Idaho Bill Would Ban 'Transporting' a Minor for an Abortion Without Her Parents' Permission
"Taking that child across the border, and if that happens without the permission of the parent, that's where we'll be able to hold accountable those that would subvert a parent's right," said one of the bill's sponsors.

In Idaho, which has some of the strictest anti-abortion laws in the nation, state lawmakers have introduced a bill that would create yet another restriction, levying criminal penalties against anyone who helps a minor obtain an abortion without her parents' permission.
The bill, H.B. 242, was passed in the Idaho House earlier this month and is widely expected to pass in the Senate in the coming weeks. The legislation defines the new crime of "abortion trafficking," writing that any adult who helps an unemancipated minor obtain an abortion procedure or abortion-inducing drugs "by recruiting, harboring, or transporting the pregnant minor within this state" without the permission of the minor's parents or guardians has committed the crime. Those found guilty of "abortion trafficking" can face two to five years in prison.
The bill is somewhat strangely worded, as it technically does not criminalize the act of crossing state lines to help a minor obtain an abortion without parental consent, which is what would practically be required in a state where abortion is almost entirely illegal. Instead, the law targets in-state travel, noting that defendants cannot use "that the abortion provider or the abortion-inducing drug provider is located in another state" as an affirmative defense in their case.
However, the legislation is still being framed as an attempted ban on interstate abortion-related travel, due to the practical impact of the law, which would make it a felony to transport a minor anywhere in an attempt to secure an abortion without the permission of her parents or guardians.
To the bill's supporters, the law is primarily a parental rights measure. "Taking that child across the border, and if that happens without the permission of the parent, that's where we'll be able to hold accountable those that would subvert a parent's right," state Rep. Barbara Ehardt (R–Idaho Falls) told HuffPost. "A parent absolutely still has the right to take their child across the border and get an abortion. The parent still has the right to cede that power and authority to someone else, such as a grandparent or an aunt, to take that child, should they be pregnant, across the border and get an abortion."
However, abortion rights advocates have noted how "parent's rights" measures can put some vulnerable teenagers at risk. "The majority of young people facing an unexpected pregnancy do involve their parents in their decision-making," Mistie DelliCarpini-Tolman, the Idaho state director for Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates, told KMTV. "But- for young children living in abusive households, disclosing sexual activity or pregnancy can trigger physical or emotional abuse, including direct physical or sexual violence, or being thrown out of the home."
Thirty-six states already have laws requiring parental permission, notification, or a formal judicial bypass for minors to obtain abortions—though in many states these statutes have been rendered irrelevant by outright abortion bans. As more and more states continue to ban abortion, it's possible that bills like H.B. 242 in Idaho will become the norm.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Kind of like the minor who crossed state lines from IL to WI with a gun?
Not to nitpick, but you mean a minor who was accused by CNN of crossing state lines from IL to WI with a gun?
Well, that certainly is a relevant thing to talk about here.
I’ve profited $17,000 in just four weeks by working from home comfortably part-time. I was devastated when I lost my previous business dec right away, but happily, I found this project, which has allowed me to get thousands of dollars from the comfort cfs06 of my home. Each person may definitely complete this simple task and earn extra money online by
visiting the next article———>>> http://Www.jobsrevenue.com
Male-impersonating National Socialist sockpoopettes and girl-bulliers out in force alluva sudden? Remember the rednecks when Bush forfeitured the economy and voters chose Black Satan over Johnny Torch and Mutterkreuz Impaler? Then voters DARED to reject Mitt Rommell and Fake Objectivist girl-bullier for Black Satan... remember that? This is that again.
Some people say Old Hank talks like a poorly programmed AI, but I think he's more like a Lorem Ipsum generator.
He drove himself though.
Pretty sure transporting a minor contrary to their parents' consent verges on kidnapping...
No kinda nothing like that at all.
But nice try fascist.
" 'Transporting' a Minor . . . Without Her Parents' Permission"
Also commonly known as kidnapping. Which, my understanding is that when you cross state lines during a kidnapping, that elevates the offense to the federal level.
Yeah. Don’t understand Emma’s take here. Is she against parental rights and guardianship?
Abortion is the only Sacrament we have left, and Idaho is trying to quash it. Bad Idaho. Bad BAD Idaho.
Did you actually read the blog post before commenting?
Yes.
Now why don't you be a man and spit out the point you're inferring instead of always relying on innuendo.
If you're right on the interpretation of the current law, this new law is unnecessary, no?
No. Permission for the travel across state lines is distinct for the permission to get an abortion and one is not a defense of the other.
This isn't really that controversial of a concept:
"Hey, Dad, can I borrow your gun?" vs. "Hey, Dad, can I borrow your gun to rob a liquor store?"
The first arguably isn't a crime. If the kid has been in a mental institution or is under a court order not to handle firearms it probably is, but otherwise it's OK. The latter can/does make the former a crime regardless of any court order or other legal restriction.
The only real question is, "Are the people acting like this is novel or exceeding controversial actually this stupid or are they just pretending to be?"
Or maybe equivocating the day after pill to robbing a liquor store with a gun is exceedingly controversial and stupid; no pretending about it.
Do you know not know what “of a concept” or “vs.” means or are you just pretending to be stupid?
If I say “Addition isn’t a difficult concept: 2+3 =/= 4 vs. 2+2 = 4”, I’m literally *not* equivocating the two statements.
The specific crime or punishment is immaterial to the definitive distinction being obfuscated by self-retardation (iteratively):
Hey, Dad, can I borrow your car? – No crime. Dad not an accomplice.
Hey, Dad, can I borrow your car to run to the liquor store? – No a crime for a 21-yr.-old driver. Dad not an accomplice unless under 21, maybe.
Hey, Dad, can I borrow your car to park in the handicapped zone at the grocery store? – Crime. Dad not an accomplice.
Hey, Dad, can I borrow your car to drive through a christmas parade full of people? - Big fucking crime. Dad almost certainly criminally culpable.
Obfuscating clarity of the law behind your selective retardation about the clarity doesn’t make the law more clear or better, it just makes you and everyone who agrees with you more retarded. And, in this case, makes everyone more retarded so that you rapists, kidnappers, and school teachers can take kids across state lines for abortions without their parents' permission.
Or "getting on a bus".
So when a pregnant teen asks her older brother to take her to get an abortion, and says "don't tell Mom and Dad", that's kidnapping?
According to Trumpanzees, that is Jewish kidnapping of an Aryan Christian for purposes of race suicide! Ask Teedy Rosenfeld about the 1903 and 1906 race suicide letters.
Did that even make sense when you typed it?
No. Within state lines it's aiding an abortion. Across state lines, whether she's pregnant or not, without permission it's kidnapping, regardless of any familial relations.
While it's a terrible situation, I think you've done a great job of demonstrating the adverse consequences and twisted cruelty of your mom's brother failing to help her abort his kid.
"Abortion Trafficking" as so well labelled in this retarded legislation.
