I Hate this State (A continuing series)
I am never, ever staying in
What is particularly irking me off here is its recent legislation. First, they passed a "Trigger bill" making abortion illegal when and if Roe v. Wade is overturned. But worse, they just passed into law a bill requiring parent's permission for pregnant girls under the age of 18 to get pre-natal care.
This is stupid, cruel, and misogynist legislator, and that's really all I can say about it right now.
Via the Bismarck Tribune.
posted by Goddess Cassandra @ 7:13 PM
19 comments
19 Comments:
Wow. Kids under parental control. How backwards.
Likwidshoe, how dare you suggest that parents be permitted to know what a minor child is being treated for by a doctor! Who is held responsible if the child fails to disclose all her medical history and she is give a treatment that causes a negative reaction?
We can see, to this blogger, a state that values family, Christian Virtues, common sense, and uses a moral compass (though not everyone of course) is backwards and out of touch with the realities of amoral depravity that she desperately seeks. Just look at the hand wringing over issues of 'is marriage feminist or anti-feminist' and she will not be 'given away' by her father. She also has some terrific screeds about abortion and how it is a choice and part of 'birth control'.
She may at some point have or have had an abortion, and if it is or was a baby boy, she might have a hard time explaining how it's her body her choice, but she doesn't have a penis does she?
I look forward to the clump of cells, government shouldn't interfere, misogynistic, anti-pro marriage, gays and lesbians deserve extra rights, and the other posturing that is sure to come, in her retort. What it really comes down to is, how is her job hunt in San Francisco, Miami, New York, Los Angeles going, so she can escape into the dungeon of her depravity, and leave the 'backwards state' behind her.
C. (tifosi1f1.blogspot.com)
You forgot that I kick puppies and am on a never-ending quest to destroy rainbows through the use of slutting around. *rolls eyes*
There is no other medical procedure that requires parental permission or notification. This law is clearly designed to target pregnant minors.
What is "common sense" is that if a female minor has a good relationship with her parents, she will tell them about her pregnancy. If she doesn't, she may have a good reason to not tell them, from abandonment to abuse. This law punishes women who get pregnant; and denial of NEEDED medical care is not an appropriate punishment.
Anonymous, before you come back I need you to do three things:
1) Define "Christian Virutes" "common sense" and "moral compass". Failure to do this will result in a banned IP address.
2) Quit the personal attacks. Whether or not I've had an abortion is irrelevant and even more so on a post having to do with prenatal care.
3) Please choose a handle.
I'd hate to live in your state as well...the 'trigger bill' scares the crap out of me.
I feel so enraged when ostensibly Pro-Life proponents are willing to sacrifice the health and well-being of a young woman as soon as sperm meets egg. And the concept that "Pregnant girls should get adult permission before they get medical checkups for their unborn babies..." is so hypocritical to the Pro Life stance it's laughable.
Teen women are 4 times more likely to not carry a pregnancy to term than a women in her 20's. Lack of prenatal care is a direct contributor to low birthweight and infant mortality. How the hell is encouraging a lack of health care Pro Life?
Religious agendas, moralistic posturing does not belong in a doctor's office. Period. End of discussion. If my daughter needs medical care, and is uncomfortable discussing that care with me, then I would look inwardly to the relationship I've developed with her. I just hope that as my daughter gets older, we will have success in my state in overturning the parental consent law, and have made EC readily available to women of all ages who are of childbearing age.
Oh, I could go on and on...but I won't. BTW Congratulations on your engagement. You're not eschewing your feminist views if your fiance is on the same page as you in that regard, and you two are making a commitment to one another.
Best Wishes,
Peg
Define "Christian Virutes [sic]" "common sense" and "moral compass". Failure to do this will result in a banned IP address.
So much for free speech I suppose, at least from this committed leftist.
Christian Virtues, common sense, and a moral compass, I would suggest that you start with the Sermon on the Mount, delivered by Christ. The entire New Testament is a terrific source of guidance when it comes to virtues and morals. I would look to the Federalist Papers, C. S. Lewis, Mark Twain, Thomas Sowell and perhaps Phyllis Schlafly. All of these authors and speakers have a direct influence on my political and cultural thoughts and attitudes.
