Monday, November 10, 2008

Abortions without parental notification

Presidential politics has dominated so much of the public attention lately, it’s almost hard to believe anything else has been happening. But while the world was focused on America’s historical, albeit, racist presidential campaign, Washington wasn’t the only place where hypocrisy reared its cruel head.

After all the votes were counted, it appeared that the country was still relatively conservative, especially on social issues. Nebraska voted to end affirmative action in state hiring practices. Arkansas voted to ban unmarried couples from adopting. California, Florida, and Arizona voters chose to ban same-sex marriage, making 30 states that ban same-sex marriage. Only two states allow same-sex marriage and a handful recognize civil unions or domestic partnerships.

The hottest race of the season was on this very question of same-sex marriage. Earlier this year, a court in California overturned an initiative from 2000 that defined marriage as between one man and one woman. Immediately, a campaign was organized, a Constitutional amendment was written, signatures were gathered, volunteers made calls, sent letters, blogged, and went door to door to gather support for Proposition 8, Prop 8 would succeed where its predecessor had failed.

Followthemoney.org reported that $73 Million was spent on this one campaign, making it the single largest race after the presidential campaign, and more than twice what was spent on Prop 8 than in the 24 states that voted on the issue in 2004. As of 10:08 p.m., November 9th, California’s Secretary of State wrote that the measure to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry was passing with 52.3% of the vote. There are still about 2.7 million votes to be counted, but observers are confident that the measure will pass.

Preventing gays from marrying and adopting may be a great success. The gays were stopped cold before they could erode the social fabric that holds Western civilization together. But wait, efforts to restrict abortion failed in South Dakota, Colorado, and California, and to say that Mr. Obama is pro-choice is kind of like saying the Pope is a kinda religious. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are no friends of the fetus either.

So, how can we celebrate the victory of stopping 18,000 consenting, adult couples from entering into a private, social contract with one another, when 94,602 unborn babies were aborted in California in 2005?


Another social issue was placed on the California ballot this year. Proposition 4 would have prevented physicians from performing abortions on girls under 18 until 48 hours after the parents had been notified. Most states require some sort of parental involvement before an abortion on a minor can be performed. California is not one of them. Prop 4 was the third time in four years that Californians were asked if parents should be involved when a minor gets an abortion. The measure was defeated 52.1 to 47.9.

Almost 90% of abortions are performed in the first 12 weeks. Roughly 19% are done for minors. In the first 56 days, RU-486 can be used. RU-486 is a drug that blocks progesterone and the embryo starves as the nutrient lining disintegrates. When drugs will not work, surgery is used and involves taking a long piece of metal with a knife-sharp loop, inserting it in to the woman’s uterus, and “dismembering the fetus.” The remains of the fetus, placenta, and uterine lining are then vacuumed out.

Supporters of Prop 8 included a “broad based coalition of California families, community leaders, religious leaders, pro-family organizations and individuals from all walks of life.” Their web site states that, “Passing Proposition 8 protects our children…”

And to protect our children, an amazing $2.6 million was raised in support of Proposition 4; almost half of what those in opposition raised and less than 1/10 of what was raised for Prop 8. One of the flyers for Prop 8 says, “Secures parental rights to teach children about relationships according to their own values and beliefs.” It talks about a “stable, flourishing, and loving society.” “The sanctity of marriage is worth defending and protecting.” “Proposition 8 protects our children.”

The NY Times wrote that,

The Rev. Joel Hunter, an evangelical pastor in Florida, said many religious conservatives felt more urgency about stopping same-sex marriage than about abortion, another hotly contested issue long locked in a stalemate.

“There is enough of the population that is alarmed at the general breakdown of the family, that has been so inundated with images of homosexual relationships in all of the media,” said Mr. Hunter, who gave the benediction at the Democratic National Convention this year, yet supported the same-sex marriage ban in his state. “It’s almost like it’s obligatory these days to have a homosexual couple in every TV show or every movie.”

Are they serious? What is more fundamental to protecting the family than protecting life? How can we protect our children if we don’t know that they’re having sex, let alone an abortion? How can we be appalled that at tiny-tiny minority wants to have the same rights, obligations, and recognition as the rest of us and then idly sit by as Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and the rest of the pro-abortion crowd promote abortion as fancy birth control and a abuse a woman’s right to choose. What happened to a person’s right to choose – not to have sex?

