Protect our Children- Vote No on 43
As a democrat in the Oregon Legislature, I was surrounded by republicans –men and women- who clearly benefitted from what I called an “Ozzie and Harriet” upbringing.
Those “starry eyed” republicans could not imagine why a 15 year old girl would not tell their parents that she had become pregnant.
“What possible reason, Randy, could a young girl have of not telling her Mother and Father she was pregnant?” more than one Republican legislator would ask me. I would gaze back and observe a wealthy, college educated suburban state senator with eyes wide and blinking incessantly not realizing they were betraying a naiveté of the darker dynamics that engulf alcohol fueled home life that way too many teenage girls have been sentenced to be raised within.
Here is one such young woman whose statement I took off the No on Measure 43 web site;
My name is Diana and I'm voting no on Measure 43. I know from first hand experience that some teens can't talk to their parents about an unplanned pregnancy because of abuse or violence in the home. I was one of those teens. When I was 18 years old, I found out I was pregnant. My father had abused me for years; because he was a policeman, there was no where I could turn for help. I had an abortion. When my father found out, he pinned me down on the floor and punched me in the head repeatedly. I'm voting against Measure 43 because I know what it's like to be an abused teen -- I know the terror they face. Measure 43 will put other teens in danger, and I don’t want anyone else to go through what I went through.
-Diana
In the perfect world all unexpectedly pregnant teenage daughters would go to their parents for help if they knew they would not be abused either physically or emotionally.
However, we do not all live in that world. Many young women live in a darker, dysfunctional home that can explode into violence at the drop of a teenage girl’s simple request for clothes money.
God help the young women that live in such an environment that, if Measure 43 were to pass, would result in a beating, screaming and possibly even worse.
Please join me and vote the way the real world demands to protect young, vulnerable women.
Vote No on Measure 43.
|
November 3, 2006 |
Randy Leonard
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Randy Leonard | Nov 3, 2006 12:56:46 PM
Thanks, Sid.
Posted by: sarah | Nov 3, 2006 1:23:34 PM
Thank you very much, Commissioner Leonard!
I've been volunteering for Planned Parenthood, calling voters about this measure. I spoke with a very sweet, elderly lady on Wednesday who summed it up very nicely:
'I'm voting no. We shouldn't treat our girls that way.'
Posted by: KISS | Nov 3, 2006 1:29:01 PM
One of the few times I agree with Leonard. Measure 43 is ill-advised and a detriment to many young girls. Another right-wing control, misogynic, and brutal attempt to subjugate women. Vote NO on 43!
Posted by: john | Nov 3, 2006 1:40:45 PM
I think you would feel differently if it was your daughter who had one, didnt tell you and suffered medical or mental issues as a result. I know I would. If our kids cant drink beer or drive what makes them responsible enough to undergo medical treatment of this nature?
I understand the downfalls of the measure ( should offer more protection) but I still think its a good idea in general.
Posted by: torridjoe | Nov 3, 2006 1:49:02 PM
john asked:
"If our kids cant drink beer or drive what makes them responsible enough to undergo medical treatment of this nature?"
Oregon state law, John. Once you reach the age of 15 in Oregon, you may self-determine your own medical care. Measure 43 would make abortion a glaring exception.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Nov 3, 2006 2:05:12 PM
Posted by: john | Nov 3, 2006 1:40:45 PM
You just don't get it do you?
It isn't about me who is not an abusive father. It isn't about you who is presumably not an abusive father. It is about teens who ARE in dysfunctional abusive homes or situations.
Did you even read the piece and grasp the Mr. Leonard correctly points out?!?
Posted by: lestatdelc | Nov 3, 2006 2:07:42 PM
Ugh.
Did you even read the piece and grasp the Mr. Leonard correctly points out?!?
Should read:
Did you even read the piece and grasp the issue Mr. Leonard correctly points out?!?
Posted by: Chris | Nov 3, 2006 2:24:18 PM
Just to settle things down ... I think John makes a valid observation.
