The House passed a bill on Wednesday making it a federal crime for any adult to transport an under-age girl across state lines to have an abortion without the consent of her parents. A vote on a similar bill is expected in the Senate later this spring or early this summer, and backers says its chances are good.
The measure, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, passed 270 to 157 and was a victory for abortion opponents, who have been pushing an ambitious agenda now that Congress is under greater Republican control.
"This legislation will close a loophole that allows adults not only to help minors break state laws by obtaining an abortion without parental consent, but also contributes to ending the life of an innocent child," said the chief sponsor, Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Republican of Florida.
The bill, intended to prevent minor girls from going to different states to circumvent more restrictive laws in their home states, applies to adults who accompany girls 17 and under. It also, for the first time, requires doctors who perform abortions on under-age girls to comply with state notification laws, and in some cases to notify the girl's parents in person. Violators could face a $100,000 fine and a year in jail.
The bill also imposes a 24-hour waiting period for young women who travel to another state for an abortion, in some cases even if they are accompanied by their parents.
Supporters characterize the measure as pro-family, saying it will prevent abusive boyfriends and others from taking vulnerable young women across state lines to receive "secret abortions" against their will. They say that the decision to have an abortion should rest solely with the parents. Amendments that would have allowed grandparents or members of the clergy to accompany the young women were rejected.
The measure has the strong backing of the White House, which issued a statement on Wednesday saying the bill "is consistent with the administration's view that parents' efforts to be involved in their children's lives should be protected and the widespread belief among authorities in the field that the parents of pregnant minors are best suited to provide them with counsel, guidance and support."
Opponents call the measure misguided and say it would violate a Supreme Court ruling that required state parental notification laws to include alternatives, like permitting abortions with a judge's consent. And they say it would put some young women, like those who are the victims of sexual abuse by their fathers, in serious danger.
"Thankfully, most young women involve their parents in the decision to seek an abortion," said Representative Nita M. Lowey, Democrat of New York. "But under this legislation, those who feel they cannot turn to their parents when facing an unintended pregnancy will be forced to fend for themselves without any help from a responsible adult. Some will seek unsafe abortions close to home. Others will travel to unfamiliar places seeking abortions by themselves."
The bill incorporates an earlier measure that has passed the House three times since 1998. The earlier bill, the Child Custody Protection Act, did not impose criminal sanctions against doctors, only against the adults who accompanied minor girls across state lines from a state that had strict parental consent laws to one that did not.
In the Senate, the custody protection act is among the top 10 legislative priorities of Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader. The November elections put seven new Republicans in office, most of them staunch opponents of abortion, so backers of the measure - which has never gotten through the Senate - are hopeful.
"We think it will still be a big fight, because the bill is vehemently opposed by the pro-abortion pressure groups, but we are cautiously optimistic," said Douglas Johnson, a spokesman for the National Right-to-Life Committee.
According to Naral Pro-Choice America, an abortion rights advocacy group, 33 states have some form of parental notification law that restricts access to abortion.
Twenty-three states require parental notification and 10 require parental notice but permit other adults to be notified, or allow health providers to waive the requirement. Seventeen states, including New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and California, have no law restricting access to abortion for minors.
Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York, said, "It would in effect make the young girl carry the laws of her state on her back wherever she goes."
But Representative Christopher H. Smith, Republican of New Jersey, said the bill was necessary to prevent "abortion mills" from luring young girls across state lines by advertising in states like his, where there are no notification laws.
__________________
You're only one post away from a federal watch list.
Saw an opponent of the bill last noght on O'Reilly. She was actually indignant when he said he wouldn't want someone to take his daughter to have an abortion without his knowledge.
This is a no brainer, and I cannot for the life of me see ANYONE other than a raving frickin' lunatic or potential child molester going against this...
Except -- the ACLU which is going ape crap over this !!
"I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the State itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal."
Roger Baldwin, founder of the American Civil Liberties Union.
Quoted in the National Federation for Decency Journal, September 1988. Page 9.
1920's and 1930's
Founded by Roger Baldwin, 1920
Several crucial leaders of the ACLU were members of the Communist Party. Earl Browder, then General Secretary of the Communist Party, said the ACLU functioned as "a transmission belt" for the party.
1940's and 1950's
In 1945 the ACLU opposed laws requiring prostitutes to submit to examinations or vaccinations, saying these violated the women's rights to "medical liberty."
In 1957 the board of directors declared that it was not the business of the ACLU "to evaluate the social validity of laws aimed at the suppression or elimination of homosexuals."
1960's
The ACLU's increasing success in the courtroom brings it a growing notoriety and increasing access to powerful financial and political resources.
In the late 60's American culture's increasing hostility toward Christian values frees the ACLU to make aggressive legal assaults on organized religions.
In 1967 the ACLU adopted a "pro-choice" position on abortion.
1970's
In 1975 the ACLU came out in favor of special rights for homosexuals.
In 1977 the ACLU initiated its "Reproductive Freedom Project" that, over the next 16 years, utilized 17 full-time employees and a budget of $2 million.
1980's
In 1986 the ACLU created its "Lesbian and Gay Rights" project.
