|
|
|
Article
Last Updated: 9/04/2005 07:30 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
Prop. 73 opponents protecting
abortion |
|
Reporter
Editor: |
|
|
|
|
|
Over the past few
weeks I have seen several letters opposing Proposition 73, and they all
have two things in common. First, the letters were carefully crafted to
avoid even stating what Proposition 73 addresses, and, secondly, they
attempted to sway opinion by creating a sense that passage of the
proposition would cause a grave "danger to our daughters."
Sounds like
pro-abortion groups have distributed their talking points from which these
letter writers will not stray. The truth, however, must be stated. As the
law now stands, a minor child possibly as young as 12 years old, may be taken to an abortion clinic by a friend, a
teacher, a boyfriend or other interested party, without even the knowledge
or consent of her parents. It is absolutely astounding to me that this
same minor child may not be given an aspirin at school, go on a field
trip, or even have her ears pierced without written parental consent.
Whether a person agrees with the practice of abortion or not, it seems
crazy to me that a 12-year-old girl can have a potentially
life-threatening medical procedure performed on her without her parents
even knowing about it. It also should be
noted that the abortionist has no access to the medical records of the
minor child, which may contain pertinent information relating to her
medical history. Furthermore, who becomes responsible when that same girl
hemorrhages the day after her abortion or when she is plunged into a state
of depression following this procedure? It's the parents.
I also would like to
know how a young teen makes that type of decision on her
own. If a 15-year-old girl has been impregnated by a 21-year-old
man, is it reasonable to assume she will make an informed and independent
decision? Clearly, the underlying goal of Proposition 73 opponents is to
protect abortion at all costs, no matter who suffers.
I urge all citizens to
research this issue, as opponents have continued to rely on the tried and
true scare tactic of coercion by fear. They ask, "What if the pregnant
girl has an abusive parent or was sexually assaulted and doesn't feel like
she can go to her parents with the news of her pregnancy?" Or they will
state, "She'll be in even more danger if her parents find out."
Proposition 73
actually will provide relief for the very small percentage of girls who
find themselves in this position. The inclusion of a "judicial bypass"
will enable that individual to obtain the abortion without parental
notification. During this process, the court can review the dangerous
factors facing a young girl. If she has been the victim of sexual abuse,
whether it is rape, incest or statutory rape, the judge will be able to
address the situation. As it is now, without Proposition 73, the girl is
simply released back into the nightmare from which she came. She is given
the abortion, returned to her abusive home or returned to a sexual
relationship with an adult male, and no one will know.
The only real reason
this proposition is so heavily opposed is so that the practice of abortion
can continue unabated, with no restrictions and at all costs. Where will
we, the citizens of Dana D. Fought,
|
|
|