Yeah. Unfortunately for Emma, this is a
libertarian magazinemagazine that attracts libertarian readers and that generally requires a bare minimum of understanding how the law works.The reason the bill is "strangely worded" is because kidnapping is already a crime at the state and federal level. You, nominally, can't pass and criminalize the same action at the same municipal level multiple times. They aren't trying to criminalize transporting a minor across state lines. They're trying to criminalize doing it across state lines without the parent's knowledge/permission about the abortion.
If the older bad boy or pastor or her Latin teacher takes her across state lines for a field trip or whatever with permission and just happens to slip an abortion in there, whether he was supposed to tell them about it or she was, the permission for the field trip isn't a defense of the abortion.
Idaho state law prohibits anyone from performing a tattoo, brand or body piercing on a minor unless a written informed consent is signed in the presence of the artist/service provider or their agent, except for ear piercings what require no parental consent
There's a lot of difference between getting a tattoo and deciding to have an abortion.
Which one do you think a parent has more involvement in? Should be illuminating.
There’s a lot of difference between getting a tattoo and being euthanized too.
Which one of the three examples in this thread should be the least of a parent's concern?
Or having your sex organs amputated
"There’s a lot of difference between getting a tattoo and deciding to have an abortion."
Feel free to explain the difference. Why is one OK for children to do without parental consent and the other is not?
Hell, add in sex reassignment.
I already explained why pregnancy is not the young woman’s parents’ decision:
https://reason.com/2023/03/29/idaho-bill-would-ban-transporting-a-minor-for-an-abortion-without-her-parents-permission/?comments=true#comment-9990631
And, sure, for tattoos or sex reassignment surgery the young woman’s parents should be able to say no.
Notice how neither of those situations involve the parent’s child becoming a parent herself.
Huh... now that you mention it, yes... Neither tattoos nor legal mutilation involve involuntary reproduction. But it was fashionable in Christian National Socialist Germany and conquered vassal States to tattoo slaves without much evident concern for age or gender. And I have heard some bad things about the pious Dr Mengele.
That law is stupid as well. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
All age of consent laws are arbitrary, random, un-libertarian and anti-freedom.
Ok fed bro.
Ok pedo.
The funny thing is the confounded, beyond-Sky-Daddy-absurd contortions people lock themselves into in defense. At some point, the girl has rights. The law currently says 18, but opponents say it should be earlier... but not at inception or within a few weeks after, because depriving a person of their rights at that point is unquestionably correct and the implication that it's murder is torturous barbarism. Sometime after exiting the birth canal and before turning 18, but nobody can say when. And not 'nobody can say when' like a burning bush told someone 1,000 yrs. ago or they read in a biology text book that between the ages of 8-12 kids develop rights based on some objective test. No God-given or naturally-bestowed right, but simply because they think so. At least in this case anyway, in the next case they'll cite CT scans as evidence that the brain isn't fully matured until age 25 in defense of murder.
It really is an obviously ad hoc system that just wants to dictate rights and deprive people of them far more arbitrarily than our current one.
Tattoo, euthanasia, or abortion: Which one is a parent more likely to be irrational and abusive about? Refusing permission for a child to get a tattoo is probably rational, but in any case it's not abusive. At this point in the USA, "euthanasia" isn't really an issue. The questions are when life support is cut off from the brain-dead, or the dying are allowed to die a little faster. In the first case, family members have to make the choice because the subject isn't making choices any more. In the second case, it's pretty presumptive to call a parent's choice for their child wrong.
But when it comes to discovering that your little princess has been sexually active, many good parents become totally irrational. There needs to be a bypass around a crazed parent when a minor is pregnant. And that's not even considering the sick bastards that would use parental authority to stop an abortion of a child they fathered!
You realize without any external stats or stories or references and with the gross assumptions you've made, you're pretty much just saying you'd abuse your kid over an abortion and not even consider the fact that the kid is your own, right?
To clarify: I'm the father of sons. When you bring up your hypothetical daughter that her Dad hypothetically impregnated in a discussion about all of abortion and/or all of parental abuse, it gives me the distinct impression that either you're an abject moron who can't or won't conceive of scope of the issue (either one) at even a trivial level or we aren't talking hypothetically.
levying criminal penalties against anyone who helps a minor obtain an abortion without her parents' permission.
How the F is that remotely controversial? Morons.
Its testing the waters to criminalize more, and eventually all, travel for the purpose of having an abortion.
Cite?
It will soon be criminalized to travel (or assist others in travelling) for the purpose of getting COVID vaccines!!! Cite? The Lizard People told me ALL about that, AND about the brain-controlling micro-chips in the vaccines!!!
https://covid-101.org/science/how-many-people-have-died-from-the-vaccine-in-the-u-s/
How many people have died after getting a vaccine?
There are three deaths that appear to be linked to blood clots that occurred after people got the J&J vaccine. Since we now know how to correctly treat people who develop these blood clots, future deaths related to this very rare side effect can be prevented.
After careful review of the additional data, doctors have decided that there is no evidence at all that the vaccines contributed to the other patient deaths. Nonetheless, the CDC and FDA will continue to investigate every single report of death (and other adverse events) reported to VAERS.
By way of comparison, getting COVID-19 while unvaccinated poses a grave risk; as of July 23, 2021, more than 610,000 deaths have been attributed to the virus in the US alone. Not everyone who dies while having COVID is counted towards this total.
SQRLSY: JesseBahnFuhrer, your pants-shitting and pearl-clutching is clearly ideological ax-grinding, and NOT data-driven!
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/10/centner-academy-vaccine-rules-leila-centner-david-centner
Florida School Run by Idiots Says Vaccinated Students Must Stay Home for 30 Days After Each Shot
This is the same school where a teacher told students not to hug their vaccinated parents for more than five seconds.
(End subtitles and excerpts).
See? We are ALL data-driven by now! My data says the OTHER (evil) tribe believes in vaccines, so MY tribe must BAN and SHUN the BAD tribe (and their cooties) as much as possible!
The unvaccinated are now CLEAN and the vaccinated are UNCLEAN! Civic-minded BAD! Afraid of micro-chips in vaccines GOOD! Black is white, and good is evil!
Putting parental rights over that of kids (as though those same kids could consent to an abortion) is about parental rights.
WTF?!?! Why don't they just pass a law that says TEENAGE BABES MAY NOT HAVE SEX w/o parental permission?!?!
Problems all solved!!! Ye may thank me later!
"Why don’t they just pass a law that says TEENAGE BABES MAY NOT HAVE SEX w/o parental permission?!?!"
What are you talking about, there's already laws against you fucking minors, Shillsy.
Birth-capable daughters are no longer slaves to their parents! This is just right-wing nut jobs making THEIR problems be "society's problem", AKA, making Government Almighty bigger; always BIGGER!
Next we need laws to PUNISH people for (w/o parental permission) giving vegan daughters non-vegan food... For showing too much (non-sexual to normal people) skin at the beach or at the park... For letting their daughters go without wearing their hijabs... For petting their dog or cats, where parents think such animals to be "unclean"... WHY are these things going to be MY problem, and punished using MY tax dollars?