September 1986 - The ACLU successfully sues fifth grade public school teacher Kenneth Roberts, forcing him to remove his personal Bible from his classroom desk. Roberts kept the Bible on top of his desk, and he read from it during his class' silent reading time. He never read it to his students or told them they had to read it. (Contrast this to the ACLU's actions in February and March, 2001, in Anaheim, California. This time, the ACLU threatened to sue the public school board if they did not put pro-homosexual propaganda on the shelves of the high school library.)
In 1988 the ACLU barred a doctor from telling a Kansas man's former wife that her ex-husband had tested positive for AIDS. In the words of the director of the ACLU's Privacy and Technology Project, "The benefits of confidentiality outweigh the possibility that somebody may be injured."
In 1989 the government granted tax exemptions for Satanists - a position the ACLU has supported.
1990's
In 1992 the ACLU persuaded a judge to approve adoption of a young boy by his mother's lesbian partner.
In 1993 in Pennsylvania the ACLU successfully opposed parental approval for teaching about substance abuse or human reproduction and forbade any discussion of morality and violence.
In 1995 the ACLU spoke out against the Flag Amendment which would have banned burnings and desecrations of the American flag.
March 1995 - The ACLU files a lawsuit against Alabama Circuit Judge Roy Moore to force him to discontinue prayer in his courtroom and remove a Ten Commandments plaque from the wall behind his bench. Judge Moore countersued, asking a state court to resolve the constitutionality of official acknowledgements of God. This was the beginning of an ongoing, on-again off-again series of legal battles between the ACLU and Judge Moore.
In 1996 the ACLU convinced the Supreme Court to overturn Colorado's "Amendment Two," regarding homosexual special rights.
In 1996 the ACLU worked with senators to defeat legislation providing federally-funded cash vouchers to students in Washington D.C.'s religious schools.
In 1997 the ACLU successfully beseeched the Supreme Court to protect the rights of pornographers on the Internet - including the right to show their images to children. 2000 - Present
May 2000 - Arizona Governor Jane Hull issues a proclamation celebrating the birth of Buddha. An ACLU spokesperson said, "Although we may think proclamations are inappropriate, they may not violate the Constitution." (In 1998, when Governor Hull issued a proclamation declaring a "Bible Week," the ACLU sued, claiming a violation of the so-called "separation of church and state.")
Janurary 2001 - At a press conference co-hosted by Planned Parenthood President Gloria Feldt, ACLU President Nadine Strossen lambasted Attorney General nominee John Ashcroft. Strossen claimed he had a "fundamental disdain for the Constitution," simply because he is pro-life, pro-family, favors common-sense restrictions on virtual (Internet) child pornography, and questions the notion of the so-called "separation of church and state."
April 2002 - The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit struck down a Colorado law requiring parents be notified when their underage daughters sought abortions. The ACLU supported the suit to have the law struck down.
April 2002 - The U.S. Supreme Court struck down major portions of the Child Pornography Protection Act, which prohibited Internet porn hawkers from making "virtual" child pornography. The ACLU immediately declared victory, calling it a triumph for "free speech."
January 2003 - The Hawaii branch of the ACLU filed suit to remove a requirement from a public school honor code that students pledge their "love for God." Without going to court, the school backed down.
February 2003 - A federal district judge prohibited Florida officials from blocking an anti-war demonstration at a public park that featured a peace symbol at a public park, comprised of nude bodies. Said an ACLU attorney, "For these demonstrators, nudity is an essential part of their political expression."
The ACLU is the Anti-Christ in the form of an organization.
Yup,
And as further proof of my prior assertions that open borders will destroy the sovereignty of this country, I give you the latest battle that the ACLU initiated, but thankfully lost:
Local Law Enforcement and Immigration Enforcement
April 1, 2005
(Washington D.C.-April 1, 2005) In its March 22 ruling in the case of Muehler v. Mena, the Supreme Court removed barriers that prevent local law enforcement officers from questioning the immigration status of individuals they suspect to be in the United States illegally. In this groundbreaking decision, the high Court rejected the claim of Ira Mena, a permanent resident of the U.S., that police had violated the Fourth Amendment while conducting a lawful search of her home.
The Fourth Amendment provides protection by establishing that persons be shielded against unreasonable search and seizure. Mena argued...blah..blah
Calling a decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals "faulty," the Supreme Court held that "mere police questioning [regarding one's immigration status] does not constitute a seizure."..."the officers did not need reasonable suspicion to ask Mena for her name, date of birth, or immigration status."
"Whatever legal fig leaf many police departments have been using to justify policies of non-cooperation with federal immigration authorities, has been stripped away by this landmark Supreme Court decision," stated Dan Stein, president of FAIR. "There is no legal barrier to local police inquiring about a person's immigration status and then acting upon the information they gather."
Congress expressly intended for local law enforcement to act in cases in which officers have reason to believe that an individual is in the country illegally. In 1996, Congress passed and President Clinton signed legislation that protects individual officers who act to enforce federal immigration laws...
"In Muehler v. Mena the Court reinforced the clear intent of Congress in this matter," said Stein. "Inquiring about an individual's immigration status can and should be a routine part of ascertaining information, no different than asking questions about one's name, or date and place of birth. Local police come into contact with people who are violating federal immigration laws on a daily basis. Freeing local police to inquire about an individual's immigration status and allowing them to act is essential to curbing mass illegal immigration and protecting our homeland security."
House passes abortion Bill
