Join 3,553 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Talabangilists have taken over the GOP
April 27, 2005 12:20 PM   Subscribe

Republicans; defending the rights of rapists to sue since 2005. Did you just impregnate your 13 year old daughter? Never fear, the GOP is here! They'll defend your right to keep your "little secret" from crossing state lines.
posted by EmoChild (54 comments total)

 
Why should parents have anything to do with raising their own children when "Mommy Government" can do it so much better?
posted by acetonic at 12:26 PM on April 27, 2005


The notification requirement of subsection (a)(2) does not apply if--
`(3) the minor declares in a signed written statement that she is the victim of sexual abuse, neglect, or physical abuse by a parent, and, before an abortion is performed on the minor, the physician notifies the authorities specified to receive reports of child abuse or neglect by the law of the State in which the minor resides of the known or suspected abuse or neglect; or
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 12:28 PM on April 27, 2005


Thanks for the clarification, Bulgaroktonos.
posted by Specklet at 12:30 PM on April 27, 2005


Bulgaroktonos -- you forgot to emphasize this part:

and, before an abortion is performed on the minor, the physician notifies the authorities specified to receive reports of child abuse or neglect by the law of the State in which the minor resides of the known or suspected abuse or neglect;

So, where is the victim going to go when her aggressor is released on bail?
posted by clevershark at 12:32 PM on April 27, 2005


Rub 'em here!
Rub 'em there!
Rub 'em EVERYHWERE!
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 12:33 PM on April 27, 2005


defending the rights of rapists to sue

That's a pretty hefty claim, and I'm not really seeing it yet. I think I understand the issues related to parental notification, but this post seems to distract attention from them in favor of hyperbole and drama. Please clarify, I'm genuinely confused.
posted by freebird at 12:35 PM on April 27, 2005


Bulgaroktonos

Subsection (a)(2) only speaks of physicians. The exception that you listed, only applies to subsection (a)(2). No such exception applies to a person who is actually moving the minor across state lines.
posted by EmoChild at 12:36 PM on April 27, 2005


I'm always up for a good round of Republican-bashing, and this bill in particular is pretty messed up, but let's not go crazy. The reason to hate this bill isn't for the relatively rare case of parental incest. It's for the much more common case in which the girl gets knocked up in the usual manner and the parents would rather see two lives ruined than none.
posted by gurple at 12:37 PM on April 27, 2005


The Talabangelists know they can't reverse Roe v. Wade, so they're basicaly chipping away at its implications wherever they can. They use a gradual approach because they know that it's easier to squeeze things in through the back door than it would be through the front -- maybe that's something they learned from Jeff Gannon?

Those people won't be happy until America is back to the "coathanger in a back alley" days of the abortion debate.
posted by clevershark at 12:42 PM on April 27, 2005


emochild,

you missed a link. If anything is fucked up about this bill, it's the republicans pulling childish stunts like this

They've really become such clowns, haven't they?
posted by slapshot57 at 12:42 PM on April 27, 2005


freebird

Here is how it works. Let's say someone knocks up their daughter. The daughter then has their friend drive them to a neighboring state to have an Abortion. The rapist, as the parent, can, under subsection (d) of Sec. 2431 of chapter 117A, bring a civil action (sue) against the friend who drove the daughter across state lines.
posted by EmoChild at 12:42 PM on April 27, 2005


I was aware of that Emochild, my point was merely that the Republicans had specifically considered the case the submitter described, and tried to take some account of it.

While it would be nice to see the exception extended(I suspect it will be before the bill passes), I doubt it is entirely necessary. An accused parent will have trouble finding a sympathetic court or jury to handle the case.

As for clevershark, that's a problem for all crimes parents commit against children isn't it? We have systems that, although imperfect, deal with these sorts of issues.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 12:42 PM on April 27, 2005


I don't see anything wrong with attempting to regulate abortion. There are plenty of pro-choice Republicans who still favor some regulation of abortion, because they believe that while women should be allowed the option of an abortion, it should be limited where possible.

