April
19, 2002, 1:20 p.m. Abortion
First
Leaving
all the kids involved behind.
t's
funny how the press sometimes can't even bear to mention the name of a
piece of legislation.
Take the Child Custody
Protection Act that passed the House of Representatives on Wednesday.
It's the "abortion transport bill" according to the Associated
Press. Not one mention of the bill's title. They have a habit of doing
that when it comes to abortion-related legislation: Take the
Born-Alive Infants Protection Act. When that passed the House last
month, most of the press couldn't handle the name, or even get the concept
(to prevent babies who survive abortions from being killed).
In other newspapers,
on this latest bill, it's "abortion limit okayed." Forget the
kids. There's an issue that trumps them all here.
The Child Custody
Protection Act, which looks like it probably won't have much of a shot
in the bring-just-about-anything-good-to-a-grinding-halt Daschle Senate,
passed the House 260-161. This was the third time it has passed the House
in recent years. The act would make it a federal misdemeanor to take a
minor across state lines in order to circumvent her home state's parental-notification
law (just-under 30 states currently have them), with a maximum penalty
of $100,000 or a year in prison.
The argument against
the law goes something like this: If a girl is raped by, say, her stepfather,
and doesn't want to tell her mother, who probably won't believe her, then
she might seek out someone else — her boyfriend, a classmate, sibling,
teacher, etc., to help get her an abortion in another state. Planned Parenthood
President Gloria Feldt said in opposing the vote: "Congress must
recognize that every family is not a model family and respect teens' efforts
to involve trusted adults in their health care decisions."
The scenarios posited
to oppose the law, though, beg the question: Regardless of your position
on the abortion question itself, for anyone — never mind just the
children we're dealing with in this legislation — wouldn't the hypothetical
girl be better off going to legal authorities to, say, have her stepfather
arrested, rather than sneakily having an abortion and then returning to
that less-than-model home?
The bill, in fact,
seems like it would be a no-brainer for the Leave No Child Behind, Children
First, etc., crowd — and isn't that all of us? As Republican Sue
Myrick pointed out yesterday: "Right now, a parent in Charlotte,
N.C., must grant permission before the school nurse gives their child
an aspirin, but the parent can't prevent a stranger from taking their
child out of school and up to Maryland for an abortion. It's total nonsense."
No kidding.
Especially, too,
when you consider that the majority of the girls going over state lines
are likely to be pregnant by a boyfriend — not through incest. There's
a reason there are parental-consent laws: so children have to consult
their parents before running to the abortion clinic with their boyfriend.
And, when the issue involves violence or forced sex, isn't it in the interests
of the law — and of the child — to get the crime prosecuted?
A 1998 poll cited
by the National Right to Life Committee finds 85 percent of Americans
supporting the law — i.e., opposed to girls being left free to go
from state to state in pursuit of an abortion. Interestingly, those opposed
to the law tend not to cite any polls.
<% dim printurl
printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%>
t's
funny how the press sometimes can't even bear to mention the name of a
piece of legislation.
