't understand her complaint. Since this girl had the baby and was still able to complain about it, she obviously did not need an abortion. This is a point that gets glossed over. Abortion advocates scream that "women don't have abortions they want, they have abortions they need." Then they turn around and complain that as a result of waiting, the woman survived just fine without the abortion. They can't have it both ways.
If you need a liver transplant, dialysis, or a coronary bypass and don't get it, you die. If you "need" an abortion and don't get it, you complain, but you remain healthy and life goes on.
I think it takes a lot of gall to compare elective surgery to vital, life-saving treatments.
Abortion advocates need to start being honest. There are only two reasons any woman has an abortion: she wants it, or somebody else puts her up to it. Need does not enter into the picture.
The story of this teen is an argument in favor of parental notification laws. She carried to term and emerged unscathed by hysterectomy, infection, or any of the other problems associated with abortion. An unneeded abortion was averted. Only a rabid pro-abortionist could consider avoiding abortion to be a tragedy.
With all the debate about the newly proposed parental consent legislation, one question is being ignored. Should teens be having abortions at all?
An abortion is irreversible and life-altering. It touches on the woman's identity. Even a mature woman who is strongly in favor of abortion may find that the emotional weight is too much to bear. Sue Nathanson, in her book Soul Crisis, reflected after her abortion that she felt alone in the world except for "my Self, the murderer." Do we want to risk giving a young girl this image of herself in her formative years?
The state forbids tattoos on minors, arguing that it is permanent and the adolescent who very much wants a tattoo today may regret it for the rest of his life. If we protect children from having tattoos inflicted on them, why do we fail to protect children from having abortions inflicted on them?
It's a question no one has ever asked, much less satisfactorily answered.
With all the debate about the newly proposed parental consent legislation, I want you to imagine a shopping center containing a doctor's office, a liquor store, an X-rated movie house, a tattoo parlor, a body-piercing salon, a gun store, a blood donation center, a tobacco shop, a tanning salon, and an abortion clinic.
Now guess which is the only one of these establishments legally allowed to sell its product or service to a 13-year-old girl, without parental consent or notification? Furthermore, we will not allow that same 13-year-old to play the lottery, drive a car, vote, consent to have sex, work in a topless bar, and the list goes on and on.
To show just how incredible this situation is, consider the following. A 13-year-old girl can have an abortion without telling anyone--including her parents--but if the abortionist injures her she can't get medical treatment without permission from her parents. Incredibly, her parents are legally responsible for the medical bills related to this botched abortion, despite the fact they had no knowledge of it, and could not have legally prevented it even if they had known.
How on earth did abortionists get elevated to such a lofty position in our society, and how long are we going to allow this disgraceful situation to continue?
I was very impressed to read of the huge turnout at the high school's annual Seniors Blood Drive. But what I found really interesting was that students who wished to donate blood were required to have a permission slip with a parent's signature.
I find it very ironic that if a high school-aged girl wanted an abortion, she wouldn't need a note from a parent. Mom and Dad wouldn't even have to know.
What kind of message are we giving kids when they are allowed to have risky elective surgery--that could result in severe injury or even death--at will, but are forbidden to save lives without their parents' consent?
An abortion clinic director is arguing against the parental consent law currently before the State House.
I find it interesting that the abortion clinic director is so concerned about 15-year-olds being allowed to patronize abortion clinics without their parents' consent.
A teenager can't patronize an ear-piercing salon, tanning salon, or tattoo parlor without her parent's consent. She can't put beer, whisky, or wine into her body, and can't smoke cigarettes legally, even with her parent's consent. She wouldn't even be allowed to step into a pornographic movie house or a topless bar.
A fifteen-year-old can't legally vote, buy a handgun, or drive a car.
And if she wanted to save lives, she still would not be allowed to donate blood without her parents' consent.
What is it about abortion? Why is it that the only thing we'll let that 15-year-old legally do without a note from home is have an abortion?
