Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Saturday, September 30, 2006

Conrad, Dorgan Support Abortion For Kids Without Parental Notification

Ugh...

The Senate has gone home without sending the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act on. You’ll remember it passed this summer, but Harry Reid held it up from going to conference. The House passed another version this week, sent it on. Last night they failed to get cloture on it (to end the debate) — a number of Dems changed their votes to make that happen including Bayh, Carper, Conrad, Dorgan, Inouye, Kohl, Nelson (FL) and Salazar.

What this bill would have done is make it illegal to transport a child across a state line for an abortion without the consent of said child’s parents.

I fail to see how anybody who has even a modicum of respect for parental authority can stand against this bill. Minor children are the responsibility of their parents. In the absence of that responsibility (in the case of abuse, etc.) they are the responsibility of the state.

There is simply no scenario that can justify the transportation of a minor across state lines to avoid notifying the parents of an abortion.  Opponents of this legislation in the pro-abortion crowd would tell you that the law would require parental consent even in instances where the parent was abusive and/or even the incestuous parent of the unborn child.  That’s nonsense.  The court system/human services agencies already have all the power they need to remove children from homes where they are abused and/or molested.

And besides, if a child is pregnant from an abusive father (or even at risk of being abused simply because she’s pregnant) the proper course of action is not to spirit the kid across state lines for an abortion.  What does that solve?  The proper course of action is to report the abuse/molestation to the authorities.

But that logic escapes abortion advocates who are more interested in seeing young girls getting abortions than seeing them discuss this important, life-altering decision with their parents who might just convince them not to get an abortion.  This is the same reason why the pro-abortion crowd doesn’t want these young women seeing ultrasounds of their unborn children. It’s much easier to sell an abortion when you keep the young girl in the dark about her decision as much as possible.

Comments

So...let me get this straight: A kid can’t get a tattoo without parental approval or go to an “R” rated movie without an adult. A kid can’t buy cigarettes, or have a drink, or even stay up past the established curfew many communities now have installed. BUT - it’s okay to have an abortion (which means that the child has had sex - and quite possibly unlawful sex - or even that the child could have been abused) without notifying the parents.

Well, Im glad we have our priorities straight. Now, if you’ll excuse me I’m going to find a pillow to scream into.


Election ‘08 - We Are So Screwed

Pilgrim on September 30, 2006 at 09:38 am
Avatar for Dave

Should parents be able to force their children to have abortions? Should it require parental consent to have a pregnancy?

Dave on September 30, 2006 at 01:38 pm
Rob
Rob
17386 comments
Send a private message

The answer to both of your questions is “yes.”

Parents should have full control of their children.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on September 30, 2006 at 01:43 pm
Avatar for Dave

So if a child wants to have a pregnancy, but her parents refuse, you would punish the cab driver who took her out of the state to have her child? That’s sick!

Dave on September 30, 2006 at 01:48 pm
Rob
Rob
17386 comments
Send a private message

So if a child wants to have a pregnancy, but her parents refuse, you would punish the cab driver who took her out of the state to have her child? That’s sick!

The fact that abortions are currently legal is pretty sick, but a parent’s autonomy in raising his/her/their child is worth protecting.  It is not the cab driver’s place to make that decision.

And a cab driver can already be held liable for helping a runaway stay away from her parents.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on September 30, 2006 at 01:56 pm

This shows you how radical the pro-abortion crowd is and how deep in the pocket Conrad and Dorgan are to the liberal interests in Washington.


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on September 30, 2006 at 04:52 pm
Avatar for Anarchist Vegan: The Final Insult

Transporting kids accross state lines for abortions, I didn’t know postnatal abortion was legal, man that’s sick.

Anarchist Vegan: The Final Insult on September 30, 2006 at 05:31 pm
Avatar for Dave

This shows you how radical the pro-abortion crowd is and how deep in the pocket Conrad and Dorgan are to the liberal interests in Washington.

Of course, had they voted the other way on this issue, it would have been just another example of how Dorgan and Conrad always shift toward the center when the campaign season heats up.
Dave on September 30, 2006 at 05:38 pm

Yes, if they had done that, it would have, but they didn’t do that.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on September 30, 2006 at 06:46 pm
Avatar for polically nervous

Dru’s case went federal because she was taken over statelines. Abortion over statelines is equaly goulish.

Dorgan gets alot of facetime in news because of Dru’s case and she is dead. Why doesn’t he have an much interest in living babies?

It is SO ludicrous for the state of ND to be trying to get population lured back from other states, and then they have Dorgan and Conrad keep the doors open for abortions.

How is it that Dorgan and Conrad keep getting elected?

polically nervous on September 30, 2006 at 08:31 pm
Rob
Rob
17386 comments
Send a private message

PN, it’s because they have millions in out of state money they get from political connections in D.C. which they use to drown out challengers who have to rely on money they raise in ND.

They’re buying elections, basically, with their out of state money and all the federal money they bring in.  Some may say that the federal money coming in is a good thing, but I personally don’t think its good for North Dakota to be so dependent on it.  That money comes with strings attached, and the more of it we get the less sovereignty this state has.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on September 30, 2006 at 09:38 pm
Avatar for Dave

They’re buying elections, basically, with their out of state money and all the federal money they bring in.

I didn’t even get to vote last year, with all those damn commercials. Damn those politicians, always off allowing free people to make free decision!
Dave on September 30, 2006 at 10:00 pm
Rob
Rob
17386 comments
Send a private message

For better or worse, elections are lost and won based on money.  Conrad, Dorgan, etc. can spend millions drowning out everything their opposition has to say.

That’s why they’re winning.  IT sure as hell isn’t their policy choices.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on September 30, 2006 at 10:07 pm
Avatar for Dave

For better or worse, elections are lost and won based on money.

No, they’re won based on votes. Whichever candidate gets more, wins. If there’s a tie, though, you’re right: Money is the first tiebreaker. (Hot dog eating contest is second, followed by a coinflip.)

Although, since we get to make things up about elections, can I say “elections are lost and won based on looks”? That’d be a little more exciting… and equally untrue!

Dave on September 30, 2006 at 10:47 pm
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.