You are correct in saying that an abortion you may or may not have had is not directly on point. However it was in context, and spoke to the false premise on which pro abortion folks base their particular stance. It was not how ever a personal attack. I don't know you, and I was not working at all towards a 'personal' end. I was pointing out the ridiculous position you take in allowing children access to medical care outside the parents knowledge, pro abortion, pro 'extra rights' for gay couples, and how you feel it is the citizens of North Dakota who are mistaken, and how much better off the state would be if they would embrace your ideas of no right and wrong and amorality. Perhaps you should read the book “The Death of Right and Wrong” by Tammy Bruce, a former president of the Los Angeles chapter of NOW, a committed lesbian feminist liberal.
I tried about thirty times to get logged into blogger, and was unsuccessful. I will try to figure it out and get logged in correctly.
Finally, children should not be going to the doctor with out the consent of the parents. If there are issues of neglect or abuse, then that would perhaps be the time for those issues to come to light and the state intervene on behalf of the child. Children are not in a position to enter into a contract of care with a doctor, not held responsible for the medical and financial out come and may face issues, like pregnancy that she or he for that matter are not mature enough to face with out the help and guidance of their parents.
It is not the state's place to usurp the authority of the parents of a child because some liberal politicians feel they need to expand the nanny state, contravene parental authority, and in the end damage the families of its citizens through so-called ‘good intentions’.
C. (tifosi1f1.blogspot.com)
chris_brownell@yahoo.com
FYI...
http://www.amazon.com/Death-Right-Wrong-Exposing-Assault/dp/1400052947/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-1303621-6523248?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175552780&sr=8-1
Peg said "How the hell is encouraging a lack of health care Pro Life?" No one suggested the child not go to the doctor for prenatal examinations and care. We feel a child should be compelled to involve her parents rather than force the medical community treat children with out their parents’ knowledge.
Peg also says, "I just hope that as my daughter gets older, we will have success in my state in overturning the parental consent law," So your relationship may or may not be so great but that should not stop the state from undermining all parents authority over their children, particularly when it comes to medical care and abortion? Whether you or anyone else in North Dakota has a healthy trusting relationship with their child does not mean the child should be allowed to start making adult decisions about their health care or anything else for that matter. You have to sign a child’s report card to acknowledge receiving it, but you think they should be allowed to care for an unborn child with out your knowledge?
C. (tifosi1f1.blogspot.com)
chris_brownell@yahoo.com
So much for free speech I suppose, at least from this committed leftist.
You have free speach: I am not a governmental agency, nor am I a corporation. This is my blog, these are my rules. I don't have a desire to waste my time with people who can't argue in good faith.
Christian Virtues, common sense, and a moral compass, I would suggest that you start with the Sermon on the Mount, delivered by Christ. The entire New Testament is a terrific source of guidance when it comes to virtues and morals. I would look to the Federalist Papers, C. S. Lewis, Mark Twain, Thomas Sowell and perhaps Phyllis Schlafly. All of these authors and speakers have a direct influence on my political and cultural thoughts and attitudes.
*sigh* I am not going to ban you, because I can see that a good faith attempt was made. But you didn't actually DEFINE anything; you just told me to read a bunch of people I've already read (except Schfly: she's supposed to be a housewife, don't you know?). Obviously, I have come to different political decisions, so this is not a clear definition. Please try again.
I was pointing out the ridiculous position you take in allowing children access to medical care outside the parents knowledge, pro abortion, pro 'extra rights' for gay couples, and how you feel it is the citizens of North Dakota who are mistaken, and how much better off the state would be if they would embrace your ideas of no right and wrong and amorality. Perhaps you should read the book “The Death of Right and Wrong” by Tammy Bruce, a former president of the Los Angeles chapter of NOW, a committed lesbian feminist liberal.
You aren't actually making a point. You are just randomly saying things that have nothing to do with preventing children from getting prenatal care. In no way did you actually address why singling out pregnant women is good and right; you just threw in a lot of buzz phrases like that was an argument. You are not demonstrating any knowledge of how to conduct a debate.
Finally, children should not be going to the doctor with out the consent of the parents. If there are issues of neglect or abuse, then that would perhaps be the time for those issues to come to light and the state intervene on behalf of the child. Children are not in a position to enter into a contract of care with a doctor, not held responsible for the medical and financial out come and may face issues, like pregnancy that she or he for that matter are not mature enough to face with out the help and guidance of their parents.
Thank goddess, and actual point.
The state of North Dakota does not require parental permission for ANY OTHER MEDICAL procedure. This includes STD testing. And since only women can get pregnant, this is obviously misgynistic: requiring women to do something men are not.