Sooo... you don't want to fuck kids after all?
Good for you, now just don't kill any more babies and we're cool.
Did parents not have rights pre-Dobbs? They passed their parental consent law in 2007, so why was something like this not part of that package? It speaks to an ulterior goal that was not feasible a year ago.
Maybe because the entire DNC hadn't gone 100% pro-groomer then and you could get your abortion locally.
No, it's not. It's making it a crime for an adult to transport a child to secure a medical procedure without parental consent.
Let's try this:
"Lawmakers in (state) are voting on a bill that would make it a crime for an adult to transport a child to a medical provider for the purpose of getting a job."
Can we all agree that is a reasonable law?
The issue is a non-parent (in effect) rendering a medical procedure on someone else's child.
That some parent may cast out a pregnant child doesn't mean parents have to sacrifice their parental rights to the whim of their child.
Schools require parents provide permission to give children common over-the-counter medicines like Aspirin, but any adult can take a child out for an abortion without parental consent?
Suddenly progressives believe in slippery slopes.
A pregnant minor is making a decision about whether to become a parent. Regardless of her legal age, that’s as adult a situation as one can be placed in. She is, definitionally, by the very fact that she is pregnant, a young woman, not a girl, at least for purposes of the pregnancy decision.
So, in this case, we are going to say that the people who would end up being the child’s grandparents, have more say in the decision than the person who is going to be the parent? In what other scenario do we ever say grandparents rights exceed parental rights?
I'm reminded of a case I read last year. Florida is one of the states that has a "parental consent" law for minors getting abortions, and a pregnant teen wished to get an abortion, though her parents/guardians did not.
So she had to go before a judge and convince them that she was "adult" enough to make the decision to have an abortion over her parents objections. The judge ruled that she was too immature to have an abortion, but mature enough to be a mother.
Simple example. Someone who is mentally handicapped, retarded, has a kid. They later kill a person. Can they be held for capital offense or are they deemed not of sound mind? Same shit.
So JesseBahnFuhrer, do You Perfectly think it through? What are the genetic implications of Ida-Stupid-Ho's stance here? People who are SMART will see right through this bullshit... Oh, no, I am NOT travelling for an abortion! I am travelling for a religious retreat! (And when I get there, I will change my mind, and get an abortion, and then I will come back home. Mum's the word.)
STUPID twats and twits won't see that "out"! So we will collectively be burdened (dysgenically) with their STUPID offspring!!! WHY do You SOOO Powerfully yet Perfectly LUST after "Idiocracy"? Is it, maybe... Because YOU are an idiot?!?!?
... so, have you just been ignoring all those mentally handicapped people with death sentences that the SCOTUS has been A-OKing?
The ones that get overturned all the time? Or the ones using it as a last resort to get around the law?
There's someone out there overturning SCOTUS decisions related to the death penalty?
What? Why does your "simple" example include a pregnancy?
A child with severe mental challenges may avoid incarceration and be sentenced to a mental facility, but that same person can not sign legal documents and can't make certain decisions about their life. They likely can neither provide legal consent to their partner, nor can they make medical decisions on their own.
Your example is non-sensical.
No. It isnt. See the post i was responding to.
Minors have limited rights. That’s why there are parental rights. Having a child doesn’t make someone an adult.
Your ability at reading comprehension is low.
...because Florida lacks the ability to put the child up for adoption?
You act like the judge impregnated the young girl, holding the judge responsible for the girl's situation makes no sense.
"The judge ruled that she was too immature to have an abortion, but mature enough to be a mother."
No options to deal with babies beside raising them yourself and killing it. No. Other. Options.
Damned-and-Sick volunteers to raise ALL of the mentally handicapped and unwanted zygotes EVERYWHERE!!! Just TRUST in Damned-and-Sick!!!
You seem to be having this recurring problem: you're reading sentences that aren't actually there.
I quoted the statement. Find a better way to describe the statement about the judge's decision.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Was "No options to deal with babies beside raising them yourself and killing it." supposed to be a non-sequitur?
I read it as being related to what you quoted.
So, reading comprehension is one of your non-strengths?
Admit you don't know guardianship works. Remain a fucking idiot.
I'm sympathetic to this argument. But it's legally tricky. A lot of things about teens are. We aren't talking about little kids here, but people who are largely independent in many ways and in general have the capacity to be fully independent in principle. I'm torn on what the right way to deal with it is.
Speaking as a parent --- if the teen does anything that damages others, the parents are liable for the damages. They get into a wreck and total a car --- I'm forced to pay for it. Not the child...me.
As long as that is the case then, no, the child is not independent in any way, shape, or form and the parent is the ultimate authority.
Your Perfect "fix", ass always, is to FORCE people to buy Reason magazines!!!
Hey Damiksec, damiskec, and damikesc, and ALL of your other socks…
How is your totalitarian scheme to FORCE people to buy Reason magazines coming along?
Free speech (freedom from “Cancel Culture”) comes from Facebook, Twitter, Tik-Tok, and Google, right? THAT is why we need to pass laws to severely constrict these DANGEROUS companies (which, ugh!, the BASTARDS, put profits above people!)!!! We must pass new laws to retract “Section 230” and FORCE the evil corporations to provide us all (EXCEPT for my political enemies, of course!) with a “UBIFS”, a Universal Basic Income of Free Speech!
So leftist “false flag” commenters will inundate Reason-dot-com with shitloads of PROTECTED racist comments, and then pissed-off readers and advertisers and buyers (of Reason magazine) will all BOYCOTT Reason! And right-wing idiots like Damikesc will then FORCE people to support Reason, so as to nullify the attempts at boycotts! THAT is your ultimate authoritarian “fix” here!!!
“Now, to “protect” Reason from this meddling here, are we going to REQUIRE readers and advertisers to support Reason, to protect Reason from boycotts?”
Yup. Basically. Sounds rough. (Quote damikesc)
(Etc.)
See https://reason.com/2020/06/24/the-new-censors/
(And Asshole Extraordinaire will NEVER take back its' totalitarian bullshit!!!! 'Cause Asshole Extraordinaire is already PERFECT in every way!!!)
Getting pregnant does not catapult a 13 year-old into adulthood... A young girl becoming pregnant is, actually, more likely proof the girl lacks good decision-making skills than anything else.
Literally what I said above by example. Lol. Wow.
So, then that immature 13-year-old should be forced to become a parent?
I’d like to know the numbers of 13 year olds getting pregnant, how many of those are actually raising the kid, and why adoption is no longer allowed anywhere in the country.
"A pregnant minor is making a decision about whether to become a parent. Regardless of her legal age, that’s as adult a situation as one can be placed in. She is, definitionally, by the very fact that she is pregnant, a young woman, not a girl, at least for purposes of the pregnancy decision."
So, statutory rape is NOT possible if the minor gets pregnant?
Jurisprudence!
