The Illinois Supreme Court yesterday, after years of delay, released rules regarding parental notification in abortion cases:
Slightly more than 24 hours after the Illinois Supreme Court announced it would write rules allowing an 11-year-old abortion law to take effect, it issued those rules.
The law would require abortion providers to notify a family member of any underage girl seeking an abortion 48 hours before the procedure is performed. The law would not require the relative's consent.
The rules issued Wednesday say a girl afraid to tell family members could ask a judge to waive the notice requirement. If a judge rules against her, she could quickly appeal to the appellate court, then the state Supreme Court, with a court-appointed lawyer. No oral argument would be heard.
"I take my hat off to our chief justice, who moves pretty quickly," said attorney Tom Brejcha, who represents anti-abortion groups that favor the law.
American Civil Liberties Union attorney Lorie Chaiten said the rules appeared suddenly, without going through the court's usual process of public comment. She said she hopes to block the attempt to revive the 11-year-old law.
The ball is now in Attorney General Lisa Madigan's court. Eleven years ago, when the law passed, then-Attorney General Jim Ryan, an abortion opponent, asked the court to draft the rules. A federal judge blocked the law from taking effect because the state Supreme Court would not issue the rules.
Former State Rep. Cal Skinner, though, thinks this law and these rules are all flash and no substance. His post is titled "Ten Ways to Avoid Telling Your Parents You're Pregnant Under House Bill 955."
anything that makes getting an abortion a bit more difficult is a good thing, no matter what Skinner says. tiny steps, chip away, take what you can get when you can get it.
And a big kudos to the Supreme Court for getting the rules finally written.
Every women-as-chattel conservative seems to feel that way until their teenaged daughter gets pregnant.
Lazlo,
In deference to Gordy and the fact that he's trying to run a nice site, I'll refrain from flaming you and typing what I really think of your comment.
But I *will* tell you that this husband and father of three daughters would NEVER EVER EVER even consider abortion and your smarmy ignorant comment shows your typical lib insensitivity.
Even if I thought abortion was an option (and I don't), I wouldn't want my daughter to have to live for the rest of her life with the guilt of killing her child.
This is egregiously dangerous! How come conservatives are so anxious to keep government out of everything except the Bedroom? If a young girl has gotten herself with child, the last thing she needs is to tell abusive parents, or jump through a series of legal hoops!
Tough cases make bad law: make the law for the 90% of cases that are typical, then look to make exceptions if necessary, not the other way around.
In most cases, the parents AREN'T abusive.
The focus should be on the non-abusive family, and the parents who NEED to know about issues like an unplanned teen pregnancy in order to deal with the bigger issues that got her there in the first place.
GreenGuy, where did you get that 90% number?
When you say most (parents AREN'T - your emphasis - abusive) does mean 51%, or another number?
Where did you get that number? Do you have a link, a citation, a study?
Or did you make it up?
Just curious.
I just made it up in order to emphasize a point - but you're arguing against semantics, not my central argument.
The point is the same - the law should focus on the "typical." The fact that a sperm finds an egg is unrelated to whether a girl is being beaten by dad.
I do, however, think I can safely say that the vast majority of households in the US are non-abusive, and in the majority of households, it safely remains the jurisdiction of the parents to show children the "right" way, and to solve problems when a child is a minor before they become and remain larger and more permanent problems when the child is a legal adult.
I'll say "vast majority" instead of "90%" - good enough for you?
Sure, 2%, 10%, 51%, 99%, I don't care, it's just semantics. Made up in order to emphasize a point.
So now we know you make up stuff to make your point. That's all.
"GreenGuy, where did you get that 90% number?"
Maybe we could just get the numbers from Planned Parenthood.
"Excuse me, how many of the abortions that you perform are the result of rape or incest? And how many are just because its 'not a good time for me to have a baby? What, you won't give me those numbers? Well, just tell me how many abortions you performed last year, since people want them to be 'safe, rare and legal'? No? Huh. Well, thanks anyway. Keep up the good work."
That's a logical fallacy known as a "hasty generalization," with the intent of casting doubt on the entirety of my argument through an "ad personam" attack. In other words, because I made up the 90%, all of my information must be made up, and therefore, false.
The fact that I used "90%" - a number I made up - as a generalization, in the vein of terminology as "most" or "many," doesn't disprove my central premise, that tough cases make bad law, and the law should focus on the typical - that being, that the majority of households are non-abusive.
Let me put this another way - since it's reasonable to assume that the VAST MAJORITY of households are non-abusive, I'd like to see a link from you that shows any different.
I'll eat my words and my argument if you can show me a legitimate, established source that shows, or even comes remotely close to showing that 50% or more of households in the state of Illinois have at least one physically abusive parent.
No thanks. I don't have any statistics or studies at hand. So I won't make up any numbers.
I guess I'm just funny that way.
>
By going to www.plannedparenthood.org you can find a gigantic amount of statistics and information on women's reproductive rights. Many of the myths being dispersed here today can be debunked by going there.
"This is egregiously dangerous! How come conservatives are so anxious to keep government out of everything except the Bedroom?"
How come liberals state so loudly that they are the party of the little guy, the helpless, the downtrodden, until that person happens to be inside the womb? Who needs the protection of the gov't more?
Naomi...
And by going here: http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/index.html you can find excellent info on why every life deserves to be protected.
my network administrator won't let me access Planned Parenthood for some reason
Well, then, congratulations, anon. You succesufully pointed out a flaw.
Now, do you have an actual argument?
No thanks. I just don't accept people making stuff up.
O, alright, I'll have an actual argument.
Proposed: people that make stuff look silly.
Do you want protagonist, or antagonist?
Sorry, typo, should have been
people that make stuff *up* look silly.
My bad.
So you're just trolling, then?
I'm not sure what trolling means, or what you mean by trolling.
This is what I asked, and found out: do you make up stuff, make up percentages, make up numbers to make a point?
If pointing out that you invent figures to make your point is trolling then I guess that is what it is.
How about this: don't make up numbers to make a point. We couldn't do it in the third grade, or in high school, or in college, and we can't do it at work. I guess here is ok though.
I don't care, make up whatever you want. I just don't make up numbers to make a point and neither do most people, that's all. Go ahead and do it if you want to.
I'll take that as a yes....
...don't feed the trolls...don't feed the trolls...don't feed the trolls...
Parental Notification Rules (and Loopholes)...
nice...
GreenGuy, is that some sort of insult, "trolling"?
All I did was ask you if you invented numbers, statistics, to make your point.
You said you did invent numbers to make your point.
Did I do something wrong?
GreenGuy,
From a quick search, you were pretty close with your 10% estimate. The number reported by the Department of Health and Human Services says the rate is around 11.9% with a majority of the cases being from neglect.
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/summary.htm
"During the past 3 years, the rate of victimization and the number of victims have been decreasing. An estimated 872,000 children were determined to be victims of child abuse or neglect for 2004. The rate of victimization per 1,000 children in the national population has dropped from 12.5 children in 2001 to 11.9 children in 2004."
"More than 60 percent of child victims were neglected by their parents or other caregivers. About 18 percent were physically abused, 10 percent were sexually abused, and 7 percent were emotionally maltreated. In addition, 15 percent were associated with "other" types of maltreatment based on specific State laws and policies. A child could be a victim of more than one type of maltreatment. "
Wait, I just realized that GreenGuy was off by a factor of 10. The rate of abuse as reported (and yes, we all realize, reported is different than actual), is only 1.19%. Even lower.