"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96455C7325891keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4...

A new federal move to limit teen abortions

Now, with little

fanfare, the House of Representatives is set to take up legislation
Wednesday that would impose new restrictions on access to abortion
itself, specifically, in the case of minors.

Expect to see more and more dead teens as they resort to any kind of
abortion available, should that become law.

In article <Xns96455C7325891keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4>,
keegan@nycap.rr.com says...

The bill, called the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, or
CIANA, would make it a federal offense to transport a minor across state
lines for an abortion in order to evade a parental notification law,
unless she has obtained a waiver from a judge.

A bit unfair on the bus/taxi driver...

This new bill is a joke. It would mean parents could legally force their
minor children to continue an unwanted pregnancy to full term.

Now, I know most parents would have the understanding to allow their minor
daughters to be afforded the same dignity that is afforded to women of legal
age. But there are some parents who are just plain horrible and would force
their daughters to continue the pregnancy as "punishment" for having sex.

The whole thing is about punishment for sexual behaviour. Little else. It
has nothing to do with protecting the "unborn" child whatever that's
supposed to mean...once again it's about the control of young and vulnerable
females by chauvinist busybodies and once again placing a discrimination
barrier.

The real message is..."If you're young, under the legal age, and you get
pregnant, you're in deep ***** from here on in, your parents may be able to
punish you for sex since they'll be in control of your life". What part of
that has anything to do with protecting the "unborn"?

james g. keegan jr. wrote:

A new federal move to limit teen abortions

By Linda Feldmann, Staff writer of The Christian Science MonitorWed
Apr 27, 4:00 AM ET

The abortion issue has long undergirded some of the biggest political
questions of the day - from how federal judges are confirmed to
whether a politician can credibly compete for the presidency. Now,
with little fanfare, the House of Representatives is set to take up
legislation Wednesday that would impose new restrictions on access to
abortion itself, specifically, in the case of minors.

The bill, called the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, or
CIANA, would make it a federal offense to transport a minor across
state lines for an abortion in order to evade a parental notification
law, unless she has obtained a waiver from a judge. The bill would
also require a doctor to notify a minor's parent before performing an
abortion, if that girl is a resident of another state. The second
part also contains provisions that allow a minor to get around
parental notification.

In contrast with the ban on so-called "partial-birth abortions,"
which is not in effect as it faces continued court action, legal
experts say that the new teen abortion restrictions have a much
better chance of becoming the law of the land and would have broad
impact.

"This will impose real obstacles and pain upon real people," says
David Garrow, a legal historian at Emory Law School in Atlanta. "And
it's a far better than 50-50 shot it'll be upheld rather than struck
down as unconstitutional."

Other versions of this bill have passed the House before, most
recently in 2002, but the Senate has never signed off on it. Since
last fall's elections, though, the Senate has netted up to three more
abortion-rights opponents, and supporters of CIANA are optimistic.

CrosscurrentsAbortion-rights advocates are caught in a bind: The bill
goes to the heart of parental rights, an emotional issue particularly
for social conservatives. Historically, the public has strongly
supported parental involvement in decisions related to minors'
abortions, as long as there is a judicial bypass procedure for girls
in abusive families.

Furthermore, abortion-rights supporters are focused on preserving the
right of the Senate to filibuster judicial nominees - a procedure
they believe is crucial to keeping antiabortion judges out of federal
courts, and, ultimately, preserving the existence of the
constitutional right to abortion.

With a Supreme Court vacancy expected soon, the future of majority
support for the landmark 1973 abortion decision, Roe v. Wade, is a
central question.

As for CIANA, "this is tough legislation to argue against on its
face," says Helena Silverstein, a political scientist at Lafayette
College in Easton, Pa., and author of a forthcoming book on judicial
bypasses. "The appeal of parental-involvement mandates is so strong,
and this legislation appears to bolster that."

What troubles Ms. Silverstein about the legislation is that it rests
on the presumption that the judicial-bypass process works.

"The world is not anywhere close to ideal," she says. "There are
instances where minors try to secure the right to a judicial bypass
and fail. Some judges are not willing to grant a bypass, some refuse
to preside. Sometimes court personnel are not aware there's a process
and will turn a young woman away."

In all, 32 states require some form of parental involvement in a
minor's abortion, with most defining "minor" as someone under age 18.
(In a few states, 17 is the age.) Abortion-clinic operators have
noted that since the advent of parental-involvement laws in the late
1980s, minors are often having abortions later in pregnancy than they
used to, though statistics are difficult to come by. For some teens,
the delays have pushed them beyond 14 weeks of pregnancy, the point
at which some states require a hospital abortion and other
restrictions.

Supporters of billOpponents of abortion rights argue that the bill
appropriately encourages more family involvement when a teen finds
herself in a crisis pregnancy. On the issue of health exceptions, a
major sticking point on much abortion legislation, abortion foes say
the bill adequately addresses life-threatening health emergencies.

And, write officials of the National Right to Life Committee in an
April 22 letter to Congress, "in a case in which a minor has a
genuine serious physical health problem, that is all the more reason
that a parent should be involved. Only the parent is likely to know
the child's full medical history, and it is likely to be a parent who
must recognize and respond to an infection or other complications of
an abortion - complications that a parent might well overlook if he
or she does not even know that an abortion has occurred."

At a hearing on Capitol Hill last month, the mother of a 14-year-old
girl from Pennsylvania told the story of how her pregnant daughter
was taken by her boyfriend's parents into neighboring New Jersey,
which has no parental-notification rules, for an abortion, which she
did undergo.

The woman testified that she knew her daughter was pregnant and that,
in fact, "my daughter [had chosen] to have the baby and raise it. My
family fully supported my daughter's decision to keep her baby and
offer her our love and support."

Under CIANA, the New Jersey clinic would not have been allowed to
perform the abortion without parental consent or a judicial bypass.

Opponents of CIANA argue that the bill fails to pass constitutional
muster in many ways. Jennifer Dalven, deputy director of the ACLU
Reproductive Freedom Project, lists three:

First, the bill contains no exception for circumstances when the
health of the minor is endangered. The bill does discuss cases when a
minor's life is endangered, but health is not addressed. Abortion
foes object to health exceptions, saying they are used to cover
emotional distress and could be employed for any abortion.

Second, there is no judicial waiver option in states with no
parental- involvement laws.

And third, Ms. Dalven says, the bill violates guarantees of equal
protection under the Constitution. Specifically, she says, the bill
fails by requiring a pregnant minor to comply with her home-state
laws in addition to those of the state where she intends to undergo
an abortion.

http://beta.news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20050427/ts_csm/anotify;
_ylt=AjTCp.NyyrJVuYd4IIThL6ayFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCU
l

We can't allow abortions, we need the cannon fodder for imperial
conquest.