So, like Mother's Lament, you're confused that age of consent laws (and the corresponding statutory rape laws) are whole different parts of the legal code then the ones dealing with the ability of minors to consent to medical procedures, the conditions in which they can be treated as adults for the purpose of law, and so-on.
There is no "one and done" standard for when people become adults. From roughly the age of 10 to 35, people start to accrue more rights and responsibilities. Some common ages for large groups of rights and responsibilities to shift are 16, 18 and 21, but others (such as running for congress, senate, or president) don't accrue until much later.
In the 10-18 range, it gets particularly fuzzy. Lots of things that an adult can clearly do, but a little kid clearly can, are questionable for the teen. Some things are specifically legislated (right to work, drive, etc.), others are not (when can parents leave them alone overnight, when can they choose their own diets, consenting to medical procedures an treatments).
When the courts get involved, particularly when the minor wants to do something the parents object to, things get even fuzzier, often relying on a judge to make a judgement call: is this teen mature enough to make a decision on the topic, or do we defer to the parents?
Pretending, as you do here, that this is cut-and-dry, with clear answers across the board... does not match reality.
Then demand legislatures pass bills allowing 14 year olds to be sterilized.
That is (a) a nonsensical response to me.
And second, unnecessary. Sterilization of minors is legal in all 50 states.
What do you think the trans rights for child conversion bills are about?
Sure, uh huh, that’s exactly what I said.
It doesn’t even make sense as a corollary of what I said. At the time she is raped, she’s not yet pregnant.
Or, let’s use a real world example I’m familiar with. A 19yo scuzzbucket impregnates a 12yo. So, White Mike is fine with the rapist kidnapping his victim to transport her to have the abortion done as well
When someone sues Greyhound for "transporting" a minor for an abortion.
Oh, butt TRUST in us; just TRUST in us!!! WEEEEE wouldn't DOOO that to you!!!!
Kaa, Jungle Book, Trust in Me... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZY8jUuEzJQ
“Greyhound” likely can’t sell tickets to minors. The criminal would be the adult that buys her ticket and puts her on the bus.
If I rob a bank then jump on a greyhound bus as my ‘getaway car’ can the bus driver be charged as an accomplice?
Obviously no.
"Minors" is an artificial social construct! Give the micro-managing so-con conn artist power pigs their way, and age 37 will NOT be old enough to get an abortion, OR a bus ticket, w/o parental permission! And lacking all else... Government Almighty is our "parent", so long ass Government Almighty acts for MEEE and MY Sacred Tribe! Sacred Tribalism Uber Alles!!!
According to a quick google search, they can starting at 15. 14 and below they need to be accompanied by an adult.
How does a 15 year old prove their age, anyway?
It so happens in Idaho you can get a student driver license at that age. If you go to a public high school, you have a student ID.
I imagine you can apply for an ID (with no driving privileges) at that age. And there is always a passport.
Wrong. Those 15 and above can buy a ticket and travel on Greyhound unaccompanied.
It wasn't before. See the Fugitive Slave Act. Individual Rights were an aspect of personhood to which the law did not entitle "other persons."* Conservative mysticism supported that and the girl-bullying Comstock laws, plus censorship and book-burning. Every time a Hitler, Franco or similar fanatical bigot acquires the power to order men with guns to kill people, there is a new outbreak of this peculiar mental illness.
* Foreign readers please note that in the American Constitution "other persons" means black slaves. Today the term is applied to pregnant females.
Her? Her? What about pregnant boys?
Idaho is currently working on a bill that would make it a crime to perform gender-affirming care for minors. It is very likely to pass.
Which is to say... the government of Idaho doesn't acknowledge the existence of trans kids, and has no problem denying them medical care.
"gender-affirming care is medical care."
I really hope you're being sarcastic, but it's so hard to tell nowadays.
At this point I'm used to hearing conservatives deny that transgender folk (minors or adults) should be denied gender-affirming medical care.
But I must confess, this is the first time I've heard someone seem confused at the idea that getting a prescription for hormones, from your doctor, is not medical care.
It's a medical *intervention*. Doesn't make it necessarily "care", which is the stumbling block, I presume.
What doctors do is, by definition, medical care. It is also medical intervention, unless they do nothing.
The fact that you think you made a relevent point rather than empty sophistry is sad for yiu.
... this entire thread is because a few people got very upset that I'm using contemporary accepted terminology rather then their talking points.
So no, there aren't relevant points here.
Do you understand the side effects of these drugs? Most kids don't. See jazz Jennings and his depression. See the immense and growing transition regret rates. See the lawsuits.
Or just keep being an ignorant liberal.
"Do you understand the side effects of these drugs?"
Do you? Shifts in mood is a known side effect, but depression is not.
"See the immense and growing transition regret rate"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8099405/
Wow! Almost 1%!
Lol. It isnt 1% you lying shit. It is estimated at about 30% youre using a flawed and biased study that terminates after 9 months. God damn.
Really? OK. Where's your study? I have a link to mine. And you're notorious for posting the conclusions that fringe groups make using their fringe definitions and their fringe biases.
Do you have a peer-reviewed study that supports your insane number?
"At this point I’m used to hearing conservatives deny that transgender folk (minors or adults) should be denied gender-affirming medical care."
Their gender is ALREADY affirmed. They want thousands of dollars of "care" to CHANGE their gender. Stop being Orwellian with our language.
In Orwell's novel, 1984, the language was constantly shrinking. The government was excising words in an attempt to constrain how people think. If they don't have a term, they can't talk about it, after all.
This kind of tacitc, controlling what people can talk about by restricting the words they can use, is called "Orwellian" in colloquial usage.
Expanding the language, developing new terminology to better describe people's experiences with more nuance and subtlty? Is not, in any way, shape or form, "Orwellian".
What has happened --terminology developed in academia to describe what patients were feeling and living, that terminology escaping academic confinement and being adopted by a community, and eventually spreading to the greater culture-- is not Orwellian. In fact, that is the exact sort of culture and language growth that "Orwellian" language control is meant to restrict.
So no. Transgender people using terms like sex and gender, trans and cis, gender-affirming care, etc. and so-on, is not, in any honest usage of the word, "Orwellian".
You trying to deny that transgender is actually a thing by objecting to a community choosing the language it uses to talk about their own issues? Is.
"So no. Transgender people using terms like sex and gender, trans and cis, gender-affirming care, etc. and so-on, is not, in any honest usage of the word, “Orwellian”."
It is intensely dishonest. Gender-affirming care does not require hormones or surgery. At all. It is absolutely Orwellian, even if you happen to like it.
Don't be absurd.
You are attempting to insert your beliefs and values into other people's doctor's visits.
You are the one trying to control people.
Let's take the extreme example you argue here. Can you as an adult convince a 14 year old to sleep with you then proceed to sleep with them?
Dude, that's a whole other sentence I haven't defended anywhere.
So you agree children aren't adults and limits can be set on their rights. Glad you admit that.
If you needed your gender "affirmed", it would not require thousands upon thousands of dollars for medication, surgeries, and never-ending ongoing treatments in many cases. The gender you are biologically is the affirmed one.
