Abortion question

[cynatnite]

After reading through the plans the repukes have in an attempt to keep the loyalty of their fundie base, I saw something that got my attention.

The bill to curb abortions among minors has long been on Frist's list of legislative priorities. Legislation imposing penalties on anyone who helps a minor cross state lines to obtain an abortion won easy passage in House last year.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060415/ap_on_go_co/republicans_checklist

If a parent were to take their daughter across a state line, would they have to suffer these penalties for it?

I do find this attempt to penalize adults for helping teens across state lines in order to get an abortion offensive. This just struck me as odd especially if a parent were to do it.

on a side note: Don't read the entire article if you have just eaten...then again, you'll probably be sick anyway. It's that bad :puke:

[Mz Pip]

1. I wish Dems would stop dancing

around these creeps. I would like one Dem to stand up and ask Frist and other supporters of this crap what penalties they envision for parents taking their teenage daughters out of state for abortions.

"If you believe abortion is murder Senator Frist, then who will you charge with murder? The teenage girl? Her parents? Her Doctor? Do you support the death penalty? If you believe that abortion is murder then why DON'T you support the death penalty for the parents, the doctor? Are they not, in fact, guilty of murder?"

Hit them hard with their hypocrisy and watch the hemming and hawing and babbling and backtracking begin.

But the Dems won't do that. They play too nice.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[pat_k]

13. The reactionary right has little use for internally consistent beliefs

They believe they have a right to impose their moral absolutes on countless Americans who do no share them.

They believe it to be a heinous crime to end a pregnancy.

But, when they stop short of demanding the punishment they believe the "crime" deserves, they concede that they do not have a right to impose their moral absolutes on those who do not share them.

To make this a coherent and internally consistent belief system, they have to either (1) give up the notion that they have a right to impose their faction's moral absolutes on those who do not share them OR (2) seek to impose the punishment they believe the "crime" calls for.

Although (2) would bring internal consistency to this little set of beliefs, only (1) is consistent with our common contract, the Constitution for the United States of America.

[Igel]

2. The House version wouldn't affect the parent.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d108:1:./temp/~bdX6p8:@@@D&summ2=m&|/bss/d108query.html|
Summary:
"Child Custody Protection Act - Amends the Federal criminal code to prohibit transporting a minor across a State line to obtain an abortion and thereby abridging the right of a parent under a law in force in the State where the minor resides requiring parental involvement in a minor's abortion decision. Makes an exception if the abortion was necessary to save the life of the minor.

"Specifies that neither the minor transported nor her parent may be prosecuted or sued for a violation of this Act."

The Senate version was equivalent. But Thomas doesn't say it passed, just referred to committee.

[Mz Pip]

4. So what's the point

I would ask them? A law with no penalties if it is broken. Seems kind of silly especially if it is for MURDER!!!!!

Damn it Dams! Call these cretins on this crap.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[Igel]

8. Just as a guess:

To prevent non-parents from "abridging the right of a parent under a law in force in the State where the minor resides requiring parental involvement in a minor's abortion decision". I hate legalese.

I guess the proper inference is that if you take your neighbor's 17-year-old pregnant daughter across the state line and you live in a state where the minor must either notify her parents or get a court to act in loco parentis prior to an abortion you are infringing on the state-given right of the parent to know about the abortion.

I'm also guessing that there would be some penalty for you, the enabler and facilitator. But no penalty for the minor or the parent (if the parents didn't know, punishing them would be silly--true, they're to be omniscient, but give me a break; and if the parents did it, abridging their rights as parents to know isn't an issue).

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pat_k]

3. They are Pro-Prison. It is the Dem position that is Pro-Life.

As is so often the case, the real question -- "Should this nation be putting frightened women, their doctors, and anyone who tries to help them in prison?" -- has been buried in the rigidly established terms of the debate.

Talking about "choice" doesn't put the focus where it belongs, and the word "abortion" has become so emotionally loaded it should be completely stricken from the discussion.

It's time to get off the beaten path and put the focus on what they are actually calling for -- the incarceration of people. The following statement of the Democratic position that I'd like to see does just that.

Short Version

Everybody is pro-life. The difference is, Democrats don't want to put frightened women and their doctors in jail.

Long Version

We are all pro-life. The difference is, Democrats don't think that frightened women and their doctors should be thrown in jail.

Democrats believe women should never have to face such desperate circumstances -- no health care, poverty wages, abusive environment – that the only option they see is ending a pregnancy.

Democrats are fighting to give women more options, so they can be assured that when they bear a child, that child will be loved, protected, and provided for, even if they are unable to do so themselves.

Democrats are committed to true individual freedom, which cannot exist without freedom from fear of economic hardship.

Democrats know that economic security requires access to quality education and medical care. Democrats know that a vigorous private sector cannot exist if work is not properly valued.

Democrats are fighting for our right to equal access to healthcare. Democrats are fighting to guarantee a living wage for every American worker.

Democrats know how critical those first months are in the life of a child; they know paid family leave benefits all of us.

Democrats are fighting to make it possible for families to have confidence they will be able to give their children, and their children's children, the life they deserve.