Maybe it's because this abortion clinic doesn't pierce ears, do tattoos, or sell booze or cigarettes. Maybe--just maybe--it's because there's money to be made in teen pregnancy, and the clinic isn't about to give up its share of the market.
Recently, an abortionist publicly expressed dismay at the "epidemic of babies having babies."
First of all, isn't it odd that when those same girls have abortions, they are never referred to as "babies having abortions"?
Second, these girls aren't babies. They've at least hit puberty--which makes them adolescents. Now, what does an adolescent want more than anything else? To be seen as an adult, not as a child.
So, people like this abortionist refer to the adolescents who have abortions as "women exercising their constitutional rights," but those who give birth as "babies having babies." I suspect this is a subtle advertising ploy--and a particularly dastardly one because it's aimed at such a vulnerable target population. It is also a disgusting reflection on the pro-choice value system, which makes having an abortion appear like some sort of rite of passage into womanhood.
I agree that teens ought to put off childbearing until after marriage (many of the "babies having babies," by the way, according to Family Planning Perspectives, are married 18- and 19-year-olds!). But I hardy think it is reasonable to say that a girl too young to raise a child is old enough to abort one!
When a youngster is responsible, generous, and life-giving, should we dismiss her as babyish? What are we teaching our kids: Real women have abortions?
An abortion clinic spokeswoman brought up a good point when debating the proposed parental consent law. She said, "If the state gives parents the power to stop their daughter from having an abortion, the state can give parents the power to force their daughter to have one."
This statement ignores the fact that parents can already force abortions on their daughters right now, while they are powerless to protect their daughters from legal butchers. This is a situation that needs to change.
What we really need to consider is whether abortions should ever be performed on children.
An abortion is irreversible, elective, and places the girl's life at risk. Surely any debate needs to look at whether the legally incompetent--be they minors or the mentally retarded--can be forced by their guardians to submit.
Why is it that abortion advocates fight so viciously to keep parents from having a say in whether their minor daughter has an abortion or not?
These vultures are so consumed with abortion that they will even come between a young girl and her parents. Many parents don't even know that their underage daughters can get an abortion without their permission, much less without their knowledge. They sure get a shock when the hospital calls and tells them that their daughter is injured or even dead from an abortion that they didn't even know she could get without their knowledge.
Clearly, the abortion advocates' agenda is not teens' well-being. It is abortion at any cost. These people belong in jail.
The spokeswoman for an abortion advocacy group argued against the parental consent bill, claiming that in the case of incest, the law would require a girl to get the permission of the person who is abusing her. This is just a smoke screen.
First, a minor seeking an abortion due to incest is a rare situation. It is feeble to use it to bar all other parents from knowing that their daughter is considering dangerous surgery. Second, the bill can be modified so that, in the case of incest, only the permission of the mother or a judge would be required.
Our third and most compelling argument is what secret abortions for incest victims really accomplish. When a girl is pregnant by her father, her biggest problem isn't that she's pregnant but that she's being forced to have sex with her father. If she gets a secret abortion, when the abortion is over she will be right back in the same abusive environment, except now it's worse! The one thing the abuser feared the most happened, and abortion got rid of it. The abortion also destroyed the primary piece of physical evidence against him. So the availability of secret abortion means he doesn't have to be concerned about getting her pregnant.
I can understand why an abortion advocacy group wants to cover up for these perverts. After all, the more often he gets her pregnant, the more money they make. But I think it's despicable to pretend that their concern is for the girl.
An abortion clinic director was quoted voicing opposition to the new ban on federal funds for aborting incest pregnancies. She claimed, "It is the height of cruelty to force these young women to bear the children of their abusers."
I agree--the perverts who get these girls pregnant are cruel. But it is even more cruel to step in when the girl is pregnant and suggest a quick, free abortion. All this does is return the victim to her abuser.
