Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Morning Shorts
Next Post: Smoking ban edges closer to passage
Posted in:
A parental notification of abortion bill came up short in the House yesterday, scoring just 55 votes of the 60 needed.
Favored by abortion-rights groups, the initiative that failed 55-62 was designed to broaden the pool of adults that pregnant girls could contact to fulfill a dormant 1995 parental-notification law.
That law, which is before a federal court and could soon be enforced, requires females under 18 to notify an adult relative or receive approval from a judge. The legislation voted on Thursday would have allowed minors in dysfunctional families to notify an aunt or uncle or meet with a health professional instead.
“This is not a referendum on abortion,” said Rep. John Fritchey, the bill’s lead sponsor. “It is a referendum on protecting the health and safety of young women.”
There was lots of heated debate…
“It’s really irresponsible for people on the other side to characterize any of us as pro-abortion,†said state Rep. Rosemary Mulligan, a Des Plaines Republican who voted for the plan. “That’s not where we’re going with this. What we want to do is protect young women. We want to protect them from going to the wrong place if they do seek an abortion.â€
Critics argued the proposal didn’t do enough to help young girls in what could be one of the most important decisions they’ll ever make. They also said teenagers should have a compelling reason, such as incest or other dangers, for wanting to go around telling their parents, something more than embarrassment or fear of parental retribution.
“I’m her father … and I should know about it,†said state Rep. Robert Molaro, a Chicago Democrat and the father of three teen daughters, who voted against the plan.
And also lots of charges and counter-charges from both sides, including claims of death threats…
Opponents suggested Fritchey was trying to torpedo any notification law by leaving out language that lets courts rule part of the law unconstitutional without striking down the whole measure. Omitting that language could mean that any small legal flaw would nullify the entire law.
Fritchey said working on the measure was the “worst experience” of his legislative career. He said the proposal inspired people to lie, spew hatred and even make death threats.
From Lee Newspapers…
All central Illinois lawmakers voted against the legislation… All Southern Illinois lawmakers voted against the legislation.
Thoughts?
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Apr 27, 07 @ 8:59 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Morning Shorts
Next Post: Smoking ban edges closer to passage
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Common sense loses again. No parental/adult notification for minors? How silly. Except for the rare extreme cases, this should be a slam dunk for common sense.
Comment by Wumpus Friday, Apr 27, 07 @ 9:00 am
All central Illinois lawmakers voted against the legislation… All Southern Illinois lawmakers voted against the legislation.
Maybe the first sign of “payback” on electric rates? I have to think this is considered a “Chicago thing” downstate.
characterize any of us as pro-abortion,†said state Rep. Rosemary Mulligan
Pegging the irony meter, aren’t we?
Comment by Pat Collins Friday, Apr 27, 07 @ 9:11 am
Correction - There will be parental notification later this year when the 1995 Parental Notification Act is finally enforced. Yesterdays vote was to prevent it from being watered down.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Apr 27, 07 @ 9:13 am
I think it’s incredibly sad that people can’t disagree on an issue without resorting to death threats.
Comment by Levois Friday, Apr 27, 07 @ 10:19 am
I doubt this law will ever actually be “enforced”! I can’t imagine the cops will have the time, in Cook County anyway, to actually bother with it. And the clinics are covered as long as the person holds ID that shows they are of age. If young adults are able to get fake IDs for drinking, who thinks they won’t for abortions? Abortions cost a bit more than a 6-pack too so the added expense of a fake ID isn’t going to hurt that much.
One of the reasons that girls are reluctant to inform their parents is becuase they fear their money being taken from them, which would leave them unable to acquire the abortion. Another is they fear the parents will refuse to fund their college or beat them or simply refuse to acknowledge their existence if they actually go through with the abortion (it’s notification, not permission). Perhaps if their parents had a better relationship with them, they wouldn’t have these fears and would voluntarily inform their parents.
Comment by cermak_rd Friday, Apr 27, 07 @ 10:44 am
I dunno, cermak; you paint a pretty bleak picture. Since when do parents not have a reign over their children’s lives? I’m not saying that parents should control their kids completely, but taking them out of the equation is fairly disrespectful. It’s no wonder that kids in the current generation are brats at school and awful at home. I would hate to be a teacher in any K-12 school and I would even hate to have an advocacy or child assistance job. Things like this just add to the poor approach that society in general takes towards our youth.
Comment by Team Sleep Friday, Apr 27, 07 @ 11:33 am
What Fritchey wanted to do was provide young women with some options. Unfortunately, some legislators did not feel it necessary to have the insight to do the same.