For those who oppose all abortion, regulation is the only way to limit what they see as an abhorrent practice within the confines of current law.

Neither of these are attempt to "squeeze things in through the back door", they are an attempt to regulate an activity(in a way consistent with Roe V. Wade) that most American believe should be legal, but regulated.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 12:49 PM on April 27, 2005


Bulgaroktonos writes " As for clevershark, that's a problem for all crimes parents commit against children isn't it?"

Yes it is. It makes no sense to pass laws which give the aggressors a means to revenge themselves on those who try to help the victim. Relying on a jury being reasonable enough to thwart the already-known bad consequences of that law seems to me to be a way fraught with peril -- what if, for instance, a child's mother sues the "good Samaritan"? According to the way things work in civil court, the plaintiff only has to prove that "harm" has been done. This does not even have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, merely on preponderance of the evidence.
posted by clevershark at 12:54 PM on April 27, 2005


Bulgaroktonos

Abstract discussions about regulating abortion don't get to the heart of this issue. Physicians are afforded protection from being sued in cases of incest. Why isn’t the same protection provided for people who bring the minor across state lines? That was deliberately left out by the GOP leadership.

Let me ask you. Do YOU think it is a good idea to allow a rapist to sue the person who took his victim across state lines to receive an abortion?
posted by EmoChild at 12:58 PM on April 27, 2005


Bulg, your comments about regulation would apply to any bill that tries to tighten up controls on abortion -- clevershark's comments, too, for that matter, but that's ok because I happen to agree with him. :)

"regulation" covers a lot of ground. I think we can probably all agree that abortions should not be available as a special treatment at the local nail salon. We can probably also all agree that we don't want a return to the days of coathangers and back alleys -- I hope.

What sucks about this bill is that it gives parents so much control. Someone with an opposing viewpoint to mine would say that that's what's so wonderful about this bill. In the amount of coverage this bill has received already I've heard sob stories supporting both sides. This is not going to be a pretty fight.

On preview: what Emo said. Err... half of what Emo said. Why the incest fixation, Emo? What Bulg said above -- how would incestuous parents actually make this play out in court?
posted by gurple at 1:02 PM on April 27, 2005


Bulgaroktonos

Furthermore, (as slapshot57 pointed out) the Democrats tried to propose amendments that would protect good Samaritans from the bill’s criminal and civil penalties. For instance, one amendment exempted a grandparents or adult siblings. Not only did the GOP vote it down, they rewrote the amendment’s title to read that “sexual predators” would be exempted from prosecution.

As they say, this isn’t your father’s GOP. These clowns are bought, paid for, and controlled by extreme talabangilist wingnuts, and they will harm whoever stands in their way. Including grandmothers looking out for the best interests of their abused granddaughters.
posted by EmoChild at 1:07 PM on April 27, 2005


I don't think it's a good idea, as a made clear earlier. I do not, however, think that there are Republicans in congress secretly plotting to help rapists.

For one I'm not entirely sure that the law would allow parents to sue the person who takes the minor across state lines; you would have a tough time proving "damage" in a case where the law specifically allow the minor to get the abortion. Furthermore, I'm not sure how many states completely prohibit minors from receiving abortions without parental notification, even in cases of abuse or incest. It might be that in these cases, no transport across state lines would be needed.

If you think this law is a bad idea, because you think minors should be able to get an abortion without their parent's consent, say so.

If you want to say that it should include a provision to make sure that the same protection if afforded to the person who assists in procuring the abortion, than say that. I agree that such a provision would probably be a good idea.

What I don't like is a people sitting around claiming that the "evil republicans" are plotting to do horrible things, for no other reason than that they are horrible, which is certainly the implications of the submitters tone.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 1:10 PM on April 27, 2005


I don't see anything wrong with attempting to regulate abortion. There are plenty of pro-choice Republicans who still favor some regulation of abortion, because they believe that while women should be allowed the option of an abortion, it should be limited where possible.

