Abortion ruling

[Ronni]

Hey everyone I copied this from another group I am involved in.
Thought some of you may like to read it---Ronni

From The Associated Press, 12/29/03:
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-parental-notice,0,6588582.story?coll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines

Judge: N.H. Abortion Law Unconstitutional

CONCORD, N.H. --

A federal judge on Monday declared a New Hampshire law that would
require parental notice before a minor could get an abortion to be
unconstitutional.

The ruling came two days before the law was to have taken effect.

A brief online notice did not give U.S. District Judge Joseph
DiClerico's reasoning for the ruling.

Opponents had argued the law was unconstitutional for reasons
including the lack of an exception to protect the mother's health.

Attorney General Peter Heed had defended the law, saying judges had
enough leeway to grant exceptions to make the law constitutional.

The law requires minors to notify a parent 48 hours before getting an
abortion or, as an alternative, get permission from a judge.

"We won," said Martin Honigberg, one of several lawyers for Planned
Parenthood of Northern New England, which along with other opponents
had sued to block the law.

Republican Gov. Craig Benson, a strong supporter of the law, and
Republican legislative leaders had no immediate comment on the judge's
ruling Monday.

Similar laws have been struck down in other states.

This summer, the Florida Supreme Court struck down a version in that
state, saying the law violated privacy rights guaranteed by the state
Constitution.

A federal appeals court in Denver last year ruled that a similar
Colorado law was unconstitutional because it provided no exceptions
for health emergencies.

[Bob Whiteside]

"Ronni" > wrote in message
...
>
> Hey everyone I copied this from another group I am involved in.
> Thought some of you may like to read it---Ronni

This ruling has become the way the courts deal with abortions for minors. A
minor child can get an abortion without parental consent, but can't bring an
aspirin to school without parental consent allowing the school nurse to
administer the aspirin dose.

[Bob Whiteside]

"Ronni" > wrote in message
...
>
> Hey everyone I copied this from another group I am involved in.
> Thought some of you may like to read it---Ronni

This ruling has become the way the courts deal with abortions for minors. A
minor child can get an abortion without parental consent, but can't bring an
aspirin to school without parental consent allowing the school nurse to
administer the aspirin dose.

[Mel Gamble]

In spite of the obvious extension of the same logic...

Bob Whiteside wrote:
>
> "Ronni" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Hey everyone I copied this from another group I am involved in.
> > Thought some of you may like to read it---Ronni
>
> This ruling has become the way the courts deal with abortions for minors. A
> minor child can get an abortion without parental consent, but can't bring an
> aspirin to school without parental consent allowing the school nurse to
> administer the aspirin dose.

....which would absolve parents of responsibility for their children's
health. I wonder if there are any other areas where children are
allowed to make their own medical decisions...probably not.

Mel Gamble

[Mel Gamble]

In spite of the obvious extension of the same logic...

Bob Whiteside wrote:
>
> "Ronni" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Hey everyone I copied this from another group I am involved in.
> > Thought some of you may like to read it---Ronni
>
> This ruling has become the way the courts deal with abortions for minors. A
> minor child can get an abortion without parental consent, but can't bring an
> aspirin to school without parental consent allowing the school nurse to
> administer the aspirin dose.

....which would absolve parents of responsibility for their children's
health. I wonder if there are any other areas where children are
allowed to make their own medical decisions...probably not.

Mel Gamble

[Kenneth S.]

Bob Whiteside wrote:
>
> "Ronni" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Hey everyone I copied this from another group I am involved in.
> > Thought some of you may like to read it---Ronni
>
> This ruling has become the way the courts deal with abortions for minors. A
> minor child can get an abortion without parental consent, but can't bring an
> aspirin to school without parental consent allowing the school nurse to
> administer the aspirin dose.


If one could abstract from the huge moral issues involved in abortion,
it is really astounding to see the way in which decisions are made on
the issue by politicians in the U.S., and by judges (who are now little
more than a subspecies of politician).

Aside altogether from the moral question of whether abortion involves
killing a child, there is no LOGIC in these decisions. As Bob points
out above, in some cases a minor child can't bring an aspirin to school
without permission, but she can get an abortion without parental
knowledge. Similarly, she may be able to get birth control advice
without the parents knowing about it.

And now a woman in Oklahoma is being charged with a double murder
because she killed a mother and a viable fetus. However, if the mother
had killed the fetus, many states would simply say the mother was
exercising her right to choose. Furthermore, the fanatical pro-abortion
lobby wants to ensure that women are able to use the repellant partial
birth abortion procedure to kill children who are just about to be born.

