Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The fugitive girl act

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 » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
donsu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 11:30 AM
Original message
The fugitive girl act

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1148.shtml




Do you remember the Fugitive Slave Act? It criminalized not only slaves who'd escaped to non-slave states, but also anyone who helped them flee. That law has troubling echoes in a new law, passed by the Republican Senate and House, that will make it illegal to transport a girl from a state requiring parental consent to get an abortion in another one.

The Fugitive Slave Act forced individuals who did not believe in slavery to collaborate in maintaining it. In states that had banned slavery, it compelled law enforcement officials to return escaped slaves to their masters, and coerced ordinary citizens into supporting this process. It isolated slaves from outside assistance, by threatening to imprison anyone who would help them escape.

Isolation is also the goal of the benignly named Child Custody Protection Act, which will become law if the House and Senate work out their differences. It targets girls who already feel they cannot talk to their parents without risking disaster. It leaves them on their own, because those who might have tried to help them will face jail if they do. Whether a sister, an aunt, a grandmother, counselor, or friend, anyone could be imprisoned for intervening to help. Meanwhile, the same Senators who backed it voted down an amendment that would have increased support for programs offering contraception and sex education -- including abstinence education. Minors are also excluded from the FDA's recent ruling allowing non-prescription sales of the "Plan B" morning-after pill, so the goal seems to be less to prevent teen pregnancies than to punish them.

The House version goes further still, allowing parents to sue doctors who perform these out-of-state abortions. Both bills let the states with the harshest anti-abortion laws (and the least social support for women with children) control the actions of citizens in states with fewer restraints. They trample core federalist traditions, letting states with the most draconian laws impose their will on others. They even raise the prospect of similar federal or state laws prohibiting adult women from traveling to overcome state abortion bans-like a bill now pending in the Ohio House that bans abortion without exception, while making it illegal to transport or help women of any age to receive abortions in other states. This would seem to violate numerous judicial decisions affirming the right to travel and prohibiting one state from unilaterally extending its laws to another. But with Bush's recent court appointments, all sorts of longstanding precedents risk being subordinated to a hard-right ideology.

-snip-

the article ends with this:

The Fugitive Slave Act sought to isolate slaves through legal threats against their would-be emancipators, including those who'd help them once they'd reached so-called "free states." Escaped slaves were not even allowed to argue their story in court. The Child Custody Protection Act would erect similar walls around the lives of the young women it targets, silencing their voices and overriding their choices. In the name of honoring the primal community of the family, the act would isolate young women from all other possible supportive communities who might advise or help them to not have a child before they were ready. More than anything the law is about control. Not the reasonable control by which we as parents stop our children from touching a hot stove or running into the street, but a more insidious control by which we would force them to bear children when they're unwilling. A new generation of young women will have to live in the cage of this imposed choice for the rest of their lives. Their children will bear the burden of resentment. This new law now extends that cage throughout the country, and, by making criminals of those who would help, will require the rest of us to participate in maintaining it.
---------------------------------


there it is again - controlling the female

with the help of our Congress

the race of men need a smack down (along with the women who support this crap)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 11:51 AM
Response to Original message
1. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
donsu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. where did you get your stats? and


it's not women repressing women

evil is a religious word that I did not use

many more men are against free choice then not

I'll stick with saying that it is the race of men keeping women down

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kailassa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 11:53 AM
Response to Original message
2. Before long a woman will not be allowed to leave her house
without a man's permission.

These guys have watched too much slave-girl porn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pscot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 12:14 PM
Response to Original message
4. A new Congress
will make this go away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomWV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 12:14 PM
Response to Original message
5. Bill Number and Names of Conferees?
When I call my Representatives about a specific bill they usually want to know which one it is, as in what is the bill number? Then, once its been voted on in each house and goes to conference it is nice to know who the conferees are, its possible my Repreesentative might still have some effect on the bill if he or she happens to be one of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
walkon Donating Member (919 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Some Info
albeit from the "other side".

http://www.cwalac.org/article_364.shtml
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Der Blaue Engel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
6. Two words: Handmaid's Tale
I've been saying it for nearly six years, and am usually laughed at. Yet every day in this country, we get one step closer.

I won't be happy to be right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Der Blaue Engel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 12:56 PM
Response to Original message
8. Come on, people, vote this up!
This needs to be seen.

:kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emcguffie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 01:02 PM
Response to Original message
9. An R and a kick. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
immoderate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
10. Recommended -- except for smacking down men part.
A little harsh, doncha think?:shrug:

--IMM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarkTirade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 04:47 PM
Response to Original message
11. Just out of curiosity... these laws that force teens to go through their
parents or guardians to get an abortion/morning after pill/ect. ... do ANY of these laws have provisions for rape, incest, the possibility that perhaps one of said guardians is the one responsible for getting the girl pregnant, ect.?
That was something my government teacher actually pointed out to us when a similar bill was going through here in FL. That was the only law he ever came out and said to the class whether he was for or against something, if only because it lacked that provision. He didn't want to force his opinion on us either way for every other issue, but he felt he had to point out that lack of a provision there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OneBlueSky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-30-06 06:13 PM
Response to Original message
12. here's another one that includes a lot of overkill . . .
H.R. 4472: Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?tab=summary&bill=h109-4472

check out the list of things this legislation authorizes and/or requires . . .
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 Thu Apr 25th 2024, 04:58 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) 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