Yes, at stake in this measure is the effect that passage would have upon those in dysfunctional or abusive homes. That is undoubtedly the emotional heart of this issue.
However, it would be a stretch to state that the measure affects only minors from abusive homes who are considering an abortion.
Sure, there may not be as much of a substantive emotional point to be made in that case, and maybe we don't need to waste too much energy thinking about it, but John still does offer some insight into a possible unintended consequence of non-passage.
Posted by: john | Nov 3, 2006 2:35:41 PM
Well the law is obviously out of whack. Medical treatment of this nature poses more risks to the teen then drinking a beer of even driving a car. There are complications that can arise from abortion that are often ignored. I personally don't belive in abortion, however, it's not my choice so I won't tamper with saying it should be illegall. However, there is serious risk to the mental well being of those who undergo the procedure as well as medical complications that arise and there is a need for aftercare and support. And, I personally feel most teens, regardless of their parental interactions would be afraid to talk to their parents, for good reason or not, so there should be some way for parents to protect their children from themselves.
Most teens, regardless of Oregon State Law, are not responsible. In this situation have already shown their lack of responsibility by putting themselves in the situation where they need to seek out an abortion.
Posted by: No on 43 (and 41, 45, and 48 too!) | Nov 3, 2006 2:40:09 PM
Hey, let's not stop there... let's have mandatory sexual activity reporting. After all, some young people may feel the psychological need to discuss the loss of their virginity with a parent... so why not require that they show ID when buying condoms, and then the store clerk sends a letter to their parents letting them know what's up.
I think the naivete of the Yes on 43 crowd can be summed up by one of my favorite Jack Handey quotes:
"I believe in making the world safe for our children, but not for our children's children, because I don't think children should be having sex."
Posted by: Becky | Nov 3, 2006 2:44:11 PM
You are absolutely right. I know a girl who had an abortion at the age of 15 and would not tell her parents (it's a family I know very well). She wasn't being abused, but her parents were abusing each other. Fueled by alcoholism and meth addiction, the smallest thing would set them off on days and days of screaming tirades. We who care for our children would not have to fear that they would be afraid to come to us in their time of need because they know we would do anything to help them. But too many girls do not live in such fortunate circumstances. Unplanned pregnancy is tough enough on a teen without having to put the weight on her shoulders of potentially breaking up her family, whether or not it was the father who did it to her.
Posted by: Ross Williams | Nov 3, 2006 2:53:46 PM
I think you would feel differently if it was your daughter who had one, didnt tell you and suffered medical or mental issues as a result.
Why wouldn't she tell you?
Medical treatment of this nature poses more risks to the teen then drinking a beer of even driving a car.
No, it doesn't. It is a great deal safer than remaining pregnant or trying the various home remedies. There is very little, if any, evidence of a risk to a woman's "mental well-being" from having an abortion. And the doctor can inform the parents if they believe it is in their patients best interest.
In this situation have already shown their lack of responsibility by putting themselves in the situation where they need to seek out an abortion.
Maybe, but there are an awful lot of adults who put themselves in the same situation. And they aren't making the decision without the involvement of a doctor and professional clinic staff who are trained to do options counseling.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Nov 3, 2006 3:13:43 PM
Posted by: john | Nov 3, 2006 2:35:41 PMWell the law is obviously out of whack. Medical treatment of this nature poses more risks to the teen then drinking a beer of even driving a car.
Bullshit. You are talking out of your ass now.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Nov 3, 2006 3:17:33 PM
Posted by: Chris | Nov 3, 2006 2:24:18 PMHowever, it would be a stretch to state that the measure affects only minors from abusive homes who are considering an abortion.
Agreed it would be a stretch, but nobody is doing that.
Posted by: Buckman Res | Nov 3, 2006 3:21:09 PM
Once you reach the age of 15 in Oregon, you may self-determine your own medical care.
This is the crux of the issue. Forget for a moment that this is about abortion. It is absurd to have 15 year-olds determining their own medical care when most other rights come at age 18 or 21 in our society.