YOU, my friend, are the one attempting to insert YOUR beliefs and values into others' decisions.
YOU are trying to control people.
... by pointing out that a community defying the majority and choosing the language that best describes the nuance of their experiences is the opposite of Orwellian>?
What a curious notion.
Hey, know what else was in 1984? Things like the Ministry of Peace, Ministry of Truth, etc. Calling something "care" when it's harmful or "gender-affirming" when it denies the person's actual gender is *very* Orwellian.
Who's denying trans kids medical care? So a trans kid has appendicitis, and she xe shows up to the hospital, the Doctor says, "Not on my watch!" and refuses to treat?
This isn't complicated.
If a doctor is willing to provide medical treatment, but the state of Idaho says that such medical treatment is illegal to provide in the state of Idaho, then the state of Idaho is preventing the treatment from being given.
You can agree that the given treatment should not be provided, but you should not be confused that it is, indeed, being denied.
States have regulated what can and cannot be done to and by minors since there have been states. Why would castration in particular be an exception?
I have sort of lost the bubble on this discussion, but I will comment anyway.
"Gender affirming care for children" has nothing to do with "care". Having your weenie excised is fundamentally different than removing an infected appendix, although it is ironic that appendix has dix in it.
How do you feel about lobotomies or unnecessary amputations of limbs? Does a state have any business regulating things like that?
How do you feel about goalpost shifting?
It is a relevant question. There are communities of people who seek help to disable themselves. Answer the question.
No it is not, and no I will not. My interest in defending strawmen is comparable to my interest in chasing goalposts: that is, none.
It isnt a strawman. I'm determining if you agree in limits. If so then we decide limits based on voting. You've now admitted limits in surgery exists. You've just bought into trans bullshit and can't logically state why that is the valid limit.
Directly, via legislation? No.
Indirectly, via the establishment of an independent medical ethics board (composed of other doctors) that determines what treatments are acceptable and appropriate? Yes.
Who appoints or defines the experrs?
Seriously? A peer-regulated ethics board with specific parameters is too reasonable and makes your various -phobias look like the bigotry they are, so you start a "captured" narrative?
If you believe everything cultural conservatives claim about the overwhelming, multi-faceted, coordinated, and nefarious forces arrayed against them, you wouldn't be able to leave your house for fear of the crushing oppression by people who ... want to be left alone to make their own decisions?
Who decides who is an expert. You avoided the question.
Those who actually study a field or issue have more knowledge and experience than those who don't.
If you bring your car to a mechanic who says, "I've never worked on cars, nor do I really understand the details of how they work, but I am confident that I know everything Inneed to know.", do you leave your car with him? And if you do and an experienced mechanic says, "that's not right.", do you believe the neophyte or the experienced mechanic.
You want to claim that honest, knowledgeable people with integrity aren't any of those things because you don't like the fact that they don't come to the same conclusions as you.
Actually, you don't even want to claim it because that would require you to present some sort of reasonable cause to distrust them. You have to insinuate and dog-whistle because you have no basis.
"I'm just asking questions" is transparently dishonest. Man up and present some reason to assume ethics boards aren't actually examining ethical behavior in an honest way or admit you're just angry that reasonable people disagree with you.
"You can agree that the given treatment should not be provided, but you should not be confused that it is, indeed, being denied."
If they asked to have perfectly healthy parts of their bodies removed that DID NOT also sterilize them --- could you find a doctor to do it?
Would a doctor keep their license if they slice their arm off because the minor asked for it to "affirm" their body image?
So you're unfamiliar with the expansive plastic surgery industry.
For minors? Few reputable doctors will go for that --- but it is less damaging than sterilizing them before they hit 14.
If a 14 year old wanted their completely healthy arm cut off to affirm their body image, would you support that? Why or why not?
I had a longer response, but you know what?
It doesn't matter.
If you'll look upthread, the point you responded to was that whether or not you think gender-affirming care should be denied, you should not deny that it is medical care.
Debating whether or not some hypothetical surgery you have in mind (in contrast to the actual care trans people are actually seeking) is a distraction.
Is it care? Suicide rates don’t drop. Transition rates are sky rocketing. Long term health defects. Sterilization. Etc.
Please explain how this is care.
You keep dodging the question about body dysmorphic people who seek to disable themselves in some manner. Is that not the same care as gender affirming?
Since you are dodging the question...
https://nypost.com/2015/09/06/this-strange-condition-makes-people-want-to-hack-off-a-healthy-limb/
"Is it care? Suicide rates don’t drop. Transition rates are sky rocketing. Long term health defects. Sterilization. Etc."
Literally none of those things are true.
"You keep dodging the question about body dysmorphic people"
There's a reason that body dysmorphia and gender dysphoria have different names. It's because they are two very different things.
Cultural conservatives don't accept that, but they often don't accept anything they don't like and try to coerce everyone to follow their beliefs with government force.
"If you’ll look upthread, the point you responded to was that whether or not you think gender-affirming care should be denied, you should not deny that it is medical care."
No, it is not. Gender-affirming care is what OB-GYN's provide to biological females and urologists provide to biological males. And nobody opposes that.
YOU want to sterilize pre-teens. That is barbaric and you will eventually deny you ever supported that.
You keep thinking you’re a telepath. It’s odd.
Edit: Which is to say, you are confusing my respect for other people's autonomy with me having a desire to control.
Transgender advocacy for children is the most evil, passive-aggressive malevolent child abuse that exists.
Individuals that engage in such activities need to be found and dealt with.
I admit I do not know what "gender affirming" means. Some say it means dick-shortening, and many imply that Donald Trump does not regard that as necessary. It is not clear that laws must be weaponized to coerce Siamese twins or hermaphrodites. Mystical conservatives evidently seek to weaponize all laws to coerce everyone coercible instead of, say, learning the practical secret of raising dead Lazaruses. This fascination with the initiation of deadly force they gleefully refer to as "pro-" life.
Another question for you to ignore in your attempt to ignore logic.
Gastric bypass surgery is well known and fairly safe surgery.
Should an aneorexic minor under normal weight be allowed to get bypass surgery without parental notice as long as we call it weight affirming care?
Dude, you're obsessing over whether or not a stranger on the internet will agree with you on whether to call it "gender affirming care" or... whatever terminology it is you prefer.
"Logic" went out the door a good while ago.
No. I'm determining whether there are limits to your view.
The next step is stating how to define the limit of medical use. You seem to realize this so you refuse to engage.
Elective surgeries. Full stop. Not treatment, not care.
Bonus - you can always stay out of Idaho.
Why should anyone be obligated to give your words greater weight then those of the doctor that's actually familiar with their situation?
Are they? In studies it shows most kids are put on some type of chemical treatment after only 2 visits.
Again, why are transition regret rates sky rocketing?
The only regret that's skyrocketing is mine over talking in this forum.
Arguing with mystical bigots is not very rewarding.
Imagine calling the people that recognize biological reality “mystical bigots”.
Never change Hankie.
