Is Palin violating ethics rules by backing parental consent ballot initiative?
Is Palin violating ethics rules by backing parental consent ballot initiative?
There is currently a ballot initiative trying to gain support in Alaska that would bypass the state legislature and “forbid a girl under 18 from getting an abortion unless the doctor informed at least one of her parents beforehand.” The organizers’ goal is for Alaska Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell to certify the ballot language as legal, collect signatures, and get the initiative on the ballot for the August 2010 primary elections. Gov. Sarah Palin (R) has now come out and said that she plans to be the first in line to offer her signature:
“I got a preliminary opinion from Law (Department) just giving me a heads up that critics would certainly file an ethics charge against me if I were to sponsor an initiative. So though I maintain I have First Amendment rights just as any other citizen does, I won’t flirt with the notion of giving critics more ammunition to keep filing wasteful ethics charges against me, but instead I’ll volunteer to be the first signature,” Palin said.[...]
“I acknowledge the ‘new normal’ we’re dealing with today will no doubt see someone filing a charge against me anyway, for exercising my First Amendment rights as a citizen, but I will not hesitate to speak up in support of Alaska’s daughters,” she wrote.
State law says that a governor cannot spend money or “provide anything of value” to influence the outcome of a ballot measure unless the Legislature has appropriated money for that purpose.
Alaska election regulators are already investigating whether “Palin violated the law last summer when she said in response to a question at a state press conference that she would vote no on a controversial ballot measure to tighten limits on water pollution discharges from mines.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Phuck Palin
May 4th, 2009 at 10:59 amEven if she is shown to have violated ANY ethical rule, she will issue her standardr reply that she has been “vindicated” of any wrong-doing.
You betcha!
May 4th, 2009 at 11:00 amIs Palin violating ethics rules by backing parental consent ballot initiative?
If her past behavior is any indication of her present behavior, then, yes.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:01 am- – Hey, who hijacked the Cantor/GOPizza Party thread?
May 4th, 2009 at 11:10 amWhat difference does her lack of ethics or law breaking make? The Alaska legislature, after its initial bluster last year regarding firing the Public Safety Commissioner, has done virtually nothing on that or any other issue of her basic lack of honesty and no criminal or civil charges have been brought in any matter.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:10 amhttp://blogs.creativeloafing.com/politicalwhore/files/2008/10/product_sarah_palin.jpg
May 4th, 2009 at 11:11 amIt doesnt seem like an ethics violation…
…which is admittedly odd for Palin.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:13 amGovernor Palin never misses an opportunity to show the paople of this Nation that she possesses absolutely NO ethics. I guess that’s what comes from following the lead of such Alaskan luminaries as Ted Stevens and Don Young. Well, at least the NRA still loves them some Sarah:
May 4th, 2009 at 11:13 amhttp://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2009/05/04/2009-05-04_aww_shoot_nra_makes_palin_top_gun.html
The default answer on a multiple choice test is “c”.
The default answer to the question “Is Palin violating ethics rules?” is “yes”.
PEACE
May 4th, 2009 at 11:13 amShe would be so much better off if she simply started and became head cult leader of a CULTISH RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION since the only issues she is concerned with are those of a very personal and religious nature that should be left to the privacy of one’s home and heart. These type issues ARE NOT POLITICAL AND ARE NOT NECESSARY TO RUN GOVERNMENT. I can’t stand these holy rollers who make everything in life about religion, but especially her with her ‘holier than thou’ attitude, but her very existence proves she is forever trying to skirt the laws and nothing more than a LIAR!
May 4th, 2009 at 11:14 amThe liberals continued smear campaign of Sara Palin is nothing more than a joke. Better they should worry more about Edwards…Jacksom…and the rest of their corrupt supporters then to continue to make up crap charges like this.
You ought to be ashamed of yourselves…but hey…what can you expect from a party of “Enchanted Idiots?”
May 4th, 2009 at 11:17 amOne would think that RealitySmacked would learn that “Hey! Look over there!” doesn’t work very well.
But one would be wrong in thinking that RealitySmacked is capable of learning.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:23 amRealityCheck Says: The liberals continued smear campaign of Sara Palin is nothing more than a joke. Better they should worry more about Edwards…Jacksom…and the rest of their corrupt supporters then to continue to make up crap charges like this.