I’m sure everyone who posts here remembers just how naive they were and how little they knew about themselves, their world, or the impact their decisions would have on their futures when they were 15.
That’s why parents are there to guide their children, that is their responsibility as parents. The law is wrong and this is as good a place as any to begin to change it.
I would urge Commissioner Leonard to rethink his position on this measure.
Posted by: Chris | Nov 3, 2006 3:23:49 PM
Sorry, lestatdelc. That's how I read your original comment - simple case of crossed wires.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Nov 3, 2006 3:28:02 PM
Posted by: Buckman Res | Nov 3, 2006 3:21:09 PM
Why is it absurd?
We allow 16 year olds to get behind the wheel of a car and put my life at risk because we share the road?
So you are saying that a 17 year old young woman is too immature to decide to carry a pregnancy to term, but qualified to decide to have a child and raise it?
So are you suggesting that if the parents don't want their 15 year old daughter to have a child they can force her to have an abortion?
Or as you want to do, take it out of the realm of abortion, do parents have the right to legally compel a 17 year old woman to donate a kidney?
Those propositions all fall from the claims that somehow women under the age of 18 have to have parental consent for medical decisions over their own bodies.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Nov 3, 2006 3:30:44 PM
Posted by: Chris | Nov 3, 2006 3:23:49 PM
No worries. We are all often times limited by the medium and I certainly can often times not be clear when posting online. Hell, I can even be far from crystal clear when speaking.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Nov 3, 2006 3:38:58 PM
If our kids cant drink beer or drive what makes them responsible enough to undergo medical treatment of this nature?
If our kids can't drink beer or drive what makes them responsible enough to undergo carrying a pregnancy to term and raising a child?
BTW, a 16 year old can drive and put my life at risk by having to share the road with them, but according to you such a kid doesn't have the capacity to decide if they can undergo an out-patient medical procedure or not.
Posted by: Chris | Nov 3, 2006 3:51:32 PM
Debates like this are always messy ... pinning an often arbitrary age to capacities for specific responsibilities, it's difficult to find traction and consensus.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Nov 3, 2006 3:54:40 PM
Posted by: Chris | Nov 3, 2006 3:51:32 PMDebates like this are always messy ... pinning an often arbitrary age to capacities for specific responsibilities, it's difficult to find traction and consensus.
Don't disagree with that.
Posted by: Buckman Res | Nov 3, 2006 3:57:50 PM
We allow 16 year olds to get behind the wheel of a car and put my life at risk because we share the road?
You get a ballot measure to raise the driving age to 18 & I’ll be the first to sign it.
So you are saying that a 17 year old young woman is too immature to decide to carry a pregnancy to term, but qualified to decide to have a child and raise it?
Nope, never said that. Since a successful pregnancy/abortion requires medical care I’d favor notifying the parents regardless what decisions are made about it.
So are you suggesting that if the parents don't want their 15 year old daughter to have a child they can force her to have an abortion?
Not suggesting that. Just that the parents be notified as this measure intends. I’ve seen nothing that prevents the girl from proceeding with an abortion. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Or as you want to do, take it out of the realm of abortion, do parents have the right to legally compel a 17 year old woman to donate a kidney?
How is organ harvesting germane to the topic?
Honestly, I do believe women have a right to an abortion. But parents have a responsibility to their children in any serious medical matter.
Posted by: Larry | Nov 3, 2006 4:08:47 PM
"Honestly, I do believe women have a right to an abortion. But parents have a responsibility to their children in any serious medical matter."
But don't you know that the intent of this measure is to get on that slippery slope of outlawing ALL abortions?
Haven't you heard who is behind this measure?
Haven't you heard? Wake up, man!! The sky is falling!!
Posted by: jrw | Nov 3, 2006 4:10:40 PM
I've made this observation before--but in real life, once my son was 15, his medical providers looked to him first for consent to any medical procedure, even when I was in the room.
This covered serious procedures such as endoscopy and colonoscopy. They were more concerned about his approval than mine, to be honest.