Parents should have limits on what they can do to their kids. I would rather that issues of abuse were not after-the-fact investigated; if a minor concludes that this will result in abuse; that is a decision they have to make. It is too important that woman get prenatal care to sacrifice it on the mantle of "parental control".
What good is guidance of the child does not seek it? If you are compelled to get guidance, it is going to be at best ignored.
It is not the state's place to usurp the authority of the parents of a child because some liberal politicians feel they need to expand the nanny state, contravene parental authority, and in the end damage the families of its citizens through so-called ‘good intentions’.
It is not the parent's place to control their children. That's what it basically comes down to: parents want to keep their power trip. But if your girl is pregnant, and she doesn't tell you, you already lost it. This job does nothing but compel young women to a) not get prenatal care or b) get thrown to the mercy of their parent. Without it, there is no nanny state. With it, there is a big brother state.
Christian values; believing and doing everything you can to practice the moral values taught specifically in the bible, when it comes to the personal level. I am interested in supporting traditional families, against killing unborn babies, and the sacrament of marriage between a man and a woman. I believe in taking care of my family, both immediate and my extended. I believe in treating my fellow citizens as I want to be treated, nothing more and nothing less. I believe in God, and that his son died as a sacrifice for everybody’s sins. I believe he rose again allowing us to come closer to God. I believe in the Constitution, taking a constructionist view of it and what it says, and not necessarily what it doesn’t say. I believe the earth and what is in it, is for our use, and to be cared for, not worshiped. God is sacred, not his creation. I believe in the moral value of right and wrong, and that as a nation and a planet we are moving quickly to diminish, if not eliminating all together, right from wrong in order to make people feel better. I could go on and on but I am sure that is enough for you now.
There is tons of information and ideas to be drawn from the sources I listed, and if you had read them you would understand clearly what I was getting at rather than needing it spelled out for you. Further, I expand on a subject or a point does not mean I am randomly making non-sequiturs. Needing to state this seems redundant and evident.
You said, “The state of North Dakota does not require parental permission for ANY OTHER MEDICAL procedure. This includes STD testing. And since only women can get pregnant, this is obviously misgynistic [sic]: requiring women to do something men are not.”
The item of legislation being discussed is not misogynistic, it is rather a failure of the state legislators and governor to ensure children are treated as children, in all cases no matter the issue. When a child becomes pregnant, she should be made to involve her parents, and the male child who got the girl pregnant should be made to be involved, as well as his parents. I do not see this as a sexually transmitted disease notification sort of issue but rather you have two children engaging in risky behavior. If a child is caught wondering the streets late at night the police would take him to his parents, and I see this as the same sort of matter.
You said, “Parents should have limits on what they can do to their kids.” There are limits, take a look at North Dakota’s Dept. of Human Services. I am sure you will find all you need to know there. When a child becomes pregnant her parents should be involved. There is no valid reason a minor should not be required to involve her (and his, in my opinion) parents.
You said, “I would rather that issues of abuse were not after-the-fact investigated; if a minor concludes that this will result in abuse; that is a decision they have to make.”
Abuse is investigated ‘after the fact’ in all cases. How does one do otherwise? A child can and should involve a third party if she thinks disclosing she is pregnant will result in abuse or neglect. The issue of abuse or neglect does not remove the parent from the process of her care and the parents responsibility for the minor child.
You said, “What good is guidance of the child does not seek it? If you are compelled to get guidance, it is going to be at best ignored.”
Your feelings of cynicism do not make guidance from primarily parents but also doctors, therapists, and counselors less valuable.
You said, “It is not the parent's place to control their children.” You are clearly mistaken. Parents are responsible to raise their children, correct them when they make mistakes and ultimately are held responsible in a variety of ways, socially, financially, and by their own family, when a child becoming pregnant.
You said, “parents [sic] want to keep their power trip.” Beyond the fact that this speaks volumes about the author, I can only hope when you are ready to have children, you will be mature enough to understand it is not a power trip to be a responsible parent.
Finally you said, “This job does nothing but compel young women to a) not get prenatal care or b) get thrown to the mercy of their parent.” It should strike me as outrageous that you only see these options for a child who becomes pregnant. It doesn’t, and that is sad. The child could have made a mistake by becoming pregnant and she could know that her parents will help her through the ordeal. She could have her parents notified of her pregnancy, and it reveal a pattern of abuse and she could be removed from a situation that is horrible both emotionally and physically, thus creating a better out come for her. A boy could have his parents notified, and his parents might hold him responsible for his behavior, and to the girl and the child. There are a plethora of different scenarios that could take place, but you choose to only see children oppressed, where they are not actually being oppressed. How sad for you.