According to a January 2008 report from the Guttmacher Institute,

At current rates, about one in three American women will have had an abortion by the time she reaches age 45. Moreover, a broad cross section of U.S. women have abortions. 57% of women having abortions are in their 20s; 60% have one or more children; 86% are unmarried; 57% are economically disadvantaged; 88% live in a metropolitan area; and 78% report a religious affiliation [emphasis added]. No racial or ethnic group makes up a majority: 41% of women obtaining abortions are white non-Hispanic, 32% are black non-Hispanic, 20% are Hispanic and 7% are of other racial backgrounds.

In 2005, California experienced an abortion rate nearly 40% higher than the national average. And yet, people went door-to-door, raised tons of money, and acted in a bigoted and ignorant way towards others who simply wanted to be acknowledged.

Whether you agree with same-sex marriage or not, we have to prioritize our efforts. Gay marriage is an issue our culture is addressing right now, but we fired an entire political party over the deaths of several thousand soldiers in a conflict to bring stability to a volatile corner of the planet. How can we not rise up in revolution over the main stream acceptance of allowing a minor to abort her baby without parental involvement? How can we not scream from the tops of the roofs at the hypocrisy of protecting our children by teaching them bigotry and then not being there when they have surgery or take drugs? Prop 4 neither accepted nor rejected abortion. It said, young lady, this is a big decision, and your doctor must give your parents notification before performing this serious medical procedure.

Prop 8 is an empty victory.

Supporters of Proposition 8 did not defend the family or strengthen the social fabric of the nation. They chose the easy victory and failed to take adequate steps to try to defend life. And one of the most culpable groups for the failure of Prop 4 was the religious organizations that gave so generously to keep their definition of marriage sacred while being dramatically absent on Prop 4. Where were the letters from the pulpit urging their congregations to give generously of their time, their money, and their efforts? Where were their efforts to secures parental rights to teach children according to their own values and beliefs, to promote stable, flourishing, and loving society, and to protect our children?

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

You said it all... well probably not, but it was more than I was gonna say, and that works for me :)

JEREMY AND SARAHLYNN said...

Hi! My sister emailed your post to me.

Yes, some would expect that if Prop 8 supporters were so avid about protecting children and family, that they would also support Prop 4, the measure to notify parents in advance before their daughter has an abortion.

First of all, let's keep in mind that the Prop failed by a very close margin, 4 % points. So this tells us that many of the people that voted YES on 8 also voted YES on 4.

Second, while I would like to know as a parent if my daughter is going to have an abortion, there were some good arguments to vote NO in order to protect the minor who would be performing the abortion, such as from physical abuse or abandonment from parents.

Third, to me, changing the definition of marriage is a huge deal. It has everything to do with children and families and has far more reaching effects over time than I think abortion has. You didn't mention that domestic partnerships already were and are recognized in CA and these unions receive ALL of the same rights and benefits that married people have. So as you can see, it wasn't a fight about equality or being recognized, it was a debate about changing what marriage is and has been since the beginning of time. Marriage between a man and a woman has provided stability and structure to rearing children. To frustrate that is wrong, selfish, and risky to our children. (And, unfortunately, it was NOT an easy victory!)

By the way, did you know that France did a study on the 6 countries (and only 6) that have legalized gay marriage? On a bipartisan commission, France decided that they would not allow same-sex marriage because it put adult interests above the children's. France- of all countries- banned gay marriage in order to protect children!!

Fourth, girls that want an abortion (assuming they chose to have sex) are victims of not understanding the sacredness of intimacy and longterm relationships. They have failed to realize the importance and purpose of marriage. Protecting the definition of marriage protects children from the faulty views about sex. Saying that marriage is between a man and a woman maintains the belief that marriage is a union to share love with another person in order to create a family together. Saying that anyone can be married to anyone sends the message that marriage is not about children or families, it is about selfish desires.

Finally, to say that Prop 8 supporters are self-righteous, stupid, bigots, etc. because they didn't actively fight for Prop 4 is totally unfair and ignorant. They are entirely two separate issues. It's almost like saying that someone isn't Christian because they chose to volunteer at a community health center instead of volunteering at a soup kitchen.

Anonymous said...

Wow,Sarahlynn, you totally missed the point of what he was saying.
I'm honestly not sure its worth hashing through.
Propostion 8 was given a diproportionate amount of attention considering the issues. Lets see.... consenting adults making a decision to excercise their free agency... or minors, killing minors, and risking their health in the process. It is interesting to watch how you 'logic' your way around that one. Please re-read our churches eleventh article of faith, and then re-think what you are saying. And then, go look up what can happen to a young woman that has had a botched abortion, and the further problems that can arise from her parents not having any clue what is going on.
Unless you are only interested in being right. Than, just ignore everything I just said.