My son has a serious medical condition (Crohn's Disease). If he is expected to make those decisions about his medical care, then why can't a girl sign for her abortion? If he'd needed surgery, he'd have been expected to sign for it as well.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Nov 3, 2006 4:17:26 PM
You get a ballot measure to raise the driving age to 18 & I’ll be the first to sign it.
Hey, your belief that 17 year olds shouldn't be allowed to drive is your issue. Not mine. But since we as a state do recognize that 16 year olds can drive and can make medical decisions over their own bodies, not my job to gather signature for something that is stupid and I don't support.
How is organ harvesting germane to the topic?
Germane in the way that any medical procedure and consent thereof be it abortion or hangnail removal. You wanted to remove it form the issue of abortion, I posited a different medical procedure.
Not suggesting that. Just that the parents be notified as this measure intends
Why?
To what purpose do forcing notification serve except exposing some teens to violence and coercion to not have an abortion as a result of such compulsory notification?
Honestly, I do believe women have a right to an abortion.
Sorry, I simply do not believe you considering this measure willfully ignores the reality of the situation which Mr. Leonord's article speak to.
Posted by: YoungerVoice | Nov 3, 2006 7:58:14 PM
I hate the thought of girls being abused. It sickens me to picture girls being beaten or otherwise abused by their parents should they find out about her pregnancy.
But I'm not so naive as to think that a pregnancy would be the only thing to set off an abusive parent. And the only thing that sickens me more than a girl being abused, is a girl being sent BACK to abuse when there's an opportunity to get her out of it.
I support Measure 43 because it helps girls in abusive homes. They should NOT have to live like that.
I've known parents-- GOOD parents-- who never knew that their teenagers were having sex. It's not terribly hard to find a block of time where you're parents aren't with you.
In my own situation, I live with one parent who works all day to provide for us. I'm trusted to go to school and go to work, and I do, but if I didn't there really isn't anyway that my parent would know the difference.
For the small percentage of girls being abused, the over-the-phone bypass can help them not only bypass abusive parents, but get them out of that home.
For the rest of us, M43 ensures that parents aren't left in the dark about such a difficult time in their daughters lives.
YES on 43.
Posted by: Ross Williams | Nov 4, 2006 7:11:10 AM
I've known parents-- GOOD parents-- who never knew that their teenagers were having sex.
And this law doesn't change that.
It doesn't even require that doctors inform parents when their daughters are pregnant. It only requires a licensed physician to inform the parent before they perform an abortion - regardless of whether the physician thinks that is in the best interests of their patient or not. A doctor can provide prenatal care, they deliver the child and send them out into the world without ever having the parent involved. In short, this does nothing to prevent the unregulated "crisis pregnancy" centers from convincing young women to provide children for the adoption industry.
This measure is not about what is best for young women, its about making it more difficult for them to get a safe, legal abortion. It doesn't prevent them from hoping they have miscarry and have a spontaneous until an induced abortion is much more dangerous or no longer medically acceptable. It doesn't prevent them from trying home remedies, self-aborting or running away. It doesn't prevent them from going to illegal abortionists who will "help them out." It doesn't prevent abortion, it just makes it illegal.
Posted by: Ross Williams | Nov 4, 2006 7:21:28 AM
Remember Eileen Qutub? During the debate on parental notification in the legisatlature she actually made the following argument (paraphrased):
"Maybe when they are in the back seat they will think, if we do this I might get pregnant, and if I get pregnant and want an abortion I'll have to tell my parents and if I tell my parents, they'll KILL me. ... pause ... Well I don't mean really kill...."
I was never sure which was more ludicrous her "they'll kill me" line after months of debate on just that subject or the notion that teenagers in the back seat of a car were busy pondering the likely impact of the Oregon Statutes on their behavior.
Measure 43 is not going to prevent teens from having sex. Nor will it inform parents when they are.
Posted by: Mary Nolan | Nov 4, 2006 10:45:18 AM
First, thanks to Randy for his clear and passionate explanation of why a "NO" vote on 43 is the way to help protect Oregon teens' safety and health.