You keep avoiding even tangently defending your views in a logical manner.
Why?
"Again, why are transition regret rates sky rocketing?"
They aren't. Unless you also have a peer-reviewed study that backs your 30% assertion, reasonable people will accept a transparent, peer-reviewed study of 8,000 trans people that shows a 1% rate of regret.
Idaho Bob is not set to make hundreds of thousands of dollars to "care" for them over years and years.
You seem very concerned that other people may make decisions you do not like.
I do oppose child abuse. Wish you were on board.
Child abuse, eh? Do you want to support that with something other than your delusional belief that pre-adult transition is the same as surgery?
There are many reputable medical organizations like the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic, and the St. Louis Children's Hospital who have real information about transitioning, including the various different types of care available and the potential side effects of them.
If you want to see actual hard data on transitioning:
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-transyouth-data/
"Komodo’s analysis draws on full or partial health insurance claims for about 330 million U.S. patients over the five years from 2017 to 2021"
But I'll warn you, it isn't good news for your beliefs.
Decisions like hacking off healthy limbs or gastric bypass for anorexia.
You keep avoiding similar conditions and discussing them. This is usually an admittance your argument is baseless outside of emotional belief.
Well, it’s not care. Much like lobotomies and inserting horns or making them look like a cat is medical “care”
Who’s denying trans kids medical care?
The FDA, The CDC:
So a trans kid has
appendicitisCOVID, and she xe shows up to the hospital, the Doctor says,“Not on my watch!” and refuses to treat?"I've given you a vaccine and I'm writing you a script for Paxlovid. Don't call me if you develop myocarditis.""Idaho is currently working on a bill that would make it a crime to perform gender-altering care for minors."
FTFY. Gender confirming care would not involve hormones, possible surgeries, etc.
Putting your head in the sand is not a useful technique.
People need to stop playing along with your Orwellian abuse of language.
Correct.
I'd appreciate you stopping anytime now.
I'm honest. Wish you could be the same. Stop bastardizing language because you support abhorrent things.
Again, Orwell described a top-down system for restricting and shrinking language.
Language growing, gaining new words and terms to better describe experiences and thoughts, enabling new discussions of aspects of humanity... this may be "bastardization" in that language routinely steals and recombines in ways not recognized as "legitimate", but it is in no way Orwellian.
But you’re not growing the language. Because biology is biology and it doesn’t matter how many hormones you prescribe kids or how many dicks/tits get cut off, their chromosomes aren’t changing, so you’re not “affirming” their gender. At best you’re affirming their perceived gender. (At least until we make a pill that can change your dna, then who’s boy things are gonna get wild.)*
*All of this is moot when it comes to adults doing whatever the fuck they want with their bodies.
^Hard to conceptualize a more "Newspeak" description of what Orwell was actually describing.
The man himself:
https://orwell.ru/library/novels/1984/english/en_app
The notion that 'trans' captures not just everything from transitioning to a trans person's lived experiences but creeps into capturing the experiences of cis-persons is quintessential Orwellian Newspeak. Indeed, even the notion of "trans person" and "cis person" as opposed to "patient" and "person" is itself Orwellian. Especially when combined with the re-alignment of pre-K education programs.
The only one with his head in the sand is you to promote a narrative of bo value outside of harm.
This is only controversial if, and it's a major test of consistency, age of consent laws are immoral.
So which is it Emma?
I feel like this comment is resting on a large body of prior discussion that I'm entirely unfamiliar with.
What are the salient points here?
Pretty obvious isn't it? A minor can't consent, whether it be tattoos, sex with adults, drinking alcohol or getting abortions.
... so you're confused that "age of consent laws" are specific and narrow to what they apply, and aren't across-the-board in application?
Some libertarians (particularly some anarchist types) believe age of consent is an encroachment on individual rights.
good New Order song though.
I feel like this comment is resting on a large body of prior discussion that I’m entirely unfamiliar with.
Says the guy who, 4 hours earlier, was attempting to lecture on Newspeak with an obviously similar lack of prior knowledge.
How so? When she is already pregnant, age of consent is a mute consideration. The deed is done, however it occurred.
Mike, the word is "moot", not "mute". Just a pet peeve of mine.
Mike probably doesn't understand your comment.
Oh gods. I was in a Zoom meeting the other day with someone who kept actually *saying* it that way. I twitched every time.
So if SPB2 impregnates a 13yo, he should also be able to transport her out of state against her parents wishes
According to Eschers reasoning, yes.
Fascinating. Would you mind elaborating on that?
It should be a felony to transport ANY minor for ANY medical treatment without the parent's permission. It's insane.
So if your kid gets run over by a car, EMTs should wait until they can get you on the phone before they transport your kid to the hospital?
yeah that's the situation i'm talking about.
In what way is that situation not described by what you wrote?
For the same reason politicians are never responsible for the unintended yet entirely foreseeable consequences of the laws they pass.
In what way is immediate lifesaving treatment equivalent to abortion? Normal pregnancy isn't life-threatening.
This kind of sophistry wouldn't trick a toddler.
I, Woodchipper did not restrict their comment to abortion. In fact, their deliberate use of the word "any", as well as their all-caps formatting of the word (twice even) emphasizes that their comment is not restricted to talking about abortion.
There was a time when it was generally illegal in this country to receive any medical care for a non life-threatening condition without parental consent. Then around the 1990s, states started chipping away at that because of the "teen pregnancy crisis".
I remember the school counselor had to call my parents to get permission to give me aspirin.
Yes, and that generally was considered to be a Bad Thing™. It led to kids in pain who took whatever drugs they could get from their friends because they were being refused access to competent (or timely) medical aid. Kids took the wrong medicine, took too much, took too little, took it without consideration (or even knowledge) of side effects, allergies, antagonists, etc. We (mostly) got rid of those laws for a reason.
Yea, totes better to have the state in the parental role...
As Rossami noted the alternative effectively puts no one in the parental role, and kids take whatever meds they think they need.
If parents are so uncomfortable with the idea of a nurse giving their kid a Tylenol maybe they should consider homeschooling.
Maybe you should consider a less painful exit from this life.
Yes, you're 100% advocating for the State to assume parental authority.
Isn't that still the case?
Are the parents not notified in your example?
There is already an exception for emergencies. Similarly, if you are unconscious and unable to consent, then consent is assumed. The doctors can even overrule an explicit "No" if it's absolutely necessary to save a child's life. This is called an affirmative defense. They admit that they violated the law but what they did was strictly necessary (same basic reasoning as self defense).
Abortion is almost never an emergency, and when it is, the child is already doomed, so abortion laws universally don't apply.
Let's test that approach. All would be a felony under your proposed rule. Which do you consider acceptable?
1. Older youth of your acquaintance is biking in the rain. You offer a ride. If youth is going to the grocery store, school or a scout meeting, you are being a good neighbor. You discover that he is going to a dental appointment.
2. Youth is hurt (something obvious like a broken leg). Parent is not available to give permission. (Stuck at work, passed out drunk, phone out of power, incoherent because of panic - the reason why the parent is unavailable doesn't matter. You don't have permission.)
