I don't necessarily think this means that Obama is not pro-choice, but it does raise some serious questions about his commitment to this issue. I have always found these provisions problematic. I mean from the most basic point of view, we're demanding that young unexpectedly pregnant women who feel they cannot discuss their situation with their parents go before a judge to be able to have an abortion. Is it any wonder that we hear of stories of teenage mothers who hide their pregnancies literally until they give birth?
As Bitch Ph.D. suggests, Obama needs to be questioned further on this issue, but if he is (and I doubt he will be) I find it hard to believe, given the tone of the campaign, that he will take the position I want him to take on this issue: a woman's body is a her body, and she alone should be able to make this choice.
I think that there are a few issues here. First, this is completely partisan story, as were stories on Obama's position before Super Tuesday. The original Politico article stated that the story, the basis of Bitch PhD's work, developed from sources that opposed Obama's campaign. I am shocked that this story would break before Pennsylvania. Shocked.
Second, Bitch PhD's post takes a Pro-Choice position (parental notification law with judicial bypass) and turns it into a anti-pro-choice position. The judicial bypass provides some basic guidance for children when they cannot seek it elsewhere. It seems odd that access to dialogue is problematic.
Third, in M's post, she focuses on a woman's right. And, this is where there is a tremendous gray area in the debate, as with juvenile capital punishment. How do we deal with standards that apply to individuals whose mental capacities have not developed fully? From the article, Obama's position seems to be that he would favor these for young girls at the age of 12 or 13. There is nothing stated beyond that.
In the Supreme Court case that struck down juvenile capital punishment, some of the evidence that the majority found persuasive is that children under 18 (and I do not know why the cutoff is 18) do not have advanced mental capacities where they can process all of the information. The science research adds another level to this question, that is not present in either the original article or the Bitch PhD blog.
The issue of what rights ought to be extended to juveniles seems to be an important discussion for a community to have. Unfortunately, the Bitch PhD article attempts to cut off debate on that topic.
I would check out Senator Obama's position from original source and not from these sources.
What I find interesting about your response, Solon, as well as the argument for legislation governing this issue, is that there is no account for young women (even as young as 12 or 13) who do not believe that they can talk to their parents. As I wrote in my original comment, these laws make it difficult if not impossible for young women who find themselves unexpectedly pregnant to seek an abortion if that is what they want. Further, as Bitch Ph.D. points out, these young women, who presumably have no knowledge of the legal system or the finances to hire a lawyer to guide them through the legal system, are expected to navigate said system on their own, appear before a judge, and ask said judge's permission to have an abortion--all without their parents finding out. I think all of the points you raise are valid ones, but I still find this provision troublesome. Further, my primary concern about this provision is that it exists at all, not that Senator Obama supports it. I also would not be surprised to find out, given the way most Americans feel about teens and abortion, that Senator Clinton supports similar provisions.
3 comments:
I don't necessarily think this means that Obama is not pro-choice, but it does raise some serious questions about his commitment to this issue. I have always found these provisions problematic. I mean from the most basic point of view, we're demanding that young unexpectedly pregnant women who feel they cannot discuss their situation with their parents go before a judge to be able to have an abortion. Is it any wonder that we hear of stories of teenage mothers who hide their pregnancies literally until they give birth?
As Bitch Ph.D. suggests, Obama needs to be questioned further on this issue, but if he is (and I doubt he will be) I find it hard to believe, given the tone of the campaign, that he will take the position I want him to take on this issue: a woman's body is a her body, and she alone should be able to make this choice.
I think that there are a few issues here. First, this is completely partisan story, as were stories on Obama's position before Super Tuesday. The original Politico article stated that the story, the basis of Bitch PhD's work, developed from sources that opposed Obama's campaign. I am shocked that this story would break before Pennsylvania. Shocked.
Second, Bitch PhD's post takes a Pro-Choice position (parental notification law with judicial bypass) and turns it into a anti-pro-choice position. The judicial bypass provides some basic guidance for children when they cannot seek it elsewhere. It seems odd that access to dialogue is problematic.
Third, in M's post, she focuses on a woman's right. And, this is where there is a tremendous gray area in the debate, as with juvenile capital punishment. How do we deal with standards that apply to individuals whose mental capacities have not developed fully? From the article, Obama's position seems to be that he would favor these for young girls at the age of 12 or 13. There is nothing stated beyond that.
In the Supreme Court case that struck down juvenile capital punishment, some of the evidence that the majority found persuasive is that children under 18 (and I do not know why the cutoff is 18) do not have advanced mental capacities where they can process all of the information. The science research adds another level to this question, that is not present in either the original article or the Bitch PhD blog.
The issue of what rights ought to be extended to juveniles seems to be an important discussion for a community to have. Unfortunately, the Bitch PhD article attempts to cut off debate on that topic.
I would check out Senator Obama's position from original source and not from these sources.
What I find interesting about your response, Solon, as well as the argument for legislation governing this issue, is that there is no account for young women (even as young as 12 or 13) who do not believe that they can talk to their parents. As I wrote in my original comment, these laws make it difficult if not impossible for young women who find themselves unexpectedly pregnant to seek an abortion if that is what they want. Further, as Bitch Ph.D. points out, these young women, who presumably have no knowledge of the legal system or the finances to hire a lawyer to guide them through the legal system, are expected to navigate said system on their own, appear before a judge, and ask said judge's permission to have an abortion--all without their parents finding out. I think all of the points you raise are valid ones, but I still find this provision troublesome. Further, my primary concern about this provision is that it exists at all, not that Senator Obama supports it. I also would not be surprised to find out, given the way most Americans feel about teens and abortion, that Senator Clinton supports similar provisions.
Post a Comment