Second, the thread here is a great demonstration of the hazards of legislating by ballot measure. Before you move to change one part of the law, it really would be helpful to understand the context and history of the law.
Current law in Oregon and every state I'm aware of requires medical providers (doctors, dentists, nurses, chiropracters, etc.) to receive the informed consent of their patients before providing medical care. This is a good thing. It prevents the abuses of years past were black men were sterilized under the guise of medical care/research and where inmates have been used to experiment on with new drugs.
In Oregon, when the patient is 14 years or younger, we have decided that the medical provider need only explain the proposed course of medical care to the parent (or legal guardian) and recieve consent from that adult. But when the patient is 15 years or older the medical provider must first explain the proposed medical care to the patient her/himself and get consent. If that patient says, "No, thanks," that's the end of it. The medical provider cannot ask mom, dad or guardian to overrule the patient. This is also a good thing. A parent cannot unilaterally give consent to perform an abortion or sterilization on an unwilling 16-year-old. A parent cannot force a 15-year-old to take psychoactive medication.
But if a 15-, 16- or 17-year-old says "Yes" to medical care, Oregon law already allows the medical provider to notify or even consult the parent or guardian if the medical provider believes the minor patient's mental or physical health would benefit by having the parent know or be involved in the decision. The doctor does not need the minor's permission to involve the parent (although most let the patient know, unless circumstances such as imminent danger of suicide demand other action). The important distinction here is that the law already allows such notification for every medical service from tooth extraction or suicide counseling to birth control prescription to abortion, but does not require it. As written and practiced today, the laws of our state rely on the medical expertise and good judgement of doctors (dentists, nurses, etc.) to weigh the factors and take the action that they believe best serves the health of their patients. In making those decisions, medical providers take into account both the immediate physical well-being of their patient and the long-term emotional and mental well-being of the patient.
Measure 43 would take that judgement call out of the hands of medical professionals and put it in the hands of administrative law judges with no particular expertise or insight. But Measure 43 would make that distinction for only one medical procedure which, we should not ignore, can be requested by only half the population.
If the motives of the proponents were truly to assure that parents have the chance to guide their young adult children in times of medical need, I wonder why they didn't propose to change the underlying law and require parental notice or consent for all medical service until age 18.
My own daughter is fast approaching her teen years. I know I would be crushed if she chose to make such an important decision without my help. But I also know that it is my responsibility now to lay the foundation for her to feel completely comfortable seeking my support. And that standing in her way 5 years from now because I couldn't or wouldn't be accessible to her now isn't fair, and is far from safe.
Please join Randy and me in voting "NO" on 43.
Posted by: doretta | Nov 4, 2006 5:48:34 PM
If the motives of the proponents were truly to assure that parents have the chance to guide their young adult children in times of medical need, I wonder why they didn't propose to change the underlying law and require parental notice or consent for all medical service until age 18.
Exactly.
Clearly the reason they haven't done so is that their motive isn't to protect children, it's to take another step toward outlawing abortion for anyone, no matter what her age.
Posted by: Frank Dufay | Nov 4, 2006 7:14:44 PM
You get a ballot measure to raise the driving age to 18 & I’ll be the first to sign it.
I'll be the second...
That said, as an actual parent of a now-grown daughter, son, step-sons...I think the anti-43 folks sometimes have a blind-spot to how hard it is to be a parent, and how hard we struggle to be engaged in our kids lives.
Measure 43 is bad news, and I'm certainly, absolutely, opposed...but let's cut the parents some slack who feel cut out of their kids' decision-making. A little more empathy wouldn't hurt...
Posted by: luke | Nov 4, 2006 8:21:27 PM
No on 43 people love to point out that not all parents are good. Agreed. And yet somehow they swallow without question the believe that all Doctors are.
The irony is that Doctors have a financial power relationship over patients that good Democrats are generally suspicious of. They do after all, have a product to sell, and need to justify their own existence. Anybody in sales understands this mentality, and Doctors are no more immune than the local kid selling you a laptop at your favorite retail outlet.