What does all this tell us? The major thing is that, of course, this
is not about logic or principle. It's about getting the "right"
decision. The most contorted and weird explanations are used to ensure
the "right" outcome, which is that -- regardless of the effects on any
other parties -- women must have as many options as possible. And women
is interpreted as including minor girls.

Imagine if a Martian landed in New Hampshire, and one of the locals
tried to explain to him (or her) what transpires in U.S. legislatures
and courts when the subject of abortion comes up. The best one could do
would be to say that the objective is to give women as many "rights" as
possible -- and perhaps to explain that, on earth, pandering to women
always takes priority over any interests that men and children may have
in these matters. Perhaps they order things more rationally on Mars.

[Kenneth S.]

Bob Whiteside wrote:
>
> "Ronni" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Hey everyone I copied this from another group I am involved in.
> > Thought some of you may like to read it---Ronni
>
> This ruling has become the way the courts deal with abortions for minors. A
> minor child can get an abortion without parental consent, but can't bring an
> aspirin to school without parental consent allowing the school nurse to
> administer the aspirin dose.


If one could abstract from the huge moral issues involved in abortion,
it is really astounding to see the way in which decisions are made on
the issue by politicians in the U.S., and by judges (who are now little
more than a subspecies of politician).

Aside altogether from the moral question of whether abortion involves
killing a child, there is no LOGIC in these decisions. As Bob points
out above, in some cases a minor child can't bring an aspirin to school
without permission, but she can get an abortion without parental
knowledge. Similarly, she may be able to get birth control advice
without the parents knowing about it.

And now a woman in Oklahoma is being charged with a double murder
because she killed a mother and a viable fetus. However, if the mother
had killed the fetus, many states would simply say the mother was
exercising her right to choose. Furthermore, the fanatical pro-abortion
lobby wants to ensure that women are able to use the repellant partial
birth abortion procedure to kill children who are just about to be born.

What does all this tell us? The major thing is that, of course, this
is not about logic or principle. It's about getting the "right"
decision. The most contorted and weird explanations are used to ensure
the "right" outcome, which is that -- regardless of the effects on any
other parties -- women must have as many options as possible. And women
is interpreted as including minor girls.

Imagine if a Martian landed in New Hampshire, and one of the locals
tried to explain to him (or her) what transpires in U.S. legislatures
and courts when the subject of abortion comes up. The best one could do
would be to say that the objective is to give women as many "rights" as
possible -- and perhaps to explain that, on earth, pandering to women
always takes priority over any interests that men and children may have
in these matters. Perhaps they order things more rationally on Mars.

[Ronni]

Ya know, I just thought of something about this.
After reading what you all wrote--about is there any other
medical condition where a child can make their own
decision, and about taking an aspirin to school.

Here goes:

Assuming a child--lets say 15-doesn't have her own money....
assuming that mom or dad have to sign for the insurance (as I
do for my children)---how in the heck do young women get
these abortions in the first place without parental knowledge?
I am assuming that an abortion is expensive...I am sure it is.
I don't really understand how they could do this without
parental knowledge...regardless of any law that has been
imposed.

--Ronni


"Ronni" > wrote in message
...
>
> Hey everyone I copied this from another group I am involved in.
> Thought some of you may like to read it---Ronni
>
> From The Associated Press, 12/29/03:
>
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-parental-notice,0,6588582.story?coll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines
>
> Judge: N.H. Abortion Law Unconstitutional
>
> CONCORD, N.H. --
>
> A federal judge on Monday declared a New Hampshire law that would
> require parental notice before a minor could get an abortion to be
> unconstitutional.
>
> The ruling came two days before the law was to have taken effect.
>
> A brief online notice did not give U.S. District Judge Joseph
> DiClerico's reasoning for the ruling.
>
> Opponents had argued the law was unconstitutional for reasons
> including the lack of an exception to protect the mother's health.
>
> Attorney General Peter Heed had defended the law, saying judges had
> enough leeway to grant exceptions to make the law constitutional.
>
> The law requires minors to notify a parent 48 hours before getting an
> abortion or, as an alternative, get permission from a judge.
>
> "We won," said Martin Honigberg, one of several lawyers for Planned
> Parenthood of Northern New England, which along with other opponents
> had sued to block the law.
>
> Republican Gov. Craig Benson, a strong supporter of the law, and
> Republican legislative leaders had no immediate comment on the judge's
> ruling Monday.
>
> Similar laws have been struck down in other states.
>
> This summer, the Florida Supreme Court struck down a version in that
> state, saying the law violated privacy rights guaranteed by the state
> Constitution.
>
> A federal appeals court in Denver last year ruled that a similar
> Colorado law was unconstitutional because it provided no exceptions
> for health emergencies.
>
>

[Ronni]

Ya know, I just thought of something about this.
After reading what you all wrote--about is there any other
medical condition where a child can make their own
decision, and about taking an aspirin to school.