If you agree that women should be allowed the option of abortion, then what's the point of limiting it? To prevent all us crazy broads from running out and getting abortions all willy-nilly? No woman asks for an abortion, no woman ever wants to have one, but sometimes we must. And it's none of your damn business why we need it. The only regulation it needs are the health regulations applied to any medical procedure.

As far as circumstances that this bill will make particularly difficult, how about this one (which happened a few times at my high school): A teenage girl goes to a party, gets drunk, high, drugged or any combination of the three, and has nonconsensual sex. She gets pregnant. She doesn't want to tell her parents, because it will involve admitting to her misbehavior and she fears being blamed/punished. So she convinces someone--a friend, another adult, whatever--to drive her to a state where she can get an abortion. Now we have a problem.

All these laws do is set parents against their children or encourages them to let the government do their child-rearing for them. What we need is an encouragement of parent/child communication without fear of punishment on either side--this is an issue that definitely should be the concern of families, not the government.
posted by scarymonsterrrr at 1:11 PM on April 27, 2005


Gurpie writes:

"how would incestuous parents actually make this play out in court?"

That is a good and fair question.
Whether the parent would actually win is beside the point.
The heart of the matter is that the GOP believes that an incestuous parent should actually be granted the right to bring the lawsuit to court. Do you agree with that?
I don't.
posted by EmoChild at 1:12 PM on April 27, 2005


Emochild, what is the point of exempting grandparents or adult siblings? The idea is that in states where parent are supposed to be notified, they should be notified. In other words, no one should be allowed to get across state lines and be exempt from the law.

Proposing an amendment to exempt certain classes of people effectively guts the substantive part of the bill, and allows the Democrats to look a little better while they do it.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 1:13 PM on April 27, 2005


Bulgaroktonos writes " I don't see anything wrong with attempting to regulate abortion."

As gurple points out, I don't think there are many who would argue for the deregulation of abortion (although the GOP seems to want to deregulate everything else). But this isn't really regulation...in the sense that it does nothing but limit the rights of people to obtain abortions that they would otherwise be able to obtain. In other words, it doesn't regulate abortion as a procedure, say the way legislating during which parts of a pregnancy an abortion is allowed does. Instead, it simply limits the rights of people who want to get abortions otherwise legislated as legal.

It also sets up a strange precedent, since teens can presumably get the treatment in thier own states, making it seem like it truly is just a way to limit access in any way possible in the hopes of eventually making access totally impossible. In addition, in most states teens can get STD care without parental notification, which is as it should be. So the law seems more and more about trying to undue RvW in any way possible, even if those ways don't make much sense.
posted by OmieWise at 1:15 PM on April 27, 2005


What EmoChild says. Even if every jury in the country would throw the case out just a suit being filed is stressful and incures expenses. It's a bad law that depends on jury nullification to do the right thing. that goes double for civil statues.
posted by Mitheral at 1:17 PM on April 27, 2005


I agree, Mitheral, but that's a reason to argue for amending the law. It is not a reason to argue that Republicans are evil, and want to people who commit incest.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 1:19 PM on April 27, 2005


The heart of the matter is that the GOP believes that an incestuous parent should actually be granted the right to bring the lawsuit to court. Do you agree with that?

No, of course not. But that's really, really not the point of the bill, and if there were an amendment to the bill that made the whole thing go away in the case of incest I'd STILL be dead against it, for the reasons that scarymonsterrrr talks about above.
posted by gurple at 1:19 PM on April 27, 2005


In other words, it doesn't regulate abortion as a procedure, say the way legislating during which parts of a pregnancy an abortion is allowed does. Instead, it simply limits the rights of people who want to get abortions otherwise legislated as legal.

The end goal of getting around Roe v. Wade is:

An abortion procedure is legal, but it is illegal to have the procedure carried out on a woman.

This legislation is demonstrably one more step along our slippery slope down a theocracy.