You need to change your name. You have no concept of reality on any level if you think John Edwards, who isn’t in politics any longer, is a bigger problem that Palin who is the Govenor of Alaska…
May 4th, 2009 at 11:23 amRC you punkass troll. That is some good projection when someone as incredibly stupid as you from a party DOMINATED by morons talks about the intellegence of Dems WHILE SHOWING HOW STUPID YOU ARE. You dont dispute any of this. How can you? Its all true. She DID say this and the Alaska election law IS what it is. To people as brainwashed and embarassingly stupid as you it constitutes a smear to tell the truth about Republicans. WWWWWWAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH says punkass troll RC stop telling the truth about the moronic Bimbostien lady. WWWWWAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH. Stop humiliating yourself. Just go kill yourself. You are too stupid to do anything else good for the world. Go suck on your tailpipe you worthless punk
May 4th, 2009 at 11:24 amEugeneDebs Says he wants to kiss Reality Checks butt
May 4th, 2009 at 11:27 amRealityDick, Your messiah, Bill-O, died today. It’s all over redstate.com. Go there and morn of his death.
Palin is a ditto head:
1. ditto head
Any person who loves the Rush Limbaugh radio show. Ditto heads totally agree with Rush’s opinions and stand behind him without question. The word ditto was first used by a caller on his show who agreed with the accolades given Rush by a previous caller. The praise Rush was given by callers was becoming too long winded and Rush promoted the use of ditto by his callers as a means to be brief and to show their approval at the same time.
2. ditto head
May 4th, 2009 at 11:29 amA person, usually of low intelligence, that has been programmed or brainwashed by political activist Rush Limbaugh into believing that the fallacies created on his show are real.
I would posit that RC is the one who should be ashamed. Defending this vapid fool because she’s all the new GOP’s got for 2012. She will hold the prominent position of most embarrassing running mate in modern history for some time to come. This ethically challenged Governor of the Welfare State of Alaska read the same speech that was written for her by George Bush’s head writer so many times that she became a parody of herself and the now defunct Republican Party. Righties can’t grasp that Sarah Palin holds a large responsibility for their timely demise. She was protected for months from having to speak for herself and when she finally did, we saw why her handlers tried to shelter her. The fool couldn’t answer softball questions being lobbed to her by freeking Catie Couric fer christ sakes. She has been fingered for many of these violations by her very own party time and again yet her camp still cries that she is a victim of partisan politics. Typical whining GOPer.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:36 amIt’s Katie dumbazz…and it was a very STUPID question…which was so goofy…poor Sara was just struck by its stupidity.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:38 amMust have struck a raw nerve to get so many of you to call me such vile names? So much for the lefts tolerance & willingness to debate!
May 4th, 2009 at 11:39 amEthics, shmethics. After reading up on this, I can only conclude that she feels that since she has God on her side, she will say and do as she pleases.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:40 amRealityCheck Says:
Must have struck a raw nerve to get so many of you to call me such vile names? So much for the lefts tolerance & willingness to debate!
Oh, you mean debate such deep thoughts such as this one?
RealityCheck Says:
You ought to be ashamed of yourselves…but hey…what can you expect from a party of “Enchanted Idiots?”
Face it, when you come in here insulting everyone, you deserve to be called vile names. Whiner.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:43 amDr. Hussein Matt Says:
Hahahhaa guess I wasn’t the only one who saw his hypocrisy.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:44 amShe is a textbook example of the “dumbing down” of America. Her grammar and syntax are tortured, but most troublesome is the fact that she approaches issues emotionally, not rationally. Sarah Palin is a very dangerous politician because she appeals to the low-education, low-information voter, as can be readily seen on http://www.youtube.com (search “Sarah Palin rally” or “Sarah Palin rallies”). I will be relieved when she is finally turned out of politics for good and opens her own megachurch populated by her fellow religious and theocratic dittoheads. There she can happily preside as the Diva of all Demagogues until her demise.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:44 amRealityCheck Says: Must have struck a raw nerve to get so many of you to call me such vile names? So much for the lefts tolerance & willingness to debate!
That’s your response to the many posts? So much for your ability to debate… LOL
Why do you even come here? Mommy and daddy didn’t give you enough attention as a child?
May 4th, 2009 at 11:45 amdamn you. Got my hopes up.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:45 am*16 – ectoendomezo Says:
#10..YES! I agree..
My problem wiht her and all the other R’s is that I want, if I chose, my own religious beliefs without interference from ANY GOVERNMENT [state, fed or local] and I don’t want them trying to shove their shyte down my throat as being the ONLY ONE RELIGION just because they say it is. Likewise, I want to be free from any religion if that is what I believe. So for her to constantly shoving her BS down my throat or up my a@@ is just getting to be too much to deal with.
