why I oppose Proposition 85
For those of you who aren't living in California, Proposition 85 is a proposed amendment to the California constitution that would require abortion providers to notify a girl's parents before she can get an abortion. I am voting against this proposition today, and I have publicly stated my opposition to this proposition in the past.
This has incensed a lot of my Mormon friends. They don't understand how I can oppose any sort of restriction on abortion, especially a restriction like this one. I've had a couple friends tell me that I'm sick for thinking that a 12-year-old or 13-year-old girl should be able to get an abortion without telling her parents.
So why should a Mormon guy (who has misgivings about the morality of abortion) oppose this amendment so strongly? One very simple reason: WHAT IF THE GIRL'S FATHER WAS THE ONE WHO GOT HER PREGNANT? For those of you who don't believe that this actual happens, open your eyes. Incest is frighteningly common, and while I can't find any reliable numbers, anecdotal evidence suggests that a significant percentage of teenage girls who get abortions get them because they were sexually abused by their fathers. Should we require girls who have been raped by their fathers (or stepfathers) to tell the man who raped them before they abort the baby? I think we would be putting young girls in very serious danger if we did that.
Yes, I know that if a girl was abused by her parents, she can get a judge to give her an exception to the law. I don't see that as a satisfactory solution, however. If a girl is in an abusive situation, escaping from her house to get an abortion is going to be difficult in the first place. Forcing a teenage girl (who is probably already terrified) to go to court and tell an older (probably male) judge that her father has been raping her strikes me as totally inhumane. That's completely ignoring practical issues like the fact that California's courts are ridiculously clogged to begin with. And what if the judge doesn't believe her? The bottom line is that if this initiative is passed, there is a very good probability that at least one teenage girl in California will get an unsafe "back alley" abortion because she's too scared to tell anyone that she's being sexually abused. And as far as I'm concerned, one girl who suffers health complications (or dies) from an unsafe abortion procedure is far too many. Hence, I oppose this initiative.
As an aside, if any of my conservative Mormon friends are reading this, I would be interested to hear why you are incensed about opposition to Proposition 85 and refuse to vote for any Democrats because they "support abortion"... But yet you line up to support a pro-choice presidential candidate like Mitt Romney. (And in many cases villify Harry Reid, a Mormon Democrat who is also opposed to abortion.) And yes, Harry Reid is pro-life and Mitt Romney is pro-choice. Just google either of their names together with "abortion" and you'll see that in about five seconds. (Some of my friends get around this objection by denial... "Mitt Romney just says that he's pro-choice so he could win in Massachusetts. He's really pro-life." Sorry, but I beg to differ on that one. I can't rule out that possibility, but if that were the case, that would be one heck of a flip flop.)
This has incensed a lot of my Mormon friends. They don't understand how I can oppose any sort of restriction on abortion, especially a restriction like this one. I've had a couple friends tell me that I'm sick for thinking that a 12-year-old or 13-year-old girl should be able to get an abortion without telling her parents.
So why should a Mormon guy (who has misgivings about the morality of abortion) oppose this amendment so strongly? One very simple reason: WHAT IF THE GIRL'S FATHER WAS THE ONE WHO GOT HER PREGNANT? For those of you who don't believe that this actual happens, open your eyes. Incest is frighteningly common, and while I can't find any reliable numbers, anecdotal evidence suggests that a significant percentage of teenage girls who get abortions get them because they were sexually abused by their fathers. Should we require girls who have been raped by their fathers (or stepfathers) to tell the man who raped them before they abort the baby? I think we would be putting young girls in very serious danger if we did that.
Yes, I know that if a girl was abused by her parents, she can get a judge to give her an exception to the law. I don't see that as a satisfactory solution, however. If a girl is in an abusive situation, escaping from her house to get an abortion is going to be difficult in the first place. Forcing a teenage girl (who is probably already terrified) to go to court and tell an older (probably male) judge that her father has been raping her strikes me as totally inhumane. That's completely ignoring practical issues like the fact that California's courts are ridiculously clogged to begin with. And what if the judge doesn't believe her? The bottom line is that if this initiative is passed, there is a very good probability that at least one teenage girl in California will get an unsafe "back alley" abortion because she's too scared to tell anyone that she's being sexually abused. And as far as I'm concerned, one girl who suffers health complications (or dies) from an unsafe abortion procedure is far too many. Hence, I oppose this initiative.
As an aside, if any of my conservative Mormon friends are reading this, I would be interested to hear why you are incensed about opposition to Proposition 85 and refuse to vote for any Democrats because they "support abortion"... But yet you line up to support a pro-choice presidential candidate like Mitt Romney. (And in many cases villify Harry Reid, a Mormon Democrat who is also opposed to abortion.) And yes, Harry Reid is pro-life and Mitt Romney is pro-choice. Just google either of their names together with "abortion" and you'll see that in about five seconds. (Some of my friends get around this objection by denial... "Mitt Romney just says that he's pro-choice so he could win in Massachusetts. He's really pro-life." Sorry, but I beg to differ on that one. I can't rule out that possibility, but if that were the case, that would be one heck of a flip flop.)