Friday, April 29, 2005

All Right, It's ON

Warning - I may lapse into swear words in the post. Can't say how angry I'll get as I write.

There's a piece at Raw Story published on Wednesday. It talks about how Republicans re-wrote the descriptions of some Democrat-proposed amendments to a bill.
"At least five amendments to this bill, which were designed to protect the rights of family members and innocent bystanders from prosecution under this bill, were rewritten as amendments designed to protect sexual predators from prosecution and were then included in the committee report as if that was the original intent of the authors. The thing is, sexual predators were not mentioned anywhere in any of these amendments. I asked the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee about this deception yesterday afternoon at the Rules Committee hearing.

"And instead of decrying what I certainly expected would be revealed as a mistake by an overzealous staffer...The Chairman stood by those altered
amendment descriptions.

"He made very clear to the Rules Committee that the alterations to these members' amendments were deliberate. When pressed as to why his committee staff took such an unprecedented action, the Chairman immediately offered up his own anger over the manner in which Democrats had chosen to debate and oppose this unfortunate piece of legislation we have before us today.

"In fact...He said, and I quote..."You don't like what we wrote about your amendments, and we don't like what you said about our bill."
Here's what this bill does - it makes damn sure that a minor who wants an abortion needs parental consent. In case you don't know how I feel about this, I personally do not believe that an unborn fetus is yet a viable life, and aborting a pregnancy does not, in my mind amount to murder in any way, shape, or form. Killing babies? Murder. Killing unborn fetuses? Not Murder.

So, if I hear of a MINOR who has become pregnant that wishes to have an abortion, my usual first thought is, "Good for her. She understands that she's too young to take on that kind of responsibility". Because having a baby is a responsibility, and even if you intend on giving birth and then giving the baby away, I know all too well that hormones are a stone cold bitch, and the experience changes you forever. Aborting a pregnancy is not the easy way out, it takes a different kind of toll, but a newly made person isn't then around to also have to suffer from the mistake. Some people can handle having a child, some people can give a child away. Some people can't. People who know that they're in the "can't" category do not earn scorn from me, but rather respect for recognizing the facts.

There are people who disagree with me. I understand and respect that, too. I would never force someone to have an abortion. Not if it went against their morals, if their conscience couldn't allow it. But people who would take that right away, well that pisses me off.

That's how I read these types of laws, you see, as controls over kids who would defy parents. Why require parental permission if you weren't assuming that in most cases it would be denied? If that girl - and remember, we're talking about girls, here, not yet 18 - wants to terminate her pregnancy, that says to me that it does not go against her conscience to do so. Does it go against the beliefs of her parents? Perhaps. But guess what? Their little girl is pregnant. That probably goes against their beliefs, as well.

I'm going to set aside the rape scenarios, here, because I can't fathom the concept of someone who would want to force a girl to bear a child begotten by violence. Yes, I understand that even in that situation there are those who would choose to continue with the pregnancy and have the child, and that's their right. Those who would not choose that path need to be able to take the other route legally without molestation. Period.

Lets go back to the scenario where a female under the age of 18 has had sex willingly, and has become pregnant. This female realizes that she does not want to become a mother at this time. I feel that making her do so is an unbelievable imposition. In fact, imposition seems to mild of a word to use. Punishment? Damnation? Curse? Motherhood is serious, and forcing it on unwilling young females is recklessly cruel. My rights stop where yours begin, and so it follows that the rights of the parents to impose religious restrictions upon their daughters stops where her body being forced into becoming a breeding ground begins.

So these amendments that were proposed, they were intended to protect parties who aided a pregnant minor by transporting them across state lines for the purpose of getting an abortion - whether they're a knowing party or not. If the bill passes as written, a parent of one of these girls could sue the taxi driver who drove the girl to her destination. That is beyond ridiculous. There's no protection for grandparents, or siblings, or cousins. This is a ridiculous open door for the litigious.

And how, pray tell were these amendment descriptions re-written? They all mention that the amendments would protect sexual predators, when they would do NO SUCH THING! There's no mention of sexual predators in these amendments. These re-writes are bold-faced lies, created by people who favor the idea of a parent being able to force their child into childbearing.

I cannot stand this idea. If this bill passes, if it goes through, I want teenage girls who would be affected by it to know - you can go ahead and call me. I'll drive you across state lines, threat of a lawsuit or not. No one should force you to become a mother against your will, and I'm willing to stand up and fight for you. It's on.

No comments: