I'm not 100% certain on this one. Perhaps there's a lawyer out there to set me straight, but I think that once again the US Senate spent a goodly amount of high profile time on pandering rather than legislating. When we last left our august legislative body they were pissing around with a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning. Today they made a big show out of passing a law making it illegal for anyone but a parent to transport a minor across state lines for the purpose of obtaining an abortion.
From SaveRoe.com:
The Senate will vote today on the Child Custody Protection Act (CCPA), legislation that is dangerous for teens facing unintended pregnancies. The bill would make it a federal crime for any adult other than a parent to help a teen cross state lines to get abortion services. ItÂ’s a thinly veiled ploy to restrict choice, endangering teensÂ’ health and threatening jail time for grandmothers or aunts if they help teens.Now I may be a moron, but I think this bill might actually be redundant. I mean, a minor child cannot consent to anything by definition, yes? A parent is the only person that can grant consent for the minor, yes? So any person, taking any minor, over state lines for any purpose without the consent of the parent - that would be kidnapping wouldn't it? And isn't kidnapping already a felony?
Also, how often do we think this actually happens, and out of that many times how many of those are not actually to circumvent state notification laws but rather because it just makes sense to go to another state. I can envision a situation where someone in Nevada would want to go to California just because the nearest city is in Cali.
And what does any of this have to do with why my gas is $3/gal, or why our education system is a shambles, or oudependencece oforeigngn oil, or our degrading infrastructure, or monopolization of media, or the strongarming of copyright, or oh yeah our multi-fronted war on terror?
I really wish these people would quit the pissing and pandering and do some honest to goodness governing. These wedge issues never get anywhere and just upset people. And yes I know one persons "upset" is another persons "energized" and this will probably generate voters and campaign contributions, but please, I beg our legislators, please don't use the instrument of our governance as a campaign ad. There are more responsible vectors by which to deliver that message.
9 comments:
Thank you for writing this. I don't have much further to add to the discussion than what you've already said, but once again I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who wishes our governing bodies would actually govern.
And on a completely different topic, what do you think about Arlen "Magic Bullet" Spector's new legislation concerning Bush's signing statements? I can't figure him out... is he a good guy or a bad guy? Maybe he's really one of those guys doing his job, better or worse. I'd love other thoughts on that.
Gotta go.
Actually, a teenager over the age of 14 can consent to medical procedures on their own. This is intended to allow teens to take charge of their health, especially in the area of STDs, birth control and abortion. It can also speed up the process in a regular doctor's office setting because your parents don't have to be with you at every visit to get stuff done. It also makes it so that if you are old enough to decide that you need medical help, you can get it.
So while a minor child cannot enter into a contract, she can consent to the abortion (as far as the state's laws allow in general for minors and/or abortions) as a medical procedure. Also, she probably consented, within the eyes of the law, to the sex with her peer that got her pregnant in the first place.
I think this law is a bad idea, both as a Senatorial posturing thing and for the health and well-being of young women who are trying to take responsibility for their own futures. If they want to make it legal to help young women, then go for it, it is difficult enough as it is to get an abortion.
Oh, and can you tell how I feel about the issue?
> I mean, a minor child
> cannot consent to anything
> by definition, yes? A
> parent is the only person
> that can grant consent for
> the minor, yes?
Typically, yes. The previous commenter said that anyone 14 or older can legally consent to medical procedures. As a general statement, that is patently false. It may be true in whatever state she lives in but there are 49 other states out there, all of which have their own criteria for such things.
Here in Virginia, a 16-year-old is making headlines because both he and his parents are refusing chemotherapy for his cancer, opting instead for a non-traditional treatment. The state is suing to force the chemo on the kid. Now, the state could never do that to an adult, so obviously if a 16-year-old doesn't have the right to make medical deicsions for himself in Virginia, a 14-year-old certainly does not.
> So any
> person, taking any minor,
> over state lines for any
> purpose without the consent
> of the parent - that
> would be kidnapping wouldn't
> it?
Not necessarily. Say you leave your kid in the custody of your mother (the kid's grandmother) while you go on vacation. The grandmother has legal custody and there's no crime in grandma taking the kid across state lines while you're gone and it's certainly not a kidnapping if she does so. But this proposed law would make it a crime for grandma to take her granddaughter across the state line for an abortion, even if grandma was otherwise in legal custody of the girl in every other respect.
My question is, does this proposed law have an intent element to it? Or is it strict liability? In other words, do you have to know you're helping a minor cross state lines to get an abortion for criminal liability to apply? If not-- if it's a strict liability crime-- then a Greyhound bus driver could be charged for transporting a girl who buys an out-of-state bus ticket to get an abortion.
I should know better than to reply to anything when Blake gets involved, but I'll take my chances.
Perhaps the 14 year old consent thing only applies to seeking medical care, and not to the level of care that could be considered child endangerment. Many teen clinics tell kids that they don't need their parents permission or even for them to know that they are there, which tells me that at some level, teens are able to give consent.
Maybe it is that consent for care is able to be given by a teen, but refusal of care requires a parent? At which point, the 16yo who is refusing chemo with his parents support becomes something that the state *could* get involved in because it becomes an issue of the parents' choice.
At this, I'm stepping back.
Age of consent varies from state to state and it varies depending on the situation. Some states have different age limits for sex, marriage, mental health-related care or services and reproductive health services.
