Guest-Blogging: Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood
(For those looking for commentary on the president's speech today, scroll down. Marcie posted her thoughts on it, and Thomas handled the Democrat response.)
Technically, I'm not a guest-blogger, or so Thomas tells me. However, with work right now, and the holiday season gaining steam, I've little time to blog. So, every once in a while, when I have the time, I'll participate right here at The Asylum.
I know that Thomas addressed this case earlier, and he did a superb job at it. A very serious and convincing argument in favor of Ms. Ayotte was made by him. Granted, I watched the oral arguments today, and I doubt Thomas could have done a better job than what was mounted.
The focus of this whole case revolves around a New Hampshire law requiring girls under the age of eighteen to gain parental permission when they want to get an abortion. Not a bad idea, right? I mean, parents must sign off on so many things for kids to do nowadays--tattoos, piercings, questionable films in school, and even at the movie theaters--why not an abortion? The folks at Planned Parenthood claim the law is unconstitutional. For what reasons, you ask? According to them, the provision to protect the woman's health is not viable. Should the girl be in that much trouble--physically--the medical service providers can do nothing to help her until her parents step up, and sign off on the procedure.
First, this argument is patently absurd. Medical professionals are PROHIBITED by law of refusing to render medical assistance if a life is in danger, save a written order, on file, stating that medical assistance isn't to be rendered. This is the primary argument that Planned Parenthood is presenting. It's faulty.
Those in Planned Parenthood believed that Roe gave them free reign in the realm of abortion, and are considerably upset when the state or federal governments step in to regulate the practice. This was evident in the Congressional ban on late-term abrotions, which was immediately hit with an injunction, and appealed by the pro-abortion crowd. Likewise, Casey presented a similar problem to them. In Casey, the question that they presented was whether or not the spousal notification violated the "right to choose." Stenberg was the landmark case that questioned Congress' motivations in banning late-term abortions.
Ayotte is an equally landmark-like case. Not in the sense of pro-abortion activists believeing they're protecting their gruesome procedure, but in the rights of parents. The overall question should be, and was related eloquently by Kelly Ayotte, the AG of New Hampshire.
Planned Parenthood has sued the state because the law doesn't make an exception for the "health of the mother."
The law DOES, however, have a "judicial bypass" -- that means a young woman can make an appeal to a judge if she has a reason not to turn to her parents.
The law has the provisions in it to protect the life of the mother. The law has the provisions in it that the Supreme Court has leveled in response to the numerous appeals brough before it regarding this subject. What Planned Parenthood desires is abortions on demand, without any sort of interference from ANYONE; not you, me, the government, or even Santa Claus. What they want is a barbaric practice without repercussions, no matter the physical and mental damage done to the mother, and they want it on demand.
The ultimate freedom. Freedom from blame, consequences, or even moral relevancy. And we wonder why we are where we are today. Shame on us.
The court ruled in 1973--incorrectly so--that abortion falls under a woman's right to choose; the right she has over her body to do what she wants, when she wants. If this were true for ALL people (the Declaration of Independence proclaims all men to be equal and free, and it has the back-up of the US Constitution) then we would be free to do whatever we want. But I can't engage in illegal activity without fear of repercussions. Likewise is the same for abortion.
The pro-abortion crowd made a serious mistake by allowing the federal government the "mandate" from the Supreme Court in the jurisdiction over abortion. Congress passed a law, and the pro-abortion people flipped out. States made laws, and the pro-abortion people flipped out. They can't have things both ways. If this is truly an issue under the purview of the federal government, then the federal government should have the right to legislate the regulation of this procedure. The pro-abortion people refuse to let this happen. They'd prefer to simply head to court, and allow their rights to be dictated through the biased fiat of the high court.
This case should be found on the side of the state of New Hampshire because the underlying point of this case truly is: When does a parent have the right to be a parent? A parent should have the right to state, with certainty from a doctor, that if their daughter's life is not in danger from the preganancy that she won't get an abortion. Should the high court rule opposite of the parents' rights, then there are no consequences for those that prefer to act grown-up, but not make a grown-up decision when a mistake occurs. Further, by allowing girls under the age of eighteen to make this decision on their own gives them the opportunity to cheapen life. It will cheapen it to the point that if the child or fetus becomes a burden, they can simply abandon it.
That is not how this nation, and society as a whole, has progressed. We cherished life at one point. Now we prefer to treat it like a tissue; used and easily disposable. Likewise, we are easily disposing of a parent's right to oversee the development of their children. As legal "caretakers" of them, we have the ultimate say in their lives until they're eighteen. No one--not Planned Parenthood, or the US Supreme Court--should have the right to supersede that authority, ever.