Comment by NI80 Friday, Apr 27, 07 @ 12:02 pm
John F. is an honorable man. I trust he believes that the functioning family is the most effective and efficient unit of governance in society — not perfect, but the best one available.
If abstinence is to stand a chance, there must be the right of the parent to be knowing about the behaviour of its unemancipated children.
All of the arguments placed against notification are straw men. IMHO this whole legislation is designed to strengthen Planned Parenthood and weaken the family. Following that will be an acceleration to a statist government as oposed to a free society.
Comment by Truthful James Friday, Apr 27, 07 @ 12:15 pm
Truthful,
Let me get this right — allowing minors to act on their own will lead to a BIGGER government?
According to you, less control over minors will lead to a less free society?
Is “up” actually “down” in your language?
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Apr 27, 07 @ 12:20 pm
You have got it, madam. It is either the State or it is the family. Come down on one side or the other. You opt for the former.
Every time we strip authority and responsibility away from the family, state (generic term for all formal levels of government) programs have to be put in place. Look at all the public functions a family performs within its boundaries — free of charge, I might add.
The key word, Madam, is “un-emancipated” minors.
Comment by Truthful James Friday, Apr 27, 07 @ 12:32 pm
How about the individual? The individual has no rights?
Under your system of “liberty” can a wife disobey a husband? Can a wife leave a husband? Who has final say: The “family” or the individual?
Nice concept of liberty you have there.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Apr 27, 07 @ 12:47 pm
Madam, what part of “un-emancipated minor” do you not understand?
What bloviating you go through with your ultra stupid questions in an effort to justify your position.
Of course adults may disobey each other (there may be consequences for the family if they do, but this will be — by adults taken into account.
Of course free people have the right to enter into a family relationship and leave.
What a high level of bluster you present.
One hopes that the family has had some effect on the actions of the individual members. Perhaps they might (oh, shock and dismay) might teach them a moral code strong enough to withstand societal pressures to conform elsewise. Upon emancipation, individuals should have been well armed to participate in society. (No, madam, I did not mean guns.)
Madam, nobody is in the least trying to take away your belief system. Neither should you expect anybody to conform with yours.
Comment by Truthful James Friday, Apr 27, 07 @ 1:26 pm
TJ,
Where you trying to make a point? Somehow it got lost in all the weird titles and insults. Let’s hope you don’t take it out on your child, Madam.
That being said, you appear to be focused on the “minor” issue.
According to you, then, a parent has the right to beat a child. According to you, a parent has a right to sell that child into slavery.
Is that really your point?
You don’t think the government has any role whatsoever in protecting minors?
We will have to disagree on that point, Madam.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Apr 27, 07 @ 1:41 pm
More bloviating as you extend the field of srgument beyond the rational.
I had heard — vaguely, I must say — that slavery was outlawed. Unless you are referring to adoption, which is legal.
As for child beating, there are legal boundaries, of course.
What could possibly be your point in bringing these blunderbusses to bear within the context of parental notification?
Comment by Truthful James Friday, Apr 27, 07 @ 1:48 pm
“Bloviating.”
Good word. You don’t hear that word very often. How creative. You must be well educated.
But I digress.
In any case, your most recent post confuses me.
Are you claiming now that The Government CAN regulate the interactions within a family, even when it concerns a minor?
That’s “statism”, isn’t it?
As you said, “Every time we strip authority and responsibility away from the family, state (generic term for all formal levels of government) programs have to be put in place.”
We can’t have that, can we?
I assume that you are going to march on Springfield to return the family to its proper place, Madam.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Apr 27, 07 @ 1:53 pm
The existing law is extremely weak, as is explained in links from my story on Illinoize and McHenry County Blog.
Comment by Cal Skinner Friday, Apr 27, 07 @ 2:17 pm
“I’m her father … and I should know about it,†said state Rep. Robert Molaro, a Chicago Democrat and the father of three teen daughters, who voted against the plan.
Color me amazed a Chicago Democrat voted against it. Maybe there is hope.
Comment by T.J. Friday, Apr 27, 07 @ 8:08 pm
If this is all about protecting the health and safety of the girl, why not notify her physician? Or maybe pass a law for calling the nurse at the clinic the next day even have a follow up visit? A physician would seem the logical choice to protect the health of the girl. If any of these were being discussed, I might be convinced this is about health and safety. I suspect that this is more about making sure the girl suffers appropriately for her sin than anything else.
Comment by NoGiftsPlease Saturday, Apr 28, 07 @ 6:35 pm