Defending the Truth

Maybe we ought to get one of the cable channels to set that up. It would probably make for some interesting "reality" TV.

"I'm aware that society pressures young girls into having sex because it doesn't teach them enough self respect. "Boys, either. boys need to know they shouldn't be climbing into bed and acting like that, either.

But they are too stupid to realize that they are going to become fathers if they do that. And then the dummies whine when the women they impregnated want to abort. then why did they sleep with someone who was pro-abortion? maybe these men should THINK and get to KNOW someone. Or God forbid, wait until marriage to have sex...

You are correct, that was a hole in my reasoning. Self-esteem for boys should not hinge on whether they can get laid.

However, the Court has also said that the government may regulate abortion in the 2nd/3rd trimesters, are not required to provide government funding for abortion, that parental consent can be required, and that anti-abortion protestors have their first amendment rights to protest. Hmmmm so it would seem that according to the article posted the so called war on women is actually other individuals exercising their SCOTUS approved constitutional rights.

dmk

Well, once again, as Confucious say:

"Man who go to bed alone and frustrated wake up with solution in hand."


And, Confucious also say:

"Wealthy man give wife grand piano. Wise man give wife upright organ."

No, these KKK tactics go far beyond individuals exercising their SCOTUS approved rights to attempting to interfere with others' SCOTUS approved rights. SCOTUS has stated that states may not put an "UNDUE BURDEN" on women seeking abortion.


Most ban abortion after 12 weeks of pregnancy. None explicitly protect heath care facilities from harassment or violence. ... and Louisiana and South Carolina both passed unconstitutional laws requiring a husband's consent for a married woman's abortion. ... Now, anti-abortion groups are strategizing ways to outlaw birth control and eliminate sex education....
Mississippi has passed so many laws governing what abortion clinics can and cannot do that it is virtually impossible to open a second clinic without breaking state law. Mississippi requires permission from both parents for women under 18, except in cases of incest. The state's conscience clause allows pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control. And earlier this year the Mississippi legislature passed a "trigger law," immediately making abortion illegal should Roe v. Wade be overturned. "

And in the same decision ruled that a 24-hour wait period was constitutional, and parnetal notification was constitutional. So obviously they are not undue burdens.

Roe v Wade established the trimester ruling, in which only during the 1st trimester is the decision for having an abortion between a woman and her doctor. Hmmm trimester, lets see, 40 divided by 3 (tri) equals 13. Hmmm only one state, South Carolina bans abortion after the 12th week, the state established 12 to err on the side of caution.

Of course the abortion laws do not address this issue, this is a property issue. It is illegal to vandalize a building, it is illegal to bomb a building, it is illegal to shoot at a building. Again, why enact new laws, when existing laws already enact protections.

And these provisions have been overturned.

Mississippi has determined that in order for abortions to be performed safely after the 1st trimester they must be done in a hospital or an ambulatory surgical facility. Come now, all you pro-choicers cry about women dying from back-alley abortions if they were made illegal. Are you to tell me you are okay with women dying from abortions performed in clinics. Well obviously the state of Mississippi is not.

Let's see a medical procedure and a minor, yep parental consent is required. Boo Hoo.

So choice is only for abortion, no one else can have a say. What crap, all states except Alaska, New Hampshire, Vermont and West Virginia allow doctors to refuse to perform abortions. Mississippi has extended this to include birth control.


Six states – Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota and South Dakota have these laws. They are legal and let the public know that if Roe v Wade is overturned this is what the law of the state will be. Perfectly within the boundaries of your undue burden. For this way women will know in advance what the law will be and not be placed in that undue burden.

dmk

Even if you believe parental notification laws are appropriate, requiring parental consent from both parents seems excessive and designed to place an UNDUE OBSTACLE in the path of a young woman. The fact is, however, that neither parental notification nor parental consent laws have the desired effect.
Bypassing Young Women's Abortion Rights | The American Prospect

"Especially since the Supreme Court signaled in Planned Parenthood v. Casey that it would give the states broad leeway to regulate abortion, there has been a proliferation of abortion regulations that, while not banning first trimester abortions, make them more difficult to obtain. Among the most popular of these are parental involvement laws, which require minors to either obtain the consent of or (in weaker versions) inform their parents before obtaining an abortion.

More than 30 states have such laws, although in the past year attempts to institute parental involvement legislation in California by referendum failed and the New Hampshire law that was challenged in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood for lacking a health exemption was repealed entirely by the legislature. A new study of parental involvement laws by Helena Silverstein, Girls on the Stand: How Courts Fail Pregnant Minors, suggests that it would be better if this recent trend against such laws were much more widespread.
Silverstein's book is an especially welcome addition because, rather than focusing on normative debates about abortion that almost anyone interested in the question is already familiar with, she focuses on how parental notification laws actually work on the ground....
Support for these laws is often more about the assumption that compromise on abortion is inherently desirable rather than arguments about what benefits will come from the legislation. Is there any evidence, for example, that the lack of abortion regulation makes the decisions of Canadian women less responsible? Whatever their merits in the abstract, in practice "centrist" abortion regulations do little but put up obstacles in the path of the most vulnerable women while not accomplishing any useful objective. Parental involvement laws -- which are largely superfluous for young women in good family situations and potentially dangerous for young women in bad situations -- are a case in point, especially since the safeguards intended to protect the latter don't work. Silverstein makes a careful, meticulous, and ultimately powerful case that even those who support the ends of parental involvement laws should reject them in practice."

Is abortion a medical procedure? Yes it is. It is that simple. For all medical procedures minors need the consent of their parents. I work in the medical field, we have had 17 years old come in to the ER during the Middle of the night because they were ill, our first step was contacting their parents for consent to treat them. Even in emergency situations, when a parent cannot be reached it requires two (2) doctors to override parental consent.

If a young girl wants her ears pierced, she needs her parents consent, if a girl wants a tattoo, again parental consent. I thought abortions were suppose to be safe, obviously another lie in the pro-choice movement.

Now, perhaps if you move to remove consent from all medical procedures for minors the argument would be more rationale, until you do, all you are doing is showing the pro-choice's desire to allow abortion unregulated for minors.

dmk