Here goes:

Assuming a child--lets say 15-doesn't have her own money....
assuming that mom or dad have to sign for the insurance (as I
do for my children)---how in the heck do young women get
these abortions in the first place without parental knowledge?
I am assuming that an abortion is expensive...I am sure it is.
I don't really understand how they could do this without
parental knowledge...regardless of any law that has been
imposed.

--Ronni


"Ronni" > wrote in message
...
>
> Hey everyone I copied this from another group I am involved in.
> Thought some of you may like to read it---Ronni
>
> From The Associated Press, 12/29/03:
>
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-parental-notice,0,6588582.story?coll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines
>
> Judge: N.H. Abortion Law Unconstitutional
>
> CONCORD, N.H. --
>
> A federal judge on Monday declared a New Hampshire law that would
> require parental notice before a minor could get an abortion to be
> unconstitutional.
>
> The ruling came two days before the law was to have taken effect.
>
> A brief online notice did not give U.S. District Judge Joseph
> DiClerico's reasoning for the ruling.
>
> Opponents had argued the law was unconstitutional for reasons
> including the lack of an exception to protect the mother's health.
>
> Attorney General Peter Heed had defended the law, saying judges had
> enough leeway to grant exceptions to make the law constitutional.
>
> The law requires minors to notify a parent 48 hours before getting an
> abortion or, as an alternative, get permission from a judge.
>
> "We won," said Martin Honigberg, one of several lawyers for Planned
> Parenthood of Northern New England, which along with other opponents
> had sued to block the law.
>
> Republican Gov. Craig Benson, a strong supporter of the law, and
> Republican legislative leaders had no immediate comment on the judge's
> ruling Monday.
>
> Similar laws have been struck down in other states.
>
> This summer, the Florida Supreme Court struck down a version in that
> state, saying the law violated privacy rights guaranteed by the state
> Constitution.
>
> A federal appeals court in Denver last year ruled that a similar
> Colorado law was unconstitutional because it provided no exceptions
> for health emergencies.
>
>

[Robert A. Fink, M. D.]

"Ronni" > wrote:

>Assuming a child--lets say 15-doesn't have her own money....
>assuming that mom or dad have to sign for the insurance (as I
>do for my children)---how in the heck do young women get
>these abortions in the first place without parental knowledge?
>I am assuming that an abortion is expensive...I am sure it is.
>I don't really understand how they could do this without
>parental knowled


Abortions are not that expensive, especially if they are obtained in
taxpayer-funded clinics. Probably not much more than a high-quality
boom box.....

Best,

Bob


Robert A. Fink, M.D., FACS, P. C.
2500 Milvia Street Suite 222
Berkeley, California 94704-2636 USA
Telephone: 510-849-2555
FAX: 510-849-2557
<http://www.rafink.com>

"Ex Tristitia Virtus"

[Robert A. Fink, M. D.]

"Ronni" > wrote:

>Assuming a child--lets say 15-doesn't have her own money....
>assuming that mom or dad have to sign for the insurance (as I
>do for my children)---how in the heck do young women get
>these abortions in the first place without parental knowledge?
>I am assuming that an abortion is expensive...I am sure it is.
>I don't really understand how they could do this without
>parental knowled


Abortions are not that expensive, especially if they are obtained in
taxpayer-funded clinics. Probably not much more than a high-quality
boom box.....