Good point on the intent requirements. Since it's a criminal statute, it would seem likely that it would have an intent element, although statutory rape doesn't always require intent or even knowledge that the person was underage.
Dick Durbin (yay Illinois!) stalled the bill on a procedural point. Also, there are two different versions (House and Senate) so it won't go to Dubya till they reconcile it.
I am continually frustrated and amazed that this country is so frickin' concerned about what happens to women's reproductive organs and is so grabby when it comes to women's bodies. I'd like to see what would happen if the Congress tried to require consents and permissions and notifications for men who wanted Viagra or required them to submit to various psychological counseling and tests in order to have a vasectomy. Or if insurance companies refused to pay for the Viagra and other 'aids.' That would be really interesting.
When things like this come up, it really makes it clear that very, very little separates certain factions in this country from the Taliban and that ilk.
> When things like
> this come up, it really
> makes it clear that
> very, very little
> separates certain factions
> in this country from the
> Taliban and that ilk.
You have some good points about the disparity of treatment between men and women in this country when it comes to reproductive rights but there's absolutely no sane comparison to Taliban at work here. Last time I checked, the state doesn't sanction the torture and public execution of women for learning how to read or having the bad luck to be raped.
What goes on in this country is so far removed from the horrific brutality inflicted on women by those Islamo-fascists that it insults those who have had to endure it to have their suffering compared with something so relatively minor.
I get similarly annoyed when partisans on both sides of the political spectrum cavalierly throw around the terms "Nazi" and "fascist" to describe their opponents' politics. Try living under a real fascist regime sometime and then get back to me on exactly how either the Republicans or the Democrats compare.
The mentality--the (in my opinion) extreme viewpoints and the unfathomable conviction that God speaks to and through them--is what is similar. The implementation of those convictions is different.
I would point out that it is only in the last twenty years or so that marital rape has been truly recognized and treated as a crime. It wasn't until Farrah Fawcett burnt that bed that husbands really had to worry about any consequences from beating their wives and children. And yet we still have miles to go in changing attitudes and getting the police, the public and the justice system to recognize that perpetrators of those crimes don't get a pass because happened within a marriage.
Your point--that it's not so bad here as there--is simplistic.
It's not so bad here as there--well then when is it 'bad enough' to worry about it? When is it 'bad enough' to merit genuine concern? Does it have to get 'that bad' here before we should look to what the reasons and motives behind this kind of legislation? My concern remains--these far out, faith-driven attitudes among extremists in the US and among islamic extremists 'over there' are far more alike than they are different.
I don't think it's minor that my rights to make private decisions about my body are legislated--either by the Congress or some Taliban-esque, backward-looking religious body. I think it's 'bad enough' right now.
Just because a woman's freedoms and privacy in this country are legislated away by Congress instead of fatwa'd (or decreed or whatever) by Sheik Whateverhisnameis doesn't mean it's less invasive or less offensive. It's bad.
Just because the extremists in this country manage to hide behind the marble facades of Congress and the White House does not make those extremists less dangerous, less depressing, less frightening or less oppressive than the retro-9th century versions playing out overseas.
How long am I supposed to wait until things here are 'bad enough' to point out these extreme attitudes about women and women's rights held by a fairly large number of our elected representatives? I think this legislation is bad enough. I think some of the people in Congress are bad enough. I think their ideas about women are bad enough--even just as bad as those views held by the Taliban and those of that stripe.
The proponents of this legislation and other similar laws hold extreme religious views that color their attitudes toward women. And they're not shy about professing it on the record. The CR for the last month is truly chilling.
The end result for women in the US may differ in degree from women 'over there,' but the intent and motivation are the same. Am I supposed to wait until the results are the same before I can say it's 'bad enough'? Or until a man decides it's 'bad enough'?
I never said you shouldn't worry about it, talk about it or do something about it. I merely took issue with this statement: "very, very little separates certain factions in this country from the Taliban and that ilk."
By all means, discuss the issue as much as you like, write your congressman and express your views both here and elsewhere. But don't pretend that the US Congress and the Taliban are the same when it comes to treatment of women. A vast gulf separates them. As I pointed out, the Congress isn't ordering women to remain uneducated and illiterate upon pain of death; the Congress isn't issuing orders to stone women should they have the temerity to show their faces in public; the Congress isn't validating the "honor" murder of rape victims.
The Taliban is truly evil. The Congress is inept, inefficient, sometimes corrupt, but it's not even in the same universe as the Taliban.
Blake-you are AWESOME. Most fun I've had in WEEKS posting comments back and forth! I look forward to more exchanges. Enlightening and provoking--better than the World Cup.
Last thing on this topic for me:
Part of my pro bono practice is representing women seeking asylum in this country based on threat of honor killing in their home countries. Although Congress isn't issuing orders or legislating the killing/rape of women to absolve some stain on a man's or a family's honor, we've lost more than a few cases. (Won 4, though!) I've seen my clients and their daughters deported to what is probably a horrible and certain death. Honor killing isn't recognized in this country as something that merits a grant of asylum. It's up to the judge. And if the judge just doesn't 'get' it, there isn't anything I can do. So when I add that oversight up with things like this ridiculous legislation and the last few CR's, I get really nervous about what's going on and where it could lead.
Post a Comment