Moreover, if we are honest, that is ALL the GOP has stood for for many decades and if her LUNATIC FRINGE BASE think she’s their god, well more power to them especially if they would just join her in a cult outside the US borders, the world and America would be so much better off. How dare her tell an under 18 year old that she needs a parent’s permission to have an abortion when Stupid Sarah KNOWS a child having a child will only have a STRUGGLE for years to come. Who is Stupid Sarah to make this decision for all girl children under 18? She is ‘no one to me’, has no M.D. behind her name and I don’t want her making any medical [or religious] decisions for me or mine.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:45 amThese “luatic republicans” always find away to bypass laws or circumvent them. I hope Palin is indeed charged with an ethics violation what a bunch of “Enchanted Idiots.”
May 4th, 2009 at 11:49 amRealityCheck Says:
“It’s Katie dumbazz…and it was a very STUPID question…which was so goofy…poor Sara was just struck by its stupidity.”
Ooh sooooooo sorry for typing “Catie”. By the way f@ckwad since we’re being so pendantic today, it’s “Sarah” with an “h”.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:50 amRealityCheck Says:
poor Sara was just struck by its stupidity.
What a coincidence, we’re struck by her’s.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:50 amHmmm…
I guess we struck a nerve back there, eh, RealitySmacked?
Too easy.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:58 amOops. I see Dr. Matt and Luis made the same point before me.
May 4th, 2009 at 11:59 amDo Alaskans really need a law to keep their minor daughters from having abortions without telling the parents? They’re having abortion clinics overrun with underage girls? I thought the palindrones were for government getting and staying out of our private lives. Which is it?
May 4th, 2009 at 11:59 amRealityCheck Says:
It’s Katie dumbazz…and it was a very STUPID question…which was so goofy…poor Sara was just struck by its stupidity.
Really? That’s not what Sarah says…
May 4th, 2009 at 12:03 pmvia C&L:
Buck Naked Politics: Palin deluged with ethics complaints
May 4th, 2009 at 12:11 pmThe GOP fear-mongers love to take these “fine-line” issues and politicize them to get votes from the brainwashed religious zealots. My own mother is a bible banger and it’s so hard to debate those types.
If a belief system has such “rules”, fine! If they are good rules the population will gravitate to them. However, not everyone believes in the “invisible hand” ideals, fine! If they’re right then what harm was it to them? We’ll be in hell and they’ll be in heaven. More room for them to float in the air like angles.
One fact remains – get your religious believes OUT OF MY GOVERNMENT!
May 4th, 2009 at 12:12 pmHey… what happened to RealitySmacked?
Didn’t he want to stick around and “debate the issues”?
May 4th, 2009 at 12:15 pmralph the wonder locust @ 44
RealitySmacked like to drop his troll turds in a thread, leave and come back to see what damage he created. He’s a Kook troll. He’s admitted to this before. See definitions:
Spamming troll: Posts too many newsgroups with the same verbatim post.
Kooks: A regular member of a forum who habitually drops comments that have no basis on the topic or even in reality.
Flamer: Does not contribute to the group except by making inflammatory comments.
Hit-and-runner: Stops in, make one or two posts and move on.
Psycho trolls: Has a psychological need to feel good by making others feel bad
Brothabill (aka Dr. Drywall) was a Psycho troll but I seriously think he was Bill O’Riley or one of his minions set here to cause damage. It’s sad that these people exists and probably vote GOP down the line.
May 4th, 2009 at 12:22 pmRightwingers think because we have empathy and human decency we’re too weak to fight back. They attack and when we fight back they come up with this line of crap. We’re not the cowards who have to go around torturing and blowing everybody up to stay “safe” they are. They’re like the little kids who were bullies in grade school only they never grew up.
May 4th, 2009 at 12:30 pm“Reality” Check would be funny, if he weren’t f ucking stupid and pathetic.
May 4th, 2009 at 12:32 pmJohn Edwards is being investigated because he might have used campaign donations to cover up his affair. Good. Why isn’t Palin being investigated by the Feds? Why are they leaving investigations to state employees that work for her?
May 4th, 2009 at 12:33 pmdeebaser Says: “It doesnt seem like an ethics violation…
…which is admittedly odd for Palin.”
Yeah, it really feels odd to be defending Palin but this sounds like a rotten piece of “gotcha” ethics regulation. It sounds like simply voicing support for or opposition to proposed legislation can be viewed as “provid(ing) anything of value.”