The judicial bypass seems like a reasonable compromise.
Posted by: Ross Williams | Nov 4, 2006 9:51:42 PM
No on 43 people love to point out that not all parents are good. Agreed. And yet somehow they swallow without question the believe that all Doctors are.
I don't. But there is far more money for doctors in prenatal care, delivery and post-natal care than there is in providing an abortion. The fact is that abortion is extremely cheap even when compared to just prenatal care. Doctors don't get shot at if they stick to pre-natal care either. So for all the suspicions, there is really very little economic incentive for doctors to encourage abortions. Certainly less than there is for the "crisis pregnancy" centers that encourage young women to put their babies up for adoption.
The reality is that the typical young woman who is having an abortion has met with at least a couple trained counselors before she gets to the point of making a decision, talking with a doctor and having an abortion. And, if she is a teen, she is going to be encouraged by each of them to involve her parents.
Posted by: Ross Williams | Nov 4, 2006 10:03:40 PM
Measure 43 is bad news, and I'm certainly, absolutely, opposed...but let's cut the parents some slack who feel cut out of their kids' decision-making. A little more empathy wouldn't hurt...
I agree on that. A lot of parents who want to to be involved ought to be. But unless the woman is very immature, in which case the clinic staff and doctor will pick up on it, the danger from a woman choosing not to involve her parents is far less than the danger created by forcing an abusive parent to be notified by mail of their daughter's decision.
Posted by: Luke | Nov 4, 2006 11:52:12 PM
Ross, my father is a psychologist/marriage councilor. He makes maybe 30-40% of what he would be making if he worked for a public institution or the state. Like the doctors you mentioned, he could be much better off working elsewhere but he does what he does because he believes in it. That's exactly my point...
What does a marriage councilor recommend to a troubled marriage? If you answered marriage counseling, you're probably right! (insert gold star here :)) Alternatively, what do you think an abortion doctor will be inclined to recommend to a pregnant young girl?
It's not that either professional is under trained, self-serving, or swindlers, it's just that the very beliefs that put them in their field justify their own existence by their very nature. It is the very fact that they believe in what they do that motivates them. Large sums of money are not required.
Better to have a safty net in place.
Posted by: Aaron V. | Nov 5, 2006 1:24:43 AM
Luke - your analogy of a marriage counselor suggesting more counseling falls flat.
An doctor is going to get more money from providing medical care to a full-term pregnancy than for performing an early abortion. Likewise, a doctor will get paid by insurance plans for prenatal care, while many plans exclude abortions from coverage.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Nov 5, 2006 1:40:35 AM
No on 43 people love to point out that not all parents are good. Agreed. And yet somehow they swallow without question the believe that all Doctors are.
Well, doctors are at least licensed to practice medicine. You don't need a license to practice parenting.
Posted by: Luke | Nov 5, 2006 2:02:21 AM
Aaron, I made it very clear that the analogy wasn't about the money. It's about the beliefs of the person. No anology is perfect, but the point I was trying to make stands.
I really don't know a lot about the practice, but are abortion clinics and full-term care clinics generally the same place?
Kari, the question I brought up is not one of professionalism, but one of who is more likely to have the child's best interests at heart? Keep in mind that Lawyers are also licensed. :)
Posted by: Suzii | Nov 5, 2006 2:54:30 AM
Luke, Aaron and Ross:
I think some of the confusion here is that Luke is talking about "abortion doctors" -- people with medical degrees who choose to limit their practice to treating one condition with one technique -- while Ross and Aaron are talking about more general gynecologists, OB/GYNs or primary care physicians.
So if I go to the OB/Gyn when I get pregnant, she will see an abortion as a couple hundred bucks but a full-term pregnancy and delivery as thousands (lots and lots of thousands).
If I seek out an "abortion doctor," he'll see an abortion as a couple hundred bucks to him but a continued pregnancy as thousands in *somebody else's* Accounts Receivable.