3. Child is being abused by the parent. Child escapes next door. You reasonably believe that returning the child to the parent will result in further (and more severe) abuse of the child. Again, obvious injuries requiring treatment.
This Idaho law is bad policy but it's not insane. Your absolutist version, however, would be insane.
His absolutist version simply needs a bit of thought and amendment. Nitpicking it is a waste of time.
Nitpicking is you give it thought and amendment. Refusing to address critiques is how you end up with bad law and policy.
If you secretly transport my child without my knowledge, with the intent to surreptitiously procure some medical treatment for them against my will, you are in the wrong.
It doesnt matter if it's abortion, or removing a pancreaus, or bone surgery, or medicinal treatments of any kind.
"well what if he's dying on teh street from a car accident and the emts give him painkiller" is a silly nitpicking gotcha that avoids the fundamental issue and you know it.
Keep at it, you're doing great.
Then it should be trivial to address. That you refuse to address the obvious and glaring issue is not a neutral statement.
you're doing great.
Is he or she still "your child" under Your Perfect Slavemaster control at 18? 21? 39? 42 years of age? (These questions have arbitrary answers, to the open-minded, BTW). And WHY, for me, as an uninvolved taxpayer, should YOUR lust for POWER-POWER-POWER and micromanaging CONTROL, and (let's not forget) the POWER to self-righteously PUNISH all offending bystanders... WHY should this all present a burden to me, as a taxpayer?
I propose a counterpart bill: any parent that would withhold permission for a minor victim of rape to get an abortion is committing child abuse.
Isn't every abortion child abuse, you freakshow? Someone always dies and it's rarely the adult.
That "every abortion [is] child abuse" is your position, not mine.
As to whether I am a "freakshow", I am not employed in that capacity, nor it it any of my amateur hobbies.
I'm actually with EE on this one. Do you truly think that rape victims should be denied abortions if they want one?
I mean, I'll grant that it is a *consistent* position, and I can respect that, but I do think it's a rather extreme one.
So you want to argue the 1% of cases to ignore the 99%?
I mean if God comes down and impregnated a Virginia, she should be able to get an abortion. Therefore everyone should.
When discussing the 1% of cases in specific? Yeah, I'm pretty much going to focus on that 1%. Fuck's sake, dude, you're on a libertarian website. You should expect nitpicky and detailed hashing out of positions.
It is libertarian to go into sophist games yo protect a separate argument?
Rape is such a small segment of the discussion but the left uses it to encroach over the entire conversation.
Sorry you're ignorant to this tactic.
Who cares how small a portion of the discussion it is? It's the part of the discussion this particular subthread is having. If you're not interested, that's fine, but don't barge into it and then bitch that it's being discussed.
It's tactically foolish as well. The best way to take the wind out of the sails of the despised left would be to straight up agree with this portion of the conversation, make the carve-out, and then call them on the rest of it.
Though, to be perfectly honest, I'm more than happy to let people who want to murder their own children and thus remove themselves from the gene pool entirely do so. I'm thinking abortion up until about the 45th trimester.
something must die because a crime was committed?
I didn't say it was mandatory. I said I thought it should be an option. Even EE didn't say it should be mandatory. Just that if the parents *withheld permission*, indicating that it was what the rape victim themself wanted, should this law come into play.
And yes, I absolutely think that rape victims, particularly ones who are minors, should never be forced to incubate their rapist's child. They can certainly *choose* to if they want, but if they don't, forcing them to is the act of a complete monster.
>>forcing them to is the act of a complete monster.
understood. I like to advocate for those who cannot for themselves. we can still hang out though ...
Oh, I understand the argument, and as I said above, I can even respect it for its consistency. I just think it's appalling that a woman could be forced to carry the child of the man who attacked her. It seems like a fairly brutal second violation. "You have no autonomy, you have no free will, you have no choices. Horrible things will happen to you, and your attacker's choices will be enforced by the state."
If anything, the innocent fetus is a second victim of the original violator of the NAP. I.e.; the rapist.
yes.
If you were raped and became pregnant and your parents refuse to allow you to have an abortion, see a judge and get the states permission.
The world is not perfect.
"The world is not perfect" isn't a very compelling reason to support laws that make it less perfect.
How do they demonstrate a rape occurred?
Their word is not remotely close to enough.
I know a young woman who was repeatedly raped between the ages of 8 and 11. Would her word have been sufficient, or would there still be some doubt in your mind as to whether the little slut had actually been asking for it?
"Do you truly think that rape victims should be denied abortions if they want one?"
Is the fetus human, or does the birth canal fairy turn you into one as you exit?
To quote Christopher Hitchen's:
“I have always been convinced that the term ‘unborn child’ is a genuine description of material reality. Obviously, the fetus is alive, so that disputation about whether or not it counts as ‘a life’ is casuaistry. The same applies, from a materialist point of view, to the question of whether or not it counts as ‘a life’ is casuistry. The same applies, from a materialist point of view, to the question of whether or not this ‘life’ is ‘human.’ What other kind could it be? As for ‘dependent,’ this has never struck me as a very radical criticism of any agglomeration of human cells in whatever state. Children are ‘dependent’ too.”
"[A]nyone who has ever seen a sonogram or has spent even an hour with a textbook on embryology knows that emotions are not the deciding factor [in abortions]…In order to terminate a pregnancy, you have to still a heartbeat, switch off a developing brain…break some bones, and rupture some organs.”
It's obvious to me that killing a child who is the result of a rape, is just as loathsome as killing a child who is the result of passion.
It's horrible for the woman, but nature sucks. Shake your first at evolution and biology, but this is the universe we exist in.
Fortunately, contrary to the pro-abortion narrative, the numbers of pregnancies from actual rape annually are almost nil.
The fetus is human, no argument. The question is whether it got to where it is by invite or trespassing.
Invite or trespassing is, to a degree, moot. If someone “invades” your "home", you can shoot them on the spot. If someone knocks you unconscious or invades your home while you’re away and you come back and shoot them on the spot, you’re justified. If someone invades your home and 8, 10, 12 weeks later you shoot them, unless they’ve threatened your life, you’ve committed a murder.
I don’t agree with Hitchen’s method generally, but his reasoning is clear and accurate: rupturing an organ or breaking a bone isn’t necessarily a crime de facto, but stopping someone’s heart and brainwave functions is generally regarded as killing and the actions and intent to do so as murder.
See, even with that framing I’d think of it more like “someone invaded your home and left another person behind that you didn’t discover for 8 weeks”. At which point it seems reasonable to evict them upon discovery at the earliest possible opportunity.
Like, if you discover that someone has been squatting in your barn that you haven't gone into for 3 months, I don't think the fact that you just noticed actually gives them the right to stay.
Don't get mad at others because you don't understand biology.
No, that developing mass of cells isn't a someone in 90+ of abortions. It's just dividing cells. And the other 10%, your three examples aside, are medically necessary.