May 4th, 2009 at 12:34 pmI havent called you any names RC, as for your “debating” I see nothing but finger pointing from you.
May 4th, 2009 at 12:34 pmI recall that Palin said one upon a time that she could what she wanted “….until the courts stop her.” This isnt about her position on this issue, its her ignoring the rules with intent.
May 4th, 2009 at 12:37 pmRule #1 in the GOP’s “Code of Conduct” handbook:
–Rules were meant to be broken
Rules #2 through 100 in the handbook:
May 4th, 2009 at 12:37 pm–See Item #1
RealityPunk What are you six years old? Your butt is indistinguishable from your head which you constantly have stuck UP your A$$. You really take stupid to all new levels evertime you post you worthless ignorant troll. You are so pathetic
May 4th, 2009 at 12:39 pmForget Palin for a minute, I want to know why some of you are against this proposed law. A minor can’t get a tattoo or a piercing without parental consent. A minor can’t buy cigarettes, alcohol, R rated movies etc etc.. So they should be allowed to get an abortion without parental consent? I am completely against any federal abortion laws on either side so obviously that leaves the decision to the state and thus closer to the people. Forget ideology for one minute and the obvious disdain for Palin and use some damn logic.
May 4th, 2009 at 1:05 pmIt is generally a good and supportable idea for a minor to get a parent’s consent for a serious procedure such as an abortion.
However, there are isolated cases in which, due to parental abuse or even incest, such notification would endanger the health or welfare of the minor and that of the child should the pregnancy be brought to full term.
That’s why.
May 4th, 2009 at 1:16 pmRP2012 Says:
May 4th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Let’s see…cuz sometimes the baby daddy is the baby granddaddy? Cuz not all families are like “Leave it to Beaver?” Cuz sometimes girls get the ever-loving shit beaten out of them for leaving the cap off the toothpaste — let alone for getting knocked up? Because some parents just f ucking suck, and some girls need to be allowed to make their own healthcare decisions.
Get a clue, moron.
May 4th, 2009 at 1:17 pmRP2012, you’re mixing apples with oranges. Sex between minors can not be outlawed. Sex without protection can lead to pregnancy. Outlaw teen pregnancy and you’ve got a point. We can’t so, case closed.
Those “items” you listed above are services provided by businesses – legal entities. Besides, this play by Palin is a result of her RELIGION!
May 4th, 2009 at 1:18 pmIf Sarah Palin looked like Bella Abzug, none of these idiot trolls would ever have listened to a word she said.
Face it, idiots — Palin won’t sleep with you.
May 4th, 2009 at 1:19 pm55 and 56 – GREAT POSTS! Spot on! Holding a bible on the outside doesn’t prove you’re not evil on the inside.
May 4th, 2009 at 1:24 pmIf your 14 year old had an abortion. You would be ok with not knowing about it?The fact is you people don’t like it simplily, because Sarah Palin name is on it.
May 4th, 2009 at 1:27 pmI admit this is territory I don’t know that much about. What can a governor, senator, representative, president do, and what can’t he/she do when it comes to supporting an issue?
Let’s pretend that Sarah Palin isn’t Sarah Palin for a moment, and pretend that we’re dealing with a generic governor who could be from either party. What’s ethical and what isn’t, when it comes to championing a particular issue?
I imagine the laws vary from state to state, but there are probably a few basics that are no-brainers. First — a governor cannot use taxpayer money or other public resources to advance a cause without legislative approval. But it would seem reasonable that a governor could use his/her bully pulpit to speak for or against an issue.
Likewise, a sitting governor probably couldn’t instigate a people’s initiative (bypassing the legislature), as this could lead to a great deal of abuse (if you had a governor from one party, and a legislature dominated by another, you could easily have your governor taking all issues directly to the people by sponsoring ballot initiatives). However, a governor should be allowed to sign for getting an initiative on the ballot like any other citizen.
An interesting point to ponder. When does a governor get to be a citizen, and when does he/she have to abide by rules not applicable to ordinary citizens? Probably when government checks and balances, and state resources are factors. And there may be other factors as well.
May 4th, 2009 at 1:27 pmjeff2001 Says:
If your 14 year old had an abortion. You would be ok with not knowing about it?The fact is you people don’t like it simplily, because Sarah Palin name is on it.
May 4th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
14 year olds do a lot of things their parents never know about, clueless.