Is that approximately what you were thinking?
Except -- I don't know if there are "abortion doctors" in Oregon. Or anywhere. It doesn't seem to make economic sense; don't the surgeons who make their livings limiting themselves to a couple of procedures pick things that are insanely difficult to master and fabulously lucrative? And they don't have to pay for bomb-proofing and bomb insurance.
I wonder if the "abortion doctor" might just be a phantasmagorical remnant of that terrifying bogeyman, the back-alley abortionist? Who could make a living because the overhead was low, there was never any question of insurance, they could get relatively large sums from desperate people, and, frankly, their standard of living wasn't high.
Actually, now that I think about the abortionist, held up as a figure of terror by both sides of this debate, the more I wonder how credible it is that they were all rejects from the Reefer Madness extra pool, barely aware that human beings passed before them. But I digress. Probably a sign that I should be in bed.
And yes, Luke, all the clinics I know, in Oregon and elsewhere, that provide abortions also provide full-spectrum gynecological care.
Posted by: Ross Williams | Nov 5, 2006 6:41:26 AM
t's just that the very beliefs that put them in their field justify their own existence by their very nature.
I think that is right. But what are the beliefs that causes someone to provide abortions? A belief in the right of women to decide whether to end a pregnancy. Your argument is that people who are literally sticking their lives on the line for that principle will compromise it and exploit young women for a couple hundred bucks.
What does a marriage councilor recommend to a troubled marriage? If you answered marriage counseling, you're probably right!
Which means that your father recommends people stay in abusive and dangerous relationships so that he can collect more fees?
Except -- I don't know if there are "abortion doctors" in Oregon.
Well, yes there are and, because of the dangers, not that many of them. Many doctors refer women for abortions to clinics that specialize in them. If you mean
doctors who do nothing but perform abortions, I don't think there are very many of those, if any. Most do a variety of reproductive health care.
But the point that the doctors actually doing an abortion are often different than the ones that will provide care for a full term pregnancy is probably correct. The argument that the money they make on an individual abortion is likely to effect their judgement is not. And, as I said above, most women are going to be screened by their own private physician and clinic counselors before the doctor performing the abortion ever gets involved. And each of those professionals is involved in providing abortions largely because they believe in a women having the choice, not because they want to promote abortion.
As I said above, with all the professional staff committed to helping her make the best decision for herself, including encouraging her to involve her parents, the danger from a woman choosing not to involve her parents is far less than the danger created by forcing an abusive parent to be notified by mail of their daughter's decision.
Posted by: sindy | Mar 6, 2008 8:52:05 AM
hey diana!
i'm pregnant myself and my mom throegh me out of my hoes and she told me that i'm a " young prostitute ". the baby is not from my boyfriend, it's from a guy i dont even know, he's 18 and im 15! i met him at a party and we played a game where i had to have sex with him. we were all drunk! now my boyfriend broke up with me and i have to moove to my father! i haven't seen him for 10 years!!!!! and i have to keep the baby cause it's too late.................. I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO!!!! i wish i died!
PS: sorry for my english, im from greece
Posted by: Help for troubled teens | Sep 24, 2009 2:51:09 PM
Really i pray for those who are abused by their parents, in such cases one should look to help them rather than abusing or ignoring them it could happen to anyone but parents nowadays are really very much careful about all this and go looking for some help for troubled teens resources by means of which they could give them proper guidelines and directions and they themselves could take care of them and could talk to them frankly if anything happened rather than going under depression or some trauma.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Posted by: Sid Leader | Nov 3, 2006 12:50:14 PM
Thank you, Commissioner Leonard, for a moving piece of writing about one of the most important ballot intiatives this year.
I saw an anti-Measure 43 TV ad that summed it all up.
An abusive father gets the form letter from the state about his daughter's abortion and goes after the scared little girl when she comes home from school.
I have worked in the Hood and the Hills and back again and have met plenty of fathers (and a few mothers) who'd react that way, so let's vote no on Measure 43, for the sake of all our young women.