Best,

Bob


Robert A. Fink, M.D., FACS, P. C.
2500 Milvia Street Suite 222
Berkeley, California 94704-2636 USA
Telephone: 510-849-2555
FAX: 510-849-2557
<http://www.rafink.com>

"Ex Tristitia Virtus"

[Phil #3]

The power, then, that parents have over their children arises from that duty
which is incumbent on them, to take care of their offspring during the
imperfect state of childhood. To inform the mind, and govern the actions of
their yet ignorant nonage, till reason shall take its place and ease them of
that trouble, is what the children want, and the parents are bound
.. -John Locke
Phil #3

"Kenneth S." > wrote in message
...
> Bob Whiteside wrote:
> >
> > "Ronni" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Hey everyone I copied this from another group I am involved in.
> > > Thought some of you may like to read it---Ronni
> >
> > This ruling has become the way the courts deal with abortions for
minors. A
> > minor child can get an abortion without parental consent, but can't
bring an
> > aspirin to school without parental consent allowing the school nurse to
> > administer the aspirin dose.
>
>
> If one could abstract from the huge moral issues involved in abortion,
> it is really astounding to see the way in which decisions are made on
> the issue by politicians in the U.S., and by judges (who are now little
> more than a subspecies of politician).
>
> Aside altogether from the moral question of whether abortion involves
> killing a child, there is no LOGIC in these decisions. As Bob points
> out above, in some cases a minor child can't bring an aspirin to school
> without permission, but she can get an abortion without parental
> knowledge. Similarly, she may be able to get birth control advice
> without the parents knowing about it.
>
> And now a woman in Oklahoma is being charged with a double murder
> because she killed a mother and a viable fetus. However, if the mother
> had killed the fetus, many states would simply say the mother was
> exercising her right to choose. Furthermore, the fanatical pro-abortion
> lobby wants to ensure that women are able to use the repellant partial
> birth abortion procedure to kill children who are just about to be born.
>
> What does all this tell us? The major thing is that, of course, this
> is not about logic or principle. It's about getting the "right"
> decision. The most contorted and weird explanations are used to ensure
> the "right" outcome, which is that -- regardless of the effects on any
> other parties -- women must have as many options as possible. And women
> is interpreted as including minor girls.
>
> Imagine if a Martian landed in New Hampshire, and one of the locals
> tried to explain to him (or her) what transpires in U.S. legislatures
> and courts when the subject of abortion comes up. The best one could do
> would be to say that the objective is to give women as many "rights" as
> possible -- and perhaps to explain that, on earth, pandering to women
> always takes priority over any interests that men and children may have
> in these matters. Perhaps they order things more rationally on Mars.

[Phil #3]

The power, then, that parents have over their children arises from that duty
which is incumbent on them, to take care of their offspring during the
imperfect state of childhood. To inform the mind, and govern the actions of
their yet ignorant nonage, till reason shall take its place and ease them of
that trouble, is what the children want, and the parents are bound
.. -John Locke
Phil #3

"Kenneth S." > wrote in message
...
> Bob Whiteside wrote:
> >
> > "Ronni" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Hey everyone I copied this from another group I am involved in.
> > > Thought some of you may like to read it---Ronni
> >
> > This ruling has become the way the courts deal with abortions for
minors. A
> > minor child can get an abortion without parental consent, but can't
bring an
> > aspirin to school without parental consent allowing the school nurse to
> > administer the aspirin dose.
>
>
> If one could abstract from the huge moral issues involved in abortion,
> it is really astounding to see the way in which decisions are made on
> the issue by politicians in the U.S., and by judges (who are now little
> more than a subspecies of politician).
>
> Aside altogether from the moral question of whether abortion involves
> killing a child, there is no LOGIC in these decisions. As Bob points
> out above, in some cases a minor child can't bring an aspirin to school
> without permission, but she can get an abortion without parental
> knowledge. Similarly, she may be able to get birth control advice
> without the parents knowing about it.
>
> And now a woman in Oklahoma is being charged with a double murder
> because she killed a mother and a viable fetus. However, if the mother
> had killed the fetus, many states would simply say the mother was
> exercising her right to choose. Furthermore, the fanatical pro-abortion
> lobby wants to ensure that women are able to use the repellant partial
> birth abortion procedure to kill children who are just about to be born.
>
> What does all this tell us? The major thing is that, of course, this
> is not about logic or principle. It's about getting the "right"
> decision. The most contorted and weird explanations are used to ensure
> the "right" outcome, which is that -- regardless of the effects on any
> other parties -- women must have as many options as possible. And women
> is interpreted as including minor girls.
>
> Imagine if a Martian landed in New Hampshire, and one of the locals
> tried to explain to him (or her) what transpires in U.S. legislatures
> and courts when the subject of abortion comes up. The best one could do
> would be to say that the objective is to give women as many "rights" as
> possible -- and perhaps to explain that, on earth, pandering to women
> always takes priority over any interests that men and children may have
> in these matters. Perhaps they order things more rationally on Mars.