Mistress Pundit
(For those looking for commentary on the president's speech today, scroll down. Marcie posted her thoughts on it, and Thomas handled the Democrat response.)
Technically, I'm not a guest-blogger, or so Thomas tells me. However, with work right now, and the holiday season gaining steam, I've little time to blog. So, every once in a while, when I have the time, I'll participate right here at The Asylum.
I know that Thomas addressed this case earlier, and he did a superb job at it. A very serious and convincing argument in favor of Ms. Ayotte was made by him. Granted, I watched the oral arguments today, and I doubt Thomas could have done a better job than what was mounted.
The focus of this whole case revolves around a New Hampshire law requiring girls under the age of eighteen to gain parental permission when they want to get an abortion. Not a bad idea, right? I mean, parents must sign off on so many things for kids to do nowadays--tattoos, piercings, questionable films in school, and even at the movie theaters--why not an abortion? The folks at Planned Parenthood claim the law is unconstitutional. For what reasons, you ask? According to them, the provision to protect the woman's health is not viable. Should the girl be in that much trouble--physically--the medical service providers can do nothing to help her until her parents step up, and sign off on the procedure.
First, this argument is patently absurd. Medical professionals are PROHIBITED by law of refusing to render medical assistance if a life is in danger, save a written order, on file, stating that medical assistance isn't to be rendered. This is the primary argument that Planned Parenthood is presenting. It's faulty.
Those in Planned Parenthood believed that Roe gave them free reign in the realm of abortion, and are considerably upset when the state or federal governments step in to regulate the practice. This was evident in the Congressional ban on late-term abrotions, which was immediately hit with an injunction, and appealed by the pro-abortion crowd. Likewise, Casey presented a similar problem to them. In Casey, the question that they presented was whether or not the spousal notification violated the "right to choose." Stenberg was the landmark case that questioned Congress' motivations in banning late-term abortions.
Ayotte is an equally landmark-like case. Not in the sense of pro-abortion activists believeing they're protecting their gruesome procedure, but in the rights of parents. The overall question should be, and was related eloquently by Kelly Ayotte, the AG of New Hampshire.
Planned Parenthood has sued the state because the law doesn't make an exception for the "health of the mother."
The law DOES, however, have a "judicial bypass" -- that means a young woman can make an appeal to a judge if she has a reason not to turn to her parents.
The law has the provisions in it to protect the life of the mother. The law has the provisions in it that the Supreme Court has leveled in response to the numerous appeals brough before it regarding this subject. What Planned Parenthood desires is abortions on demand, without any sort of interference from ANYONE; not you, me, the government, or even Santa Claus. What they want is a barbaric practice without repercussions, no matter the physical and mental damage done to the mother, and they want it on demand.
The ultimate freedom. Freedom from blame, consequences, or even moral relevancy. And we wonder why we are where we are today. Shame on us.
The court ruled in 1973--incorrectly so--that abortion falls under a woman's right to choose; the right she has over her body to do what she wants, when she wants. If this were true for ALL people (the Declaration of Independence proclaims all men to be equal and free, and it has the back-up of the US Constitution) then we would be free to do whatever we want. But I can't engage in illegal activity without fear of repercussions. Likewise is the same for abortion.
The pro-abortion crowd made a serious mistake by allowing the federal government the "mandate" from the Supreme Court in the jurisdiction over abortion. Congress passed a law, and the pro-abortion people flipped out. States made laws, and the pro-abortion people flipped out. They can't have things both ways. If this is truly an issue under the purview of the federal government, then the federal government should have the right to legislate the regulation of this procedure. The pro-abortion people refuse to let this happen. They'd prefer to simply head to court, and allow their rights to be dictated through the biased fiat of the high court.
This case should be found on the side of the state of New Hampshire because the underlying point of this case truly is: When does a parent have the right to be a parent? A parent should have the right to state, with certainty from a doctor, that if their daughter's life is not in danger from the preganancy that she won't get an abortion. Should the high court rule opposite of the parents' rights, then there are no consequences for those that prefer to act grown-up, but not make a grown-up decision when a mistake occurs. Further, by allowing girls under the age of eighteen to make this decision on their own gives them the opportunity to cheapen life. It will cheapen it to the point that if the child or fetus becomes a burden, they can simply abandon it.
That is not how this nation, and society as a whole, has progressed. We cherished life at one point. Now we prefer to treat it like a tissue; used and easily disposable. Likewise, we are easily disposing of a parent's right to oversee the development of their children. As legal "caretakers" of them, we have the ultimate say in their lives until they're eighteen. No one--not Planned Parenthood, or the US Supreme Court--should have the right to supersede that authority, ever.
Mistress Pundit
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 11:36 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home