May 4th, 2009 at 1:30 pmjeff2001, A 14 year old is going to do whatever they want to do. That same 14 year old didn’t call mom and dad to tell them they were going to have sex – I’d wager.
Sorry to say, society is different now; time to change with the times. Get religious beliefs out of Washington and keep them in the church where they belong.
May 4th, 2009 at 1:33 pm#54
#55
I understand that there are rare and extreme situations but that always seems to be the underlying argument for this issue.
How about I flip the argument around, A girl gets raped by an uncle, classmate, cousin etc etc and then they try to force her into an abortion. Wouldn’t it be nice if the physician had to notify the parents. There are so many minute details and different circumstances that you have to look at the big picture.
#57
This isn’t really mixing apples with oranges, it’s a state government saying that certain things a minor does must have parental consent whether it be an abortion or a tattoo.
An abortion is a service provided by a business-legal entity that is trying to make a profit. It’s as much as a business as a tattoo parlor.
Being influenced by your religion and imposition of your religion are completely different issues.
May 4th, 2009 at 1:41 pmYou’re not very bright, are you, jeff?
Above, I said quite clearly:
It is generally a good and supportable idea for a minor to get a parent’s consent for a serious procedure such as an abortion.
I then described a less-than-ideal situation in which such parental notification could be dangerous for the young lady.
Somehow, you interpreted this explanation as “If your 14 year old had an abortion. You would be ok with not knowing about it”
I can see why your side is struggling to get its message to find a receptive audience with the wider electorate.
May 4th, 2009 at 1:52 pmAbortion is a medical procedure, and I would venture a guess that a 14 year old girl having to obtain one in secret isn’t a big profit machine.
How nice that you equate a terrified young girl having to make a painful decision, with trying to decide on getting the heart or star tattoo.
Lamest. Argument. Ever.
May 4th, 2009 at 1:58 pmIt is a good argument. By making it a legal requirement for notification, you are codifying the increased risk in certain already dangerous situations.
In most cases of good child-rearing (and yes, good parenting does not eliminate the risk of fourteen-year-olds getting pregnant) there should be enough trust in the relationship that a girl would not take such a step on her own. But by mandating that disclosure, the state is placing itself in the position of, in certain circumstances, actually protecting the rights of the abuser rather than the victim.
Since we’re dealing in “what would be nice”, wouldn’t it be nice if the girl had enough trust in her parents to disclose to them the horror she had experienced and its unfortunate aftermath, without being compelled to by the law? Yes, it would be nice.
May 4th, 2009 at 2:00 pmWho is this Palin person?
May 4th, 2009 at 2:08 pmTracist_5 arrives a day late and a dollar short.
**yawn**
May 4th, 2009 at 2:09 pmTracy__5 Says:
I see you just got out of bed.
May 4th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Damn Tracist, you are clever!
May 4th, 2009 at 2:18 pmThe minute a child learns the word “NO” the parent has lost complete control over that child.
This attempt to mandate a reporting mechanism is just another ploy to control an uncontrollable situation. Just like Bush making it VERY hard to get an abortion instead of outright outlawing it. “Let’s make it hard for them.”
Religion is used as adult crowd control and that is failing to take hold on today’s youth so, this is an attempt to control the decisions of others overtly through legislation.
If a person under the age of 17 feels that they can’t handle the responsibility of a child, they should be allowed to make that decision on their own.
I made the decision to smoke with all the information out there and I didn’t call my mom or dad to ask for permission to start. I quit smoking on my own and I didn’t have to ask anyone for permission. Same goes for sex and abortion – both personal choices. I love how the religious-right tries to blur the lines and confuse the slow-minded about personal issues.
P.S. I know smoking and children are VERY different – I’m trying to prove a point using “choice” as an argument.
May 4th, 2009 at 2:27 pmWhy would any idiot troll join a thread without bothering to read previous comments and then post a rhetorical question that has already been answered several times?
(My guess is it’s because they don’t care about embarrassment and don’t want to short-circuit their lame talking points by becoming informed before they have their chance to post them.)
May 4th, 2009 at 2:29 pmA Patriotic Anopheles Acting like a punk again.
…so…why do you not want a 17 year old teenager to have to notify her parents before she has a medical procedure that might kill her if screwed up? Doesn’t that go against everything you leftest always say? The health of the mother? What if the doctor botches to abortion…which is always possible? Will the CHILD’S parent be responsible for her health then? Will THEY have to pay through the nose? In everything else…the parents are responsible for a CHILD except abortion!