Democrats know that private industry can only flourish and create prosperity for all when the power of the people to protect their interests is embodied in strong public institutions.

We are all pro-life. The difference is that some of those who call themselves pro-life think throwing frightened women in jail is the solution. The threat of jail did not work decades ago and will not help now. Democrats know we can do better than that.

The difference between "their side" and ours has nothing to do with how much they value life, but when we allow them to commandeer the term "pro-life," we are conceding to their propaganda.

We need to ground our position in some basic truths and moral positions.

The first truth is that they want to throw frightened women and their doctors in jail. They are pro-prison.

The second truth is that being pro-prison has absolutely nothing to do with valuing human life, parenthood, or family.

Morality demands that we take responsibility for the consequences of our actions. It also demands that we do not violently impose our own moral absolutes on those who don't share them.

History tells us that tossing frightened women and their doctors into jail does absolutely nothing to stop a woman from doing whatever she feels she must-- even to risk her own life -- to defend her own mental health.

It is immoral to ignore the lessons of the past and advocate a policy with such awful consequences. (Women and doctors imprisoned, their skills locked away; families broken apart; lives cut short.)

Esteem for human life is the driving force behind the fight to minimize the conditions -- no health care, no job security, no home -- that make it impossible for many women to even contemplate taking a pregnancy to term. This fight reflects a belief that every human being has a right to be free from want and fear.

We value life and can (and should) embrace the pro-life label with pride. It is time to put an end to their monopoly on the term and the ideas it embodies.



See also http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/1

[BrklynLiberal]

5. Of course they are pro-prison. They make money building and maintaining

them. The more people in prison, the richer they get.
The more things they can make illegal the richer these guys get. The bottom line is ALWAYS $$$$$.

[pat_k]

9. It's time to break their monopoly on the "pro-life" label, and re-label. .

. . .them "pro-prison."

Many, many people from across the spectrum have a friend or family member who ended an unwelcome pregnancy. Those who belief they should impose their moral absolutes on others think "She shouldn't have done that. There outta be a law against it."

Oddly, they don't seem to see that "a law against it" means throwing women -- even someone they know -- in jail if that person is desperate enough to attempt to end a pregnancy regardless of the law.

In other words, most "Pro-Prison" people don't actually realize that they are "Pro-Prison." Labeling them correctly won't prompt them to change their belief that "it's bad; it shouldn't happen," but for many, transforming their quest to "save the unborn" into a quest to "throw frightened women and their doctors in jail" will take the wind out of their sails.

[BrklynLiberal]

15. Yes. Isn't this called "framing the debate"? We must take that away

from them.

[pat_k]

16. The term "framing" puts focus on "message marketability". . .

To me, rather than seeking to define new "frames" for our "messages," it is more healing to see our task as seeking to identify simple truths and moral positions that cut through the distortions that are so often inherent in the accepted terms of a given debate.

Lakeoff's insights into how our thinking and emotional reactions are shaped by metaphor are significant, and I'm delighted that his work is finally getting the attention it has long deserved ("Metaphors We Live By" was published back in the '80s, long before "Moral Politics" or "Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate").

Unfortunately, "framing" and "re-framing" are fast becoming overused, and misused, buzzwords.

I'm sure people don't intend to shift the focus off morals and values when they talk about re-framing, but I'm seeing that happen. You may not be falling into the trap, but for many, the "Moral" part of "Moral Politics" and the "Know Your Values" part are getting lost as they focus on how to "Frame the Debate."

Words shape thinking. We can avoid pitfalls if we stop to consider how new buzzwords may be shaping our discourse and thought.

As you point out, the former task can be defined as a form of the latter, but when we skip over the fact that we are talking about some basic truths here, we risk getting caught up in a world where "message" trumps meaning or reality.

The insights that come with understanding the emotional context we create with the language we use can help us boil things down to the basic truths that guide action. If the goal of analyzing the context or "frame" is to manipulate -- and that is what many seem to focus on -- we are in trouble.

[cynatnite]

6. WOW!!!!!!

I'm just gonna copy and paste that.

That was absolutely beautiful!

Thank You!

[pat_k]

11. Thanks! There's a variation in my DU journal. (posted last month)

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/1

I started promoting the "we are all pro-life" position during the presidential campaign. I'm always delighted when it resonates with others -- gives me more confidence that the idea has "legs" and could eventually get into the "mainstream" debate.

[alarimer]

10. "Vera Drake" ought to be required viewing

A chilling reminder of how things would be.

[pat_k]

12. I saw it for the first time just a few weeks ago.

I'm not sure why I missed it, perhaps just too caught up in the elections.

Not sure what channel I caught it on. Probably wasn't network, but one can hope.

[gglor]

7. I have lost my patience with this mass stupidity

How dare anyone legislate what a women does with her body.

It is a women's right to choose. If she chooses abortion it is between her and her conscience.

Pro or against abortion, birth control resembles nazism.

The nazi's prosecuted and enslaved women over the right to have a baby. They were purifying their race. Handicapped or imperfect humans were not allowed to have children....

Stop arguing pro life verses pro choice. The right or wrong is up to the women.