Abortion protects the perpetrator of incest, not his victim. When the law allows his victim to get a secret abortion, it is simply making it easier for him to continue doing what he's doing. That's not what the law is meant to do. The solution to incest pregnancies is to end the abuse, not protect the abuser.
An abortion clinic director voiced opposition to the new ban on federal funds for aborting incest pregnancies. She claimed, "It is the height of cruelty to force these young women to bear the children of their abusers."
I agree--the perverts who get these girls pregnant are cruel. But it is even more cruel to step in when the girl is pregnant--already bearing the abuser's child--and suggest a quick, free abortion. All this does is return the victim to her abuser.
A prime example of this was detailed in newspapers across America on December 8, 1990. A Baltimore man was given 30 years in prison for raping his daughter and two stepdaughters over a period of nine years. During the trial, it was revealed that this incest had resulted in 10 pregnancies among the three victims, and that all the pregnancies were ended by abortions! The situation continued until March 1990, when the youngest girl told one of her teachers. How much better would that girl's life have been if her two older sisters hadn't been "allowed" to get secret abortions? Abortion protects the perpetrator of incest, not his victim. When the law allows his victim to get a secret abortion, it is simply making it easier for him to continue doing what he's doing. That's not what the law is meant to do.
The solution to incest pregnancies is to end the abuse, not protect the abuser.
The spokeswoman for an abortion advocacy group argued against the new parental consent bill. She claimed that it is essential for teens' safety that they be able to get secret abortions, lest they try self-induced or illegal abortions.
The really hypocritical thing is that although this abortion advocacy group is willing to step in for the girl's parents when encouraging her to abort, they disappear the minute the suction machine is turned off.
If a minor girl is taken to a hospital after being injured by an abortion, her parents are legally responsible for the expenses incurred, despite having been barred from the decision that led her there in the first place! If this spokeswoman and her accomplices want to act as parents to these girls before the abortions, they should act as parents afterward. Anybody who participates in getting a girl an abortion without her parents' consent should be held financially responsible for any injuries the girl suffers.
You can bet the opposition to parental involvement would evaporate in an instant if these people had to stay around after the abortion and pay the bills!
An abortion clinic director wrote a guest column last week proposing an alternative to a parental involvement law. She suggested that the abortionist sign a "maturity judgment" indicating that he thinks the girl is mature enough to make the abortion decision.
The whole idea that a 12- or 13-year-old girl should be allowed to have an abortion without her parents knowledge, consulting no one but the abortionist who is going to profit from selling it to her, is utterly disgraceful. And to make it worse, the parents are left with the financial responsibility if the butcher injures their daughter.
I have a proposal: Whoever signs any kind of consent form or "maturity judgment" for an underage girl assumes all financial liability for any injury she suffers.
The support for this "maturity judgment" would evaporate in an instant if the abortionist had to pick up the tab for any damage he did.
Abortion advocates have come out of the woodwork in opposition to the proposed parental consent legislation.
Teenage girls aren't allowed to vote, drive a car, buy alcohol, visit a tanning salon, or get their ears pierced without parental involvement because we think they're not mature enough yet. But these immature girls magically become mature women when the decision involves abortion.
We have age-of-consent laws, based on the belief that girls below a certain age are not emotionally ready to decide whether or not they want to have sex. Then, we turn around and say they are emotionally mature enough to have an abortion. In other words, they're not sophisticated enough to decide whether they want to create a child, but they are sophisticated enough to decide whether to kill one!
Then, if the girl is injured, her parents are to foot the bill. Imagine that: It's none of your business if your daughter has an abortion, until she ends up in the intensive care unit. Then the hospital bill suddenly becomes your responsibility.
Is there any limit to the abortion industry's gall?
An abortion advocacy group is fighting the parental consent bill, on the grounds that with guidance from the concerned counselors at your neighborhood abortion mill, any teenager is mature enough to make an abortion decision.
Personally, I wouldn't trust them to decide if my daughter was mature enough to make a sandwich, much less have an abortion. Are you ready to trust them with your daughter?