Jeb in 2008, mark my words...
posted by AlexReynolds at 1:21 PM on April 27, 2005


Parental involvement? Regulation?
None of your damn business.
C'mon, you "personal responsibility" whelps on the right (yes, I've just stuffed you with straw), shouldn't the government get the fuck out of this? If a woman is old enough to have sex, she's old enough to get an abortion. And it's none of your damn business. Just like it's none of your damn business which gender I prefer to fuck, whether I vote for Republicans or Democrats, whether I wear boxers or briefs. None of your goddamn business. What magazines I read? What websites I frequent? Whether I shit digested or whole corn? None of your goddamn business.
posted by klangklangston at 1:32 PM on April 27, 2005


Bulgaroktonos writes:

"It is not a reason to argue that Republicans are evil, and want to people who commit incest."


I am sorry that I implied that Republicans are evil. Having been a Republican, up until 5 years ago when I realized that the party had been hijacked by Christian jihadists, I would not want to characterize other Republicans as "evil". Many good friends and family members and neighbors are Republicans.

Now the current GOP "leadership" is a different story.
If they aren't "evil", then they are certainly amoral. They don't seem to care who suffers in their twisted campaign to Talabanize our country. This particular bill is just another example. They COULD have exempted good Samaritans who took victims of incest across state line to receive an abortion from criminal and civil penalties, but they chose not to. You can call it evil, you can call it amoral, you can call it misguided…
Whatever one calls it, it is a travesty. I hope I can one day reclaim my party, but that will never happen until everyone who loves our pluristic Republic stands up and calls a spade a spade.
These people are dangerous nutcases, and none of our private lives will be safe until they are removed and replaced with the honerable Eisenhower Republicans of years past.
posted by EmoChild at 1:35 PM on April 27, 2005


You know what'll be good? When the government has no place in the doctor/patient relationship.

Begin tangental rant:

I was pregnant at 17, and the idea that either my parents or the government could have swooped in and decided whether my pregnancy was to continue is horrific. I realize I'm far from neutral on this subject, but I can't imagine such a life-altering decision being anyone's call but my own.

::steams::
posted by Space Kitty at 1:38 PM on April 27, 2005


What about the hypothetical case of a 17 year old who makes the decision to terminate a pregnancy on her own and purchases her own bus ticket to get to the next state in which parental notification laws are not in effect? Can you sue the bus company? The employee who sold her the ticket? If she borrows her aunt's car without this latter knowing the purpose of her trip, is she legally liable?

That it fails to answer those questions is what makes this bill bad law.

What I don't like is a people sitting around claiming that the "evil republicans" are plotting to do horrible things, for no other reason than that they are horrible, which is certainly the implications of the submitters tone.

That's a pretty childish view of things. Republicans clearly have a certain idea of how to make America (and perhaps the world) better, and they are honestly convinced that it will do so, and that point of view dictates their political and day-to-day solutions. They think that turning the country into a theocracy is the right thing for America (sometimes, the world), and that's why they advocate it.

But one can be honest and sincere, and also wrong.
posted by clevershark at 1:41 PM on April 27, 2005


Bulgaroktonos

P.S. I appreciate your thoughtful comments on this subject. Thanks for contributing to an interesting conversation.
posted by EmoChild at 1:47 PM on April 27, 2005


That the Republicans are trying to backdoor subvert Roe v Wade is enough to cause some serious concerns. That they are making it possible to sue someone who aids an abortion is ridiculous.

The crimes being committed in the name of saving us from ourselves are getting out of hand.

But hey, in Florida now, you can shoot first and not even have to try and get away from the danger. Kill 'em all, unless they're a politically charged vegetable and then keep them alive by any means necessary (except filibusters, those are bad, bad, bad apparently).

The Republican Party in 2005 may not be evil per se, but they certainly do a more than passable impression of evil.
posted by fenriq at 2:06 PM on April 27, 2005


I think we can probably all agree that abortions should not be available as a special treatment at the local nail salon.

Yeah, because that's exactly what would happen.

"I'd like a quarter-pounder with cheese, large fries, coke, and an abortion to go. And I'm in a hurry."

Give me a fucking break. This reaks of man's perspective, which I know pretty well, being a guy. I'm guessing that the abortion procedure is traumatic enough to prevent it from becoming as casual an occurance as going to the nail salon.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 2:37 PM on April 27, 2005


C-D, you've apparently never had a pedicure or you'd know that trauma and nail salons are already well acquianted.

But the slippery slope angle is ridiculous, you are right. Just like the idiots arguing against gay marriage saying people will want to marry their arm chairs if we don't stop this gay marriage thing now. Utterly stupid logic.
posted by fenriq at 2:59 PM on April 27, 2005


But the slippery slope angle is ridiculous

He's not arguing a slippery slope (that one day there will be abortions at nail salons, even though there are doctors in strip malls already), but rather that we all accept that there is room for government regulation of medical procedures. You are mischaracterizing his argument in order to dismiss it.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 3:17 PM on April 27, 2005


Um, actually I think fenriq is agreeing with him.
posted by scarymonsterrrr at 3:18 PM on April 27, 2005


I am soooo freaking glad i don't live in a red state, or i'm not sure i could control the murderous rage i feel right now...it just doesn't freakin stop. Won't this sort of law just lead to underground abortion clinics?

Fucking mouthbreathers...
Aaaarrrghh

[deep breaths]

Sorry...I am sooo mad.
posted by schyler523 at 3:34 PM on April 27, 2005


I was under the impression that Republicans, being more conservative, would be the first to stone sexual offenders. And it seems to me that a 13 year old girl giving birth would illuminate a case of rape more so than an inter-state abortion.
I think you've really skewed the issue here, but maybe I'm missing something.
posted by Citizen Premier at 3:40 PM on April 27, 2005


BTW, i really like your term talabangelists...brightens my mood a bit...
posted by schyler523 at 3:43 PM on April 27, 2005


their friend drive them to a neighboring state to have an Abortion.
How often is this happening, crossing a state line for an abortion. Think I missed the memo showing the state(s) where abortion is illegal.
posted by thomcatspike at 3:45 PM on April 27, 2005


But the slippery slope angle is ridiculous, you are right. Just like the idiots arguing against gay marriage saying people will want to marry their arm chairs if we don't stop this gay marriage thing now. Utterly stupid logic.


OT, but in the case of marriage, why is it stupid? Although I support full gay rights (including marriage), I think that the re-examination of the institution of marriage could easily lead to more acceptance for polyamorous or other relationships. After all, I'd think that most of the reason we only have two party legal marriages in this country harkens back to religion (don't most Islamic states have polygamous marriage?). Do you think that Islamic and Mormon men won't take gay marriage as an opportunity to drive for polyamorous rights based upon some freedom of religion argument? Will new marriage rights be defined strictly, or will there be ambiguity, and will there be unintended consequences for common-law marriages for same sex roommates?
posted by BrotherCaine at 3:59 PM on April 27, 2005


thomcatspike, if you live near a state line and the closest major metro area is in the other state, you are quite likely to have to do so.
posted by amber_dale at 4:02 PM on April 27, 2005


BrotherCaine writes "Will new marriage rights be defined strictly, or will there be ambiguity, and will there be unintended consequences for common-law marriages for same sex roommates?"

Are you somehow implying that the current ill-thought-out, rushed anti-gay-marriage bills don't have those unintended consequences for common-law marriages now? If so you are a very naive man, and not a very attentive MeFi reader -- we've discussed a few cases where new legislation somehow "illegitimized" already-established relationships in the eyes of the law.
posted by clevershark at 4:06 PM on April 27, 2005


Bulgaroktonos, you seem to have done your homework here.

What happens if mom thinks her fourteen year old shouldn't have to give birth to her little brother and dad disagrees (on moral grounds, of course)?

Can dad sue mom?
posted by jmhm at 4:13 PM on April 27, 2005


To reiterate: I support full gay rights (including marriage).

clevershark:
No, I'd never imply that. Most 'rushed' law seems to have unintended consequences. In CA we have voter initiatives (referendums?), which seem to always be both poorly thought out, and overturned in court challenges.

My point was that any examination of marriage could be part of a 'slippery slope', albeit a short one. However, I don't think reaching the bottom of that slope is a bad thing. Why not polyamorous marriage, alternate day on marraige, contract term marriage, or any other kind of subset of marital rights people can think of? However, although I think it is an extremely unlikely consequence, I draw the line at bestiality marriage, at least until someone can come up with believable consent criteria for animals. Ewww.
posted by BrotherCaine at 4:42 PM on April 27, 2005


Sorry, my prev. post looks like it puts words in clevershark's mouth. I meant I'm responding to clevershark.

Gurple,
Except for the word 'rare' I am in complete agreement.

I accept that parental incest may be as rare as 1/2% in the general population, but it probably makes for a more substantial percentage among underage pregnant women.
posted by BrotherCaine at 4:48 PM on April 27, 2005


OT, but in the case of marriage, why is it stupid?

Because there are boring normal policy reasons to prohibit legal polygamy.

One, it could increase fraud. Pair marriage has a potential for fraud, but a self-limiting one. If I want to be married to someone for love, I can't also be married to someone merely for immigration, employment benefits, or tax reasons. But if I can legally marry the entire population of Guatemala or Pittsburgh, that's off.

Two, there are hard problems about consent. In a pair marriage, one spouse can give or withhold medical consent for an incapacitated spouse. What do you do, though, when one husband says to pull the plug and the other one says to leave the machines on? If you only pay attention to one of the husbands in that case, then aren't you really fully married only to that one, since the other can't give consent for you?

Not that they're absolutely insoluble, but there are reasons to be against legal polygamy that don't have anything to do with thinking it's icky or blasphemous.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:33 PM on April 27, 2005


You people are killing America.
Politico-tribalism is a disease. Seek help.
posted by nightchrome at 6:59 PM on April 27, 2005


MeTa
posted by mlis at 7:06 PM on April 27, 2005


However, although I think it is an extremely unlikely consequence, I draw the line at bestiality marriage, at least until someone can come up with believable consent criteria for animals. Ewww.

What is it with people who are skeptical of gay marriage and their constant bringing up of bestiality? It positively seems like an obsession with them. This is not strictly intended for BrotherCaine; Senator Santorum also brought this up... I'm genuinely curious as to why somehow a relationship between two people of the sam gender seems to have echoes of inter-species whoppee.
posted by clevershark at 7:41 PM on April 27, 2005


clevershark,
I was actually referencing Santorum... If I'm going to postulate a 'worst-case' slippery slope I might as well borrow his. I think we'll be more likely to be hit by a meteor, but hey, if I'm going to come out as in favor of polyamorous marraige, I might as well define my outer boundary.
posted by BrotherCaine at 11:37 PM on April 27, 2005


Brother: The #1 reason to avoid polygamy? Probate, my friend. With even one spouse and children, it frequently gets ugly. With multiple sequential spouses and children, it gets much uglier. With concurrent spouses and children? Jesus. The only ones who want legal polygamy are polygamists and divorce lawyers.
posted by klangklangston at 6:42 AM on April 28, 2005


Disturbing. Not least in the way parenting is viewed, as a matter of ownership, of control. Brr. It's like daughters are property, not citizens to be protected in their own right.

Don't human rights apply to minors, too?
posted by funambulist at 12:42 PM on April 28, 2005


Who posted this? J. Edgar Hoover
I’ve been a way for a day and really want to post this, as this thread is a big wrong. Especially since political sides can be full of errors like the post.
The post reads for Republicans like this; Usually homosexuals have alternative sex lives to heterosexuals. Some of these sex acts are viewed by large groups of people as bad. So an act like child incest may be considered normal to them.
posted by thomcatspike at 10:14 AM on April 29, 2005


« Older Students go 'phishing' for user info.Indiana Unive...  |  Trucks... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments