[The Final Dakar]

Alabama's Radical Parental Consent Law Puts Minors on Trial

A new Alabama regulation, the most radical parental consent law in the country, puts minors seeking abortions virtually on trial, appoints a guardian for their fetus, and could drag family, friends, and acquaintances into court.

The state law is explicitly written to make it more difficult for minors to terminate unwanted pregnancies. A young woman seeking a judicial bypass there won't just have to make her case to a judge with a lawyer at her side. She will be facing an adversarial process where she's essentially on trial. Her fetus or embryo will have an appointed advocate whose job it is to argue on behalf of that embryo's interests (which, one would reasonably conclude, are for the young woman to not terminate the pregnancy). She'll also be facing a DA who can call witnesses to challenge or corroborate the young woman's claims of her own maturity. So if she says she's a good student, the DA can call her teachers as witnesses. If she says she's responsible and works an after-school job, the DA can call her supervisor. And if her parents know the young woman is seeking a judicial bypass, the DA can call them too.

One strange aspect of judicial bypass procedures, whether in Alabama or elsewhere, is that they require young women to prove they are mature and thoughtful enough to have an abortion, but of course there's no maturity requirement to have a baby or be a parent, and if young women are refused abortions, a baby is the result.

The Alabama law is even more troubling because both the DA and the guardian ad litem can appeal the judge's ruling, which isn't the case in standard judicial bypass proceedings, where the granting of a bypass is the final word. So even if the judge grants a young Alabama woman a bypass, she still may be blocked from getting the procedure if either the DA or the embryo's guardian decides to challenge the judge's decision — and given that it's now their job to block minors from terminating pregnancies, appeals seem likely. The clinic in Montgomery, for example, only performs abortions up to 12 weeks, so delays because of pending appeals can lead to a situation where a pregnancy progresses past the point where a local clinic can perform a termination.

This is some bold shit. The entire system is rigged.

[OAW]

The thing that I find absolutely mind-boggling about all of this is that the same people who are pushing for such laws to make it virtually impossible for a teen to terminate and unwanted pregnancy are the same people who will be all beside themselves when that teen ends up on welfare.

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The thing that I find absolutely mind-boggling about all of this is that the same people who are pushing for such laws to make it virtually impossible for a teen to terminate and unwanted pregnancy are the same people who will be all beside themselves when that teen ends up on welfare.

OAW

She shouldn't have been such a promiscuous slut and listened to the word of god.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The thing that I find absolutely mind-boggling about all of this is that the same people who are pushing for such laws to make it virtually impossible for a teen to terminate and unwanted pregnancy are the same people who will be all beside themselves when that teen ends up on welfare.

OAW

You forget: As soon as its born they can convict it of stealing a rich guy's oxygen and have it executed. Thats perfectly fine.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

You forget: As soon as its born they can convict it of stealing a rich guy's oxygen and have it executed. Thats perfectly fine.

Dude, WTF. There's hyperbole and then there's, well, that.

[Waragainstsleep]

I say its harsh but fair.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I say its harsh but fair.

Harsh? I would describe it more as vitriolic and inane. Also, you and the rest of the world have vastly different ideas of what the word "fair" means.

[Waragainstsleep]

The point is that an awful lot of the same crowd who champion every foetus as sacred are as happy as Larry with executing people. Often people whose guilt is far from certain or whose mental capacity should offer some mitigation. Its hypocrisy, which is why the statement is fair.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Also, you and the rest of the world have vastly different ideas of what the word "fair" means.

How did the rest of the world get dragged into this?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

The point is that an awful lot of the same crowd who champion every foetus as sacred are as happy as Larry with executing people. Often people whose guilt is far from certain or whose mental capacity should offer some mitigation. Its hypocrisy, which is why the statement is fair.

What an ambiguous load of crap.

Some people somewhere are hypocritical, so that makes it ok to generalize about everyone you disagree with on a particular issue? Yeah, fair.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

What an ambiguous load of crap.

Some people somewhere are hypocritical, so that makes it ok to generalize about everyone you disagree with on a particular issue? Yeah, fair.

In my defence, we are talking specifically about Alabama.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

The point is that an awful lot of the same crowd who champion every foetus as sacred are as happy as Larry with executing people. Often people whose guilt is far from certain or whose mental capacity should offer some mitigation. Its hypocrisy, which is why the statement is fair.

Stereotype much?????????

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

In my defence, we are talking specifically about Alabama.

Ever LIVED there?

[The Final Dakar]

So, any thoughts on the legislation or are we going to continue taking shots at a shit poster?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

In my defence, we are talking specifically about Alabama.

Beats the hell out of Liverpool.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

So, any thoughts on the legislation or are we going to continue taking shots at a shit poster?

Full disclosure - I am (mostly) pro-choice.

I'm with you that this legislation will cause more grief than it saves. A lot more.

What about when the court prevents a teen from having a baby. Is that case public record? Will the child grow up to discover that their biological mother "sued" to have an abortion? Could you imagine finding out mom wanted you aborted before you were born? :shudders:

I can understand the viewpoint that spawned this legislation, but as with all things government, there will be huge unintended negative consequences for everyone involved and frankly it's not the government's place to make these types of decisions for citizens.

I hope the ACLU wins.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

In my defence, we are talking specifically about Alabama.

I am confused.

Are you outright admitting your prejudice based on your perception of a group of people's religious and political views? Or do your stereotypes apply only to those people you disagree with? Or is it only people in Alabama?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Full disclosure - I am (mostly) pro-choice.

I'm with you that this legislation will cause more grief than it saves. A lot more.

The grief isn't the point. The entire process is set-up to discourage abortion by putting the teenager through judicial misery and embarrassment. Not to mention all the loopholes that have been thoughtless or thoughtfully put in. Who would argue that having to go through a judge before wasn't stringent enough?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I am confused.

Are you outright admitting your prejudice based on your perception of a group of people's religious and political views? Or do your stereotypes apply only to those people you disagree with? Or is it only people in Alabama?

Excuse me, but how is this not a generalization?

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Also, you and the rest of the world have vastly different ideas of what the word "fair" means.

Or can we focus on the topic at hand instead? As in drop the focus on War.

[abbaZaba]

One strange aspect of judicial bypass procedures, whether in Alabama or elsewhere, is that they require young women to prove they are mature and thoughtful enough to have an abortion, but of course there's no maturity requirement to have a baby or be a parent, and if young women are refused abortions, a baby is the result.

You have to be a part of a judicial proceeding to prove you are mature enough to have an abortion, but don't need to prove your maturity or means to raise the child? This is absolutely ass backwards. How in the hell do things like this come to fruition? How in the world are people so utterly foolish?

The clinic in Montgomery, for example, only performs abortions up to 12 weeks, so delays because of pending appeals can lead to a situation where a pregnancy progresses past the point where a local clinic can perform a termination.

It is like they got the idea for this from carnival games. Rigged does not give the description of this justice.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by abbaZaba 

You have to be a part of a judicial proceeding to prove you are mature enough to have an abortion, but don't need to prove your maturity or means to raise the child?

It shows where the real concern lies.

[subego]

It's stuff like this which stops me from getting fully behind state's rights.

I like the theory, but there are certain states determined to break it for everyone.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

It's stuff like this which stops me from getting fully behind state's rights.

I like the theory, but there are certain states determined to break it for everyone.

I dunno, I feel like stuff like this has nothing to do with state's rights. This is just legislative maneuvering to push the line on what is an already recognized right for women. The problem isn't state's rights, it's states who try to ignore people's rights. Same thing goes for gay marriage.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Stereotype much?????????

Apparently.

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Ever LIVED there?

Nope.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Beats the hell out of Liverpool.

In Liverpool they would simply steal your foetus if it isn't nailed down.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I am confused.

Are you outright admitting your prejudice based on your perception of a group of people's religious and political views? Or do your stereotypes apply only to those people you disagree with? Or is it only people in Alabama?

I was being critical of people who claim to be pro-life and pro-death at the same time which I'm lead to believe is common in Alabama to the point where it seems to be the position of the state government. I imagine it applies to other states too. Texas springs immediately to mind given its enthusiasm for executions, though I hear there are large areas of a much more liberal leaning in Texas and I'm not aware of the same in Alabama.

Am I stereotyping? Maybe. But isn't Alabama both pro-life and pro-death penalty? Am I wrong about that? They are a death penalty state are they not? And now they have this ridiculous new legislation that is the subject of this thread which clearly illustrates that a significant portion of the powers that be are also pro-life. I don't think this is likely to surprise anyone is it?
My original comment that seems to have caused such outrage is just a gross exaggeration of this hypocrisy designed to highlight how incompatible these views ought to be.

Originally Posted by abbaZaba 

How in the hell do things like this come to fruition? How in the world are people so utterly foolish?

Apparently I'm not allowed to say.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I dunno, I feel like stuff like this has nothing to do with state's rights. This is just legislative maneuvering to push the line on what is an already recognized right for women. The problem isn't state's rights, it's states who try to ignore people's rights. Same thing goes for gay marriage.

I'm inclined to agree that states don't appear to be trustworthy when it comes to personal freedoms and rights that aren't laid out in your Constitution or Bill of Rights. So should abortion and gay marriage be included in an amendment to one of those documents? Do they ever amend the Bill of Rights?
Would such an amendment change much? I guess some states would still be able to try to pull this sort of crap, limit the opening hours on abortion clinics, restrict gay marriage licenses or who can perform them etc etc. Perhaps it would make it easier for the higher courts to overturn these despicable practices at least?

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I dunno, I feel like stuff like this has nothing to do with state's rights. This is just legislative maneuvering to push the line on what is an already recognized right for women. The problem isn't state's rights, it's states who try to ignore people's rights. Same thing goes for gay marriage.

If this is what Alabama does without state's rights, what do you think they'd do with them?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

If this is what Alabama does without state's rights, what do you think they'd do with them?

It depends on what latitude you think states right should have. Or perhaps, my impression of what they are is mistaken. What do abilities do you refer to when you refer to state's rights?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Excuse me, but how is this not a generalization?

Can you explain to me how it is? I'm asking for specific clarification on his generalization.

Or can we focus on the topic at hand instead? As in drop the focus on War.

How is it not relevant to the topic at hand? If one of the participants is going to make blanket generalizations we ought to snuff that out right now if we'd like to be able to have an honest discussion. At the very least we can demonstrate his folly so as not to scare off those who would have something substantial to say directly about the topic. I suppose we've done that, so as you wish.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

If this is what Alabama does without state's rights, what do you think they'd do with them?

Perhaps they would not feel the need for such extreme "statement" legislation in direct response to what they feel is federal encroachment on a matter that should fall under state's rights.

Escalation of division and all that.

[subego]

Honestly, if that's the rationale, then I know I don't want them to have more rights.

You don't use your state's population of young adults as shock troops for your pissing match with the Federal Government.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

How is it not relevant to the topic at hand? If one of the participants is going to make blanket generalizations we ought to snuff that out right now if we'd like to be able to have an honest discussion.

My argument is his initial statement was utterly devoid of value. Arguing it constitutes a derail.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Can you explain to me how it is? I'm asking for specific clarification on his generalization.

I'll take my own advice and drop it to focus on the topic at hand.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Perhaps they would not feel the need for such extreme "statement" legislation

It's not a statement. It's trying to ban abortion for teens without outright doing so.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

You don't use your state's population of young adults as shock troops for your pissing match with the Federal Government.

Well, that's nothing new, per se. Both parties are guilty of this; The latest example being not expanding medicaid for the underprivileged because Obama.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

Honestly, if that's the rationale, then I know I don't want them to have more rights.

You don't use your state's population of young adults as shock troops for your pissing match with the Federal Government.

The state's population of young adults needs to wake up to what their government is doing. It is much easier to effect positive change at the state level than the federal.

We ought to remove the potential for this outright by limiting government's role in dictating our private lives.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

It's not a statement. It's trying to ban abortion for teens without outright doing so.

Regardless of how you describe the legislation, my point remains.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Regardless of how you describe the legislation, my point remains.

Not really. What does removing affirmed rights have to do with Federal encroachment? Rights are not negotiable to some outspoken minority just because they may be a local majority.

Edit: And you really think they're more concerned with making a statement than actually preventing abortions? Really?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Not really. What does removing affirmed rights have to do with Federal encroachment? Rights are not negotiable to some outspoken minority just because they may be a local majority.

Edit: And you really think they're more concerned with making a statement than actually preventing abortions? Really?

Would you be opposed to people euthanizing their toddlers by the millions, just because they're inconvenient, grossly dependent on their parents, and require around the clock supervision? That's the way the pro-life sects look at the issue. Is it backwards? Yes, from a purely scientific perspective, but when you add philosophical complexities it's much more tangled. Such as, did you know that Taoists, Sikhs, Muslims, and Hindus are opposed to abortion on a level that puts even Fundamentalist Christians to shame? Should the UN step in and force Malaysia to legalize them? How about the EU forcing Ireland, Poland, and Denmark*? It's complicated and frankly the US is nearly as diverse as the EU when it comes to perspectives on morality, and within certain parameters states should be allowed to form their own conscience regarding such issues.

(*Yes, a woman has to get special authorization to get an abortion in Denmark or Poland, and it's nearly impossible to get one in Ireland, unless the woman's life is in immediate danger.)