The Problem with the Culture of Drive-Thru Abortions
In the quest to remove any and all obstacles and delays in the race for a woman (or girl) to get an abortion, people starting become aware that abusive men were coercing women against their will to get them. By bringing down the full force of constitutional law to make it not only constitutional to kill one’s unborn child, but to be able to do so as fast as possible, it made it possible for women to be abused in the process.
First, Planned Parenthood knows and knowingly covers up obvious cases of abuse. One study shows that Planned Parenthood and related organizations failed to report about a minimum of about 10,000 cases of child sex abuse in Illinois in the year 2000 alone. The law is clear that medical providers are required to report suspected cases of abuse. When authorities try to investigate child rape, they are thwarted by Planned Parenthood, who has a financial stake in the problem remaining unaddressed. Legally, this is called a “conflict of interest.”
Second, women are coerced to get abortions. I know this because I know women it has happened to. By eliminating even the most sensible restrictions such as parental notification (note that is not parental consent), a woman can be rushed to have an abortion and no questions will be asked. This is a boon to men who don’t want to pay child support, don’t want to “lose face” for having a child, or want to cover up for their crimes of impregnating a minor. Coerced abortions are a problem.
However, laws such as HB 5882 in Michigan are a profoundly bad idea. Instead of going after coerced abortions by preventing them, it makes it a crime for a man to even be involved in the decision-making process in any way except for complete deferral. It’s another attempt to separate men from children. “Constitutional” law says men have no say in the decision to get an abortion. This law says they aren’t even allowed to speak on the subject. Considering the current state of child support laws and custody laws, apparently the only thing men can contribute is their paycheck and all other effort is disallowed.
Sure, the law could catch men who engage in coercion. However, how such violations would ever be proven is a problem since it is entirely a “speech crime.” Further, “battered woman syndrome” suggests that women most in need of protection are least likely to seek help and the redress that such a law would allow. In short, more innocent men would be prosecuted than true domestic abusers who ought to be nailed to the wall.
The problem is not that there are no laws to punish coercion, there are. The problem is the weight of the Constitution being brought down to rush women through abortion mills without question. Planned Parenthood has no incentive to think twice about killing a child, abortion is a profit-center for them.
Taking the typical image the pro-abortion crowd likes to use, imagine an abused woman (or girl) who has an abusive boyfriend or family. She discovers she is pregnant and she knows her family or boyfriend will be livid once they discover the pregnancy. She is lonely, scared and has no place to turn. In come the knights in crimson-stained armor, Planned Parenthood. They pledge to help this young woman and bring her into their clinic. They abort the child and send her on her way. The problem is they send her right back into the abusive situation she came from. The problem wasn’t the child, the problem was the abusive relationships that remain unaddressed until the next time she gets pregnant and Planned Parenthood wants to make a buck.
It is the failure of “constitutional” law that leaves these women prey to abusive and coercive relationships. The solution is not more bad laws but to rethink the culture of drive-thru abortions.
I propose a libertarian-like perspective, in that the most effective way to deal with abortion - whether “pro-life” or “pro-choice” - is by cooperating to find ways to simultaneously protect women’s freedom and reduce abortion.
Thanks,
Scott Hughes
Anti-Abortion.info
Comment by Scott Hughes | December 20, 2006
Yeah, so it will give just one more reason for radicals to throw 5 gallon paint buckets through clinic windows.
Comment by Tees My Body | December 20, 2006
First of all,tees, if these so-called clinics would obey the law, and prosecute the child rapists who bring their victims in for abortions to cover up their crimes, there would be far fewer abortions, and if the abortionists would be honest about the reprocussions of an abortion on a woman’s body and psyche, there would be almost NO abortions.
Then we radicals would have far fewer ‘clinics’ to throw paint cans at. Oh, by the way, here’s my favorite rhyme on this subject:
Be a hero, save a whale, save a baby, go to JAIL
Comment by Leticia | December 26, 2006
Oh, and here’s what I said in my blog about Dr. George, the baby-killer, Tiller.
Comment by Leticia | December 26, 2006
No, it’s not. Planned Parenthood is asserting its duty to protect the privacy of its patients. To have a conflict of interest, you’d need to show that PP has an existing interest in violating its duty to its patients. Doctors resist similar legal maneuvers all the time (see, eg: Rush’s hospital - prosecutors wanted to seize records related to his drug abuse, and the hospital resisted. As with PP, that’s not a conflict of interest, it’s faithfully discharging the duty to protect the patient’s privacy).
Anytime something is legal, it opens the possibility that one will coerce another through the instrumentality of that legal activity. That’s a feature, not a bug, of something being legal. We don’t ban cars because they can be used in drive-by shootings, and similarly we don’t ban abortion simply because it can be done in a way that offends the law.
Comment by jpe | December 29, 2006
I fell for your bait and switch. Taking Illinois because it’s mentioned above, Planned Parenthood isn’t required to report statutory rape. That pretty much ends the debate.
Comment by jpe | December 29, 2006