C.
I did a blog on this over at DakotaWomen (dakotawomen.blogspot.com). One of the examples given in hearing (which I attended) was by a OBGYN who had a minor giving birth and the mother refusing to allow her to have pain medication since she had gotten herself into that "mess" and wanted her to remember it.
The bill should have passed.
http://dakotawomen.blogspot.com/
2007/03/nd-refuses-to-
allow-prenatal-care-to.html
Keepaskingwhy says, "was by a OBGYN who had a minor giving birth and the mother refusing to allow her to have pain medication since she had gotten herself into that "mess" and wanted her to remember it."
Did the OBGYN contact the North Dakota Child Protection Program? Did she take any affirmative steps to intervene between the mother and the daughter of this hypothetical situation? Clearly the mother did not have the best interests of the child at hand to the detriment of the child’s health and welfare. A doctor is obligated to report abuse, be it real or suspected. Had the doctor done this, the state could have taken temporary custody of the child, and allowed the doctor to administer medication as she saw fit. (But doing that would not suit your agenda) Or was the 'obgyn' just a making up a story for support of this bill?
I don't buy that this really occurred, and it is just an urban myth of sorts, propagated by people like you?
C.
Chris,
It is not considered child abuse to deny a woman pain medication during labor. Pain isn't dangerous, just the giving birth part. The state would have ignored it.
If you believe she is making it up, why don't you simply look up the hearing yourself? North Dakota is completely 100% open record, shouldn't be too hard to find.
And I would appreciate it if you would try and argue in good faith. Why do you keep coming back here, anyway? You have demonstrated no respect for me, the beliefs of this blog, or the other posters? Don't you have more important things to do?
GoddessCassandra
Chris, you can get a copy of the committee hearing testimony and listen yourself.
I don't know the doctor, this was what she reported had occurred to her while helping a client. I seriously doubt the Dr made it up, but since I don't know the Dr, I can't tell you that for sure but her comments were on record before the Senate Human Services Committee. I was at the hearing and I'm guessing you were not.
As far as what is or is not abuse, that I can't comment on, because I have no idea.
Cassandra, pain can absolutely have a direct effect on the health and well being of a child giving birth. Should something have gone wrong during the birth, it could clearly contribute to a cascading effect on both child and infant. Pain’s effect on blood pressure would be a perfect example of what I am talking about.
I found my way here from the SayAnything blog. I was aware of you in my periphery to a small extent, and then upon reading your blog and the associated comments, the temptation is just too great, not to question your posts and comments. Particularly when you title a Post "I Hate this State". As for respecting you, I don't know you. You have claimed I am making personal attacks, but I am not. I think you are unaccustomed to having anyone differ from your stated opinion. You post this stuff in public, for the public to read, and comment on; I am not coming to your home, or calling you up and offering unsolicited opinions.
You said, “The state would have ignored it." If the good doctor believed the mother was simply being malicious, that is clearly impinging upon the welfare of the child, and if she would have done her job, reported it, the state is compelled to investigate, the claim, and intercede, as necessary. You also said, "It is not considered child abuse to deny a woman pain medication" The child is not a woman, but rather a child.
As for your accusation of my arguments being in something other than good faith, I would appreciate an example. Not because I think you can find a valid one, but because I am sure you have misunderstood what my point. I don't argue in bad faith, as it is a waste of time, for you and me. I don't believe stuff when it doesn't make sense. An example would be a doctor will testify about a horrible mother abusing her child, in an effort to radically change the law and parental authority, making it much easier to obtain an abortion or even a step in that direction, but she (or her promulgators of her testimony) can not be questioned about the failure of the doctor to intercede on behalf of the patient? If an equal but opposite argument came up, and I was in your place, would it be reasonable of you to question something I was saying? Of course it would.
Keepaskingwhy, I don’t think the doctor did not give the testimony, and I was not at the hearing. I question the veracity of the testimony, the doctor’s, and your motives, and why the doctor did not do something about what she seems to think was abuse. You say you do not know what constitutes abuse or not, but since you are advocating for the diminishing of parental rights, don’t you think you should acquaint yourself with what amounts to abuse?
Enjoy your Good Friday.
C.
Maybe the doctor did do something. Just because the doctor did not say anything about it at the hearing does not mean that the Dr did not. Regardless, that wasn't the issue.
Look, you accused me of making it up and I was responding to that. You obviously have some bone to pick so trying to reason with you is going to be useless.
Keepaskingwhy said, "Just because the doctor did not say anything about it at the hearing does not mean that the Dr did not."
If the doctor did do something, like report abuse, the state would be compelled to intervene. If that happened and the child was protected from an abusive parent, it kind of makes the proposed law irrelevant and bureaucratic doesn't it?
So my guess is that the doctor did what the mother wanted, assisted in the abuse of a child, then because she is a pro-abortionist type, was willing to testify before a committee. Then bloggers pick up on it, don't bother to question anything about the story and instead, say anyone who does is being unreasonable. Do I have it right?
By the way, because you chose to take personally what I said, I will reiterate part of my point. I did not say you were lying, I think the doctor is, or she did not do her job, one of the two I believe is true.
I said you pass this information along with out any scrutiny what so ever, which is kind of reckless and most likely hypocritical on your part. (Would you offer a conservative a pass on statements with so little scrutiny, I strongly doubt you would.) I also said you have an agenda, and thus a clear bias towards supporting abortion under the guise of women's rights, even if satisfying that agenda means diminishing parental authority, and legalizing abortion for children without parental consent. I believe that position is unholy, damaging to children and unhealthy, damaging mentally physically, and emotionally for women or children. I hope that makes clear what I think, to avoid any further confusion.
C.
Chris, I've already told you: it is not considered child abuse to deny pain medication. I agree with you that it is, but the legal definition says it IS NOT.
Child services probably did nothing; like I said, it is not considered medically necessary (which is why a lot of insurances don't cover it).
And why do you assume that she was a "pro-abortionist" (a stupid phrase if I've ever heard one, no one is pro-abortion any more than someone is pro-open heart surgery)? She maybe 100% forced-birth, but she realizes that the proposed legislation is going to contribute to MORE minor females going out of state to get an abortion. As an anti-choicer, you should be more concerned about saving little babies than punishing minors by enforcing near-absolute parental control.
Oh, and a bad faith argument is like when someone says "pro-abortionist", both because it is an inaccurate phrase, and an unknown.
I asked, and I continue to be curious, because your blog says your from out of state, and conservative.
GoddessCassandra
"Only women can get pregnant", but it does take two to make that pregnancy.
Screw the man's rights, though. Right? That's the "feminist" way. Men are the enemy and have no rights when it comes to making children (except when it comes time to open up the wallet).
Remember commenters: no personal attacks. Only Cassandra is allowed those, you stupid backwater misogynistic rubes.
Also remember: "choice", in Cassandra's world, is the denial of the choice of life. Welcome to the upside down world.
You Said, "it is not considered child abuse to deny pain medication. I agree with you that it is, but the legal definition says it IS NOT." I don't agree with your assertion as it applies to the welfare of child. I don't know where to look up the info, but I am willing to bet a dollar against a dime I am right.
You Said, "Child services probably did nothing; like I said, it is not considered medically necessary (which is why a lot of insurances don't cover it)." I am again willing to bet that child services did not receive a call or were contacted in any way.
I assume the doctor is pro abortion because she has enough of an agenda to testify at a committee hearing which helps determine if parent’s rights are going to be curtailed. (Because I use the term pro abortion, which is what we are talking about here to some extent, does not mean I am arguing in bad faith. IT is both accurate, in that you are for the 'choice' of killing a baby or not. Rather I am simply stating the case rather than use politically correct euphemisms. The choice to me is whether or not to get pregnant, not to kill or not kill the baby after the fact because you don't like the consequences of the behavior) I am not anti-choice, but rather anti abortion. I am pro choice when it comes to choosing not to get pregnant.
Parent’s near total control? Children by definition do not have any control but rather rely on elders of all sorts to guide them. This is, for example, why children can not enter into contracts like financing a home. By the way I realized there are many contradictions when it comes to the government’s treatment of children. Instead of expanding our treatment of children as adults, we as a society should be working to narrow that behavior. Ensuring that children's parents are informed about medical treatment received is a perfect example.
I come here for the debate. I love North Dakota; I don't currently live there but long to move back. I could not resist the temptation of joining the discussion when I see stuff like "I Hate this State".
C.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
<< Home