This bill would work great in Idaho. The age of consent is 18 and there is no close age exemption, so any pregnant minor was the victim of rape. There's no way around it.
Abortion Without Her Parents
Suddenly everyone is a biologist.
Not Katenji Jackson Brown!
*checks watch* +1
Vacations are a lot more interesting now, no? Maybe if we stop going things will settle down. 🙂
If the problem is abusive parents, the answer is to go after abusive parents, not to deny non-abusive parents their ordinary right to supervise their underage offspring.
that's where you're wrong friendo.
The whole damn point is to get between the parent and child by any means necessary.
The whole damn point is to get between the parent and child by any means necessary.
By the Republicans in the state of Idaho, you are right.
fundamentally, Idaho Team Red doesn't trust parents to parent "correctly". therefore they have given themselves the job to do it for them.
The state of ID is putting the parent back in charge.
How do you figure?
There’s a timer running on terminating a pregnancy before the baby has developed past the point where it is too late.
Is emancipating a child from abusive parents generally a quick process or a long, drawn-out process?
Besides, it isn’t a matter of abusive parents. It’s a matter of she, not them, will be the mother.
20 weeks or 9 months? What is this immediacy you claim?
That's what the law does. If you're a duly-informed custodian, the law doesn't apply to you. It only applies to non-custodial persons and, even then, those without custodial consent.
no no I was only taking her to Montana for ice cream oh wait I'm still under arrest?
Dillinger, thanks for cutting through the bullshit! Exactly correct!
What are the genetic implications of Ida-Stupid-Ho’s stance here? People who are SMART will see right through this bullshit… Oh, no, I am NOT travelling for an abortion! I am travelling for a religious retreat! (And when I get there, I will change my mind, and get an abortion, and then I will come back home. Mum’s the word.)
STUPID twats and twits won’t see that “out”! So we will collectively be burdened (dysgenically) with their STUPID offspring!!!
https://twitter.com/XVanFleet/status/1641183316253503494?t=-HzeHEs_NA0VflL2HtHtwQ&s=19
Indoctrination of children.
The Woke has definitely outdone Mao.
[Pics]
Making money online more than $15k just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info on this page…
AND GOOD LUCK HERE......................>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
Some people are lousy parents and some are downright evil. That has always been the case. Alright. Show of hands here. Who is more evil? Parents who tell their 15 daughter she can't have an abortion or Jazz Jennings mom who says "hey kiddo, let's go get you castrated!?.
The latter. Which doesn't make the former *not* evil.
Jazz Jennings had her reassignment surgery less than 3 months before her 18th birthday, meaning even if her parents didn't consent she would have done it anyway a few months later. Which demonstrates the problem with trying to draw a single, thin, line and say "today you are a child and your parents have to make all your decisions for you, tomorrow you'll be an adult and will have to make them all for yourself"
I'm all for abortion rights, but isnt this child trafficking?
No, you can't take my minor child out of state without my permission because the feelz.
Let's assume, for the moment, that this is correct, and doing so could and would be reasonable prosecuted ad kidnapping or child trafficking.
You know what isn't kidnapping or child trafficking at all?
"Hey Mom, can I do an overnight trip to Seattle with Susan? I've been so good lately, and can cover all my own expenses!"
Or "Hey Dad, Uncle Joe got some tickets to that band I like, they're showing in Washington this next weekend, can I go, please?"
Or how about a kid just pulling a runner? It's hard to argue kidnapping when they left your house under their own power and walked three blocks before jumping into their friend's car and making for the state line. Especially if they return a few days later.
And so-on.
And that is where this law kicks in: regardless of permission to travel or not (which as I showed, is relatively easy to get), it's now criminal because the parent didn't give permission for the abortion.
And?
Still not seeing the problem.
'Cause damikesc is willfully, stubbornly BLINDED by idiotic ideology, and the lust to PUNISH-PUNISH-PUNISH!!! All who do NOT see it ass asshole Damned-and-Sick sees it... Must be PUNISHED!!!!
As I explained, absent this law, there are plausible scenarios where a teen can be transported across state lines to get an abortion (without the teen's parent's consent to the abortion) without violating any law.
That is the problem this law is seeking to "fix".
Ah, so because somethings can happen, nothing should ever be done.
Should we remove laws against arson because somebody might accidentally drop a lit match near your house and you do not know who it was?
Again, that's a whole new sentence, not related to what I wrote at all.
I gave a fairly neutral explanation of what "problem" the discussed law is trying to "fix". If you are unable to read this explanation without projecting advocacy, that's on you, not me.
The Libertarian Plank that got an electoral vote counted on (wait for it...) January 6th, 1973, stopped ku-klux redneck states from enslaving women. Trump's National Socialist caudillo court only relegalized State enslavement of women 9 months ago. Those now exposed to coercion were born after 2012--according to the Massachusetts age-of-consent law reported by Lysander Spooner. Already every cruel and unusual aspect of Ku-klux Comstockism and Lutheran collectivist eugenics have resurfaced. The perpetrators are being celebrated in Idaho like the white supremacists who murdered 75 blacks on Easter Sunday 1873 in Louisiana's Colfax Massacre, and they now usurp the LP.
So you’re arguing for allowing the transportation of a minor across state lines under false pretenses?
We don’t let kids vote, join the military, signs a contract, purchase a firearm, beer or cigarettes, but we’re going to allow medical procedures?
And realistically there are only two medical procedures we are talking about. Every state presumes life saving care is consented to. So if my 17 year old kid in college had gotten into an accident they would do what's necessary to prevent her death. But everything else would have needed a parent. Why are we now adding abortion (and transgendered transitions) to that implied consent list?
And this is why the law is criminalizing this conduct.
Observe that in the Fugitive Slave Law, derived from Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3, the usurpers used the male pronoun throughout. Letting on even for a moment that slavery is mainly about using women and kiddies as sex toys, hence, salable chattel, is un-Christian. So in the law all pronouns evoke images of hairy, muscular "cocaine negroes" liable to break chains and endanger brave and pious armed and legally immune kidnappers of women and girls. Search for "Fugitive Slave Act" full text. Remember this is the law the 13th and 14th Amendments struck down. Getting even with Jack Johnson, Obama and women voters is Job One all over again.
Bad bot.
"In Idaho, which has some of the strictest anti-abortion laws in the nation, state lawmakers have introduced a bill that would create yet another restriction, levying criminal penalties against anyone who helps a minor obtain an abortion without her parents' permission."
And?
Who is ultimately responsible? If the girl ends up injured, who will have to pay for the damages?
Hint: Not the rando transporting her.
Damned-and-Sick will pay for the damages... 'Cause Damned-and-Sick is THE most Benevolent Being in the Universe! And Damned-and-Sick demonstrates the undeniable benevolence of Damned-and-Sick... By most severely PUNISHING all of the wrong-doers!!! PUNISHMENT of the wrong-doers will bring back the dead, restore Righteousness, and heal us ALL!!!! TRUST in Damned-and-Sick, just TRUST!!