A classic example of just how twisted the abortion industry's thought process is was seen in the August 18, 1991, Tampa (Florida) Tribune-Times. It told about a pro-life group starting in a local high school. When asked what she thought about this, a spokeswoman of the Florida Abortion Rights Action League said, "Obviously, I do not like this side spreading their viewpoint...at that age, kids are not experienced enough in critical thinking to be able to always distinguish the truth."
This statement was made by someone who says it's perfectly acceptable for kids to have abortions without their parents being involved. In other words, this woman believes that teenagers are not capable of deciding whether abortion is right or wrong, but are capable of deciding whether to have one or not!
The whole idea of allowing minor girls to get abortions without their parents even knowing about it represents a schizophrenic view of our children that was artificially created by a self-serving, greedy abortion industry for their own purposes. Pro-choice groups say we should treat kids as adults when they get pregnant and want abortions. But these same people will look you in the face and describe teenagers who don't abort as "babies having babies"! I don't understand what makes them adults when they have abortions, but babies when they don't. Maybe it's just a very predictable result of the abortion industry's recognition that teenagers giving birth are simply not as profitable as teenagers having abortions.
Members of an abortion advocacy group were out in force yesterday opposing the proposed parental notification law.
Money is the bottom line here. The abortion industry doesn't want parents involved because they know that would cause abortion rates (read that: abortion profits) to go down. The March 1991 American Journal of Public Health published the results of a new study on Minnesota's parental consent law. The authors looked at teenage pregnancy, birth, and abortion rates and found that all three went down markedly when parental consent legislation went into effect.
Proof that Planned Parenthood is aware of this phenomenon was found in a study published in the November/December 1990 issue of Family Planning Perspectives, published by their associates at the Alan Guttmacher Institute. Two of their findings on parental involvement legislation were that, "More liberal abortion policies increase the abortion rate of premaritally pregnant young women," and, "Greater restrictions (in laws) also lowers the probability of becoming pregnant," and "Our findings are generally consistent with those of two other studies."
It's pretty obvious that the only reason they continue to ignore their own data is because not doing so would be quite unprofitable.
Abortion fanatics were at the Capitol yesterday opposing the new parental consent law. They claimed that because some girls might be abused by their parents if they learned of the pregnancy, all teen pregnancies should be kept a secret from parents. The whole argument is absolutely asinine!
If a teenager commits suicide because he doesn't want to show his parents a bad report card, do we say the fault was the school system's requirement that parents see report cards? Do we then prohibit schools from sending out report cards to all parents because of one dysfunctional family?
Or how about DWI? If a child runs away, or even kills himself, to avoid facing his parents who are going to learn he was picked up for drunk driving, do we then pass laws denying all parents this information?
Where do we draw the line once we say parents don't have a right to know certain things about their kids? And if parents have a right to know some things but not others, who decides which things go in which category?
Of course, the real reason we tell parents about poor grades and drunk driving but not about abortions is because nobody gets money from a bad report card or a DWI citation. But they do make money from abortions. And that's the crux of the matter.
Pro-choicers say pro-lifers are insensitive to the needs of poor women who can't afford more children.
If you were pregnant and struggling to make ends meet, what would you want? At heart, you believe abortion is wrong. But you have hungry kids to think about.
How would you feel if somebody offered to help you or your spouse get a better job? If they offered to pay the doctor bills? If they helped you move into more affordable housing?
How would you feel if somebody helped you get on WIC and foodstamps to tide you over? If they drove you to the grocery store when your car broke down? If they fixed your car for free?
Would you think these people were insensitive to your needs?
How would you feel about somebody who told you they'd only help you if you could come up with $300 in cash? If the only help they offered you was an abortion? If you were injured in the abortion and wound up with additional medical expenses and lost several weeks of work as a result?
Would you think these people were insensitive to your needs?
As soon as you really look at what pro-lifers and pro-choicers do for pregnant women, the whole "insensitivity" argument falls to the ground.