How Stupid are you Liberals…VERY
May 4th, 2009 at 2:30 pmState law says that a governor cannot spend money or “provide anything of value” to influence the outcome of a ballot measure unless the Legislature has appropriated money for that purpose.”
May 4th, 2009 at 2:34 pm—————-
anything of value. Does that leave out Palin’s opinion?
How many times do you trolls have to ask the same damn question that’s already been answered several times?
Do you think you’re actually making a different point each time?
May 4th, 2009 at 2:35 pmtexasrick Says:
Even if she is shown to have violated ANY ethical rule, she will issue her standard reply that she has been “vindicated” of any wrong-doing.
You betcha!
None of the ethics complaints will go anywhere since they are all heard by the State Personnel Board, members being Palin appointees. That’s a situation the state of Alaska needs to change. Having a board that is appointed by a governor sit in judgment on that governor is a huge conflict of interest.
May 4th, 2009 at 3:04 pmThe one ethics complaint that is just waiting to be filed against Ms. Palin is the one regarding her use of state resources for personal gain. She frequently uses the State website to answer her critics or to criticize critics. She has even used the State website to attack Levi Johnston.
May 4th, 2009 at 3:21 pmEven though I thought this thread was about Alaskan ethics rules, I can see it’s morphed into a discussion (or pie-throwing contest) about the pros and cons of minors having access to abortions without parental consent.
Yes, in a perfect world, all pregnant teens can tell their parents about their pregnancy without fear of getting beaten up, disowned, or even killed. Unfortunately, in the real world, that’s not always the case.
I have no children, but if I did, OF COURSE I would want to know if a daughter of mine was getting an abortion. What parent wouldn’t?
But if my daughter felt she couldn’t tell me about it — for whatever reason — I would much rather she have access to an abortion than for her to carry the child to term while hiding the pregnancy, and then throwing the kid in a dumpster after giving birth to it in a restroom somewhere. That happens, and it’s tragic. Or the kid who feels like she has truly run out of options and commits suicide. That happens, too. And any discussion on this topic needs to take these factors into consideration.
May 4th, 2009 at 4:23 pmHussein Matt, can you read? I said “your” 14 year old.No, im not trying to govern your life. Just a simple answer.
May 4th, 2009 at 4:28 pmRealityCheck Says
May 4th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
What if the doctor botches to abortion…which is always possible? Will the CHILD’S parent be responsible for her health then? Will THEY have to pay through the nose?
_____________________________________________________________
This is a weak argument. In the first place, actual childbirth carries far more health risks than an abortion — especially a first trimester abortion, which most of them are.
In the second place, a legal abortion from a licensed practitioner is safer and less likely to result in a “botched” procedure than an illegal back-alley job (or worse, a self-induced job). And if a pregnant minor can’t get a legal abortion, guess where else she will go?
We’ll assume that the parents will be responsible for the child’s health if there are any complications from a legal abortion, an illegal abortion, an abortion with parental consent, an abortion without parental consent, a miscarriage, a stillbirth, or a live birth. And pregnancy always ends with one of these outcomes. So I really don’t see how consent or lack thereof is going to change the financial picture.
May 4th, 2009 at 4:33 pmMan, i hope nobody here has a young teen daughter.Some of you people think “i’ll take her to have abortion,and then we’ll go to the mall. geez.
May 4th, 2009 at 4:36 pmJeff2001:
May 4th, 2009 at 4:54 pmIf you get a chance swong ny my neighborhood. I’d like you to met the 7th greader who was impregnated by her father.
What parent wouldn’t?”
May 4th, 2009 at 5:14 pm—
The drunken one that will beat the crap out of her. These policies are not in place to hinder healthy families they are there to protect the children trapped in unhealthy families. If you do I good job of parenting no doubt a daughter would feel comfortable confiding her situation. Just don’t pretend that all young girls have that safety and security.
jeff2001 Says:
Man, i hope nobody here has a young teen daughter.Some of you people think “i’ll take her to have abortion,and then we’ll go to the mall. geez.
May 4th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Some of us have been 14 year old daughters — and you will forever be an imbecile.
May 4th, 2009 at 5:29 pmI THANK Olüm olum Dedigin nedir ki gulum ben senin icin backlink satin aliyorum
May 5th, 2009 at 7:15 amSesli Sohbet
Sesli Chat
SesliSohbet
SesliChat
sesli ve görüntülü chat
sesli ve görüntülü sohbet
Chat
sohbet MaviSakaL