David said...

jeremy and sarahlynn...

To your first point, parental notification has failed three times in four cycles in California. A larger percentage of blacks and Latinos came out to vote for Mr. Obama this year. Since Latinos are predominantly Catholic, and a large concentration of blacks despise homosexuality, this may be explain why it got so many votes this time. You are correct that Prop failed by about 4%. Interestingly enough, that's about the same amount that Prop 8 passed by. The top five supports gave 97% of the financial support. All this makes me wonder how much better Prop 4 would have done if more had been done to support it.

Second, I'd be curious to hear what those good reasons are. The Summary in the Voter's Guide states that exceptions would be made in situations of physical abuse or abandonment from parents. It provides an exception for medical emergency and parental waiver. It permits a court to waive the notification as well.

On to your third point, there is no definition of marriage. The meaning of marriage is personal and stems from our own value system. In fact, our current system of marriage came out of dark ages when people were only allowed to fornicate under consent of the king.

For you marriage may have everything to do with kids and families, but that doesn't make you right.

California does have domestic partner laws. The expanded laws went into effect January 1, 2005 and gave domestic partnerships the same rights, benefits, duties and responsibilities that spouses have under California law. Objection to same-sex marriage is about semantics. It is about ownership of the word "marriage" and control over where it can be used.

This Pollyanna view you have of marriage would be ammusing it weren't so amazingly unfounded. Marriage can provide the opportunity for stability and structure, however, there is no stability in living paycheck to paycheck, in uncertainly of health care and nutritious food. Your ideal view of marriage is nice, there is no doubt, but when 50% of marriages end in divorce, when families are reloctated to find work or affordable housing, when parents abuse one another and their children, when 55% of Americans live on anti-depressants, your view of marriage is idealistic. Unfortunately, people are not idealistic. Marriage can be a stabilizing force. Marriage can be a wonderful thing. Marriage can help nurture all the best we hope for our community. Marriage and the family may be at the center of all the best we hope for, but until the second coming, this ain't an ideal world. And if two people can be loving and happy together, who are we to stand in their way?

Between two and five percent of homosexual couple choose to get married which seems to be a lost argument. Just as all heterosexual couples do not get married, homosexual couples do not either. This does not prevent them from building a life together, and as stated earlier, they still have all the rights and privileges you have.

Since you brought up France, France does recognize same-sex partnerships or unions, as does 15 other countries. Six countries do recognize gay marriage, as do four states. Additionally six states allow same-sex partnerships or unions. In fact, only Honduras, Latvia, and Uganda out law same-sex unions. I guess Iran would make number four, but they don't have gay people in Iran.

Just to clarify, France has not outright outlawed the practice of same-sex marriage. It has what I would characterize as a farily liberal program where any two adults can enter in to a pact of solidarity which affords both people nearly all rights of a married couple. However, this appears to be a political move to avoid debating the usage of the word and the benefit to children was only a tangential factor.

Fourth, by the time a girl gets to a place where abortion is on the table, a discussion about sanctity and chastity is moot. And they're only victims if they were raped. Otherwise they're 16 or 17 year old young woman who made a decision. Protecting the definition of marriage does nothing to protect societal views on sex or sexuality. Pornography is a multi-billion dollar a year industry and has been since before same-sex marriage was up for a conversation. Cavalier behaviours by heterosexuals has done more to erode our views of sex than homosexuals could hope to accomplish in a million weddings and a thousand years. The family isn't falling apart because of homosexuals. It's falling apart because all people are selfish to some degree or another.

Finally, I never called Prop 8 supports self-righteous bigots. I said that they did not defend the family or strengthen the social fabric of the nation. I said they chose the easy victory and failed to take adequate steps to try to defend life.

I will make accept that some supporters were self-righteous, stupid, bigoted, etc. I'll also leave room to believe that they were exercising selective morality and speaking without all your facts, but thanks for reading and your comments are always welcome.

JEREMY AND SARAHLYNN said...

Sarah, the 11th Article of Faith is one of the reasons why I supported Prop 8. To understand what I mean, you are welcome to review the consequences that have come to Mass and the potential consequences that CA faced if prop 8 didn't pass. Go to preservingmarriage.org, protectmarriage.com, NPR report from Barbara B Hagetry, and more citations on my blog about this.

I hope it is understood that I agree with David's stand on Prop 4 and I agree that more attention could have been given to the prop, just as more attention could be given to all of the other 10 propositions that were on the CA ballot. Like did you know that Prop 2 passed? Which means that farmers have to spend millions of dollars to allow their animals to stand, walk around, etc, which will make the price of meat products escalate, potentially force many grocers to buy meet and eggs from Mexico, and make many American farmers go out of business. All so that a chicken can walk around. Why didn't more people spend their time talking about this economic issue? Perhaps that it seemed so obvious that people would vote no? And why did the measure pass? I guess CA voters feel that the life of a chicken is more important than the life of a human. You're right. It is strange.

But even you said that "we have to prioritize our efforts." To you- if you were a CA voter- the issue might have been Prop 4. To me, it was Prop 8. I guess I'm just asking that you respect that.

And yes, many people didn't even stop to think about whether they should devote more time to other Props because the evidence of what was at stake for Prop 8 was glaring at us in the face. While some people might have fought for it because of their hate for homosexuals or their homophobia, I can assure you that is not why I actively supported Prop 8. And for anyone to assume that (not that you did) is simply hateful and intolerant of my views.

I go back to my statement that to say that Prop 8 supporters should have done more to support Prop 4 is ignorant and unfair. They are entirely two separate issues. It's like saying that someone isn't Christian because they chose to volunteer at a community health center instead of volunteering at a soup kitchen. Do you see my connection? Both were good things to fight for, but there are priorities. Defending marriage and family was and is a priority to me.
You don't have life- or an ideal life- without respecting the sacredness of marriage and family.

Of course the ideal view of marriage and family isn't always realized. How unnecessary for you to point this out. But what good does sitting back and accepting defeat over the world's mistakes do? Even if what I'm fighting for is wrong- which I know is not the case- I want to be one that stands up for what I believe and does all in my power to make sure that The Ideal can become a reality. And if enough people do this- even if it's just by example, then I believe that most of society's problems would not exist, including abortions among minors. For me, it begins with educating others about what joy we really can have in an ideal family situation. This is ultimately why I worked so hard to defend Prop 8.

While you didn't actually call Prop 8 supporters bigots, you did say that they "acted in a bigoted and ignorant way." I don't see how defending my beliefs- backed up by research and moral convictions- of what makes society strong is bigotry or ignorance.

David said...

jeremy and sarahlynn...

I did know that California farmers now had to treat their livestock in a humane way. What a shame that they won't be able to remove their beaks, remove their claws, keep them in cramped quarters which prevent them from moving around, feed them on hormone and chemically injected feed that contains animal remains, and start to tear their limbs off before they're actually dead. I can see why a good Christian such as yourself would choose animal cruelty, corporate factory farming, and profits over respecting all of God's creatures.

You can have your priorities, but I will not respect you decision because your arguments are subjective and based on fear. They are being used to persecute a politically weak minority. If you had been honest and said "I support Prop 8 because the prophet said to and my morals disagree with the practice," I would respect that. But you invoked fake science and fear. Not respectable.

I object to the intolerant and offensive behaviors you described on your blog. Mocking homosexuals one moment and than expressing love for them the next is hypocritical and dishonest.

I object to any religious organization instructing it's members how to vote. Stating the organization's view on issues is appropriate. Asking their parishioners to prayerfully and thoughtfully consider the issue and vote according to their understanding is perfectly fine with me. Instructing members how to vote is out of line. (Maybe that's why they recanted the May 2008 letter and replaced it with a more generic version.)

The fight against gay marriage is about two things. One, it is about personal morality. Two, it is about semantics and ownership of a word. I don't care which a person chooses as long as they're honest about it.

There is no hard science that homosexual marriage adversely affects families or kids or community any more than pornography, substance abuse, absence from the home, debt, or any of our social challenges.

If we are intellectually honest, we realize that the fight against homosexual marriage is discriminatory, distracting, and divisive. But own it!

In California, the fight against gay marriage was a decision to choose the easier fight. How can a group claim to protect the sanctity of marriage and fail to do everything they can to protect the sanctity of life?

P.S., Congratulations are in order, however, for accomplishing -- nothing. Today, Connecticut become the third state in the U.S. to allow same-sex marriage. See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27677272. If a person chooses to vote for it, as I did, at least be honest enough to say "I did it because I morally object to it" or "I'm being obedient to a religious figure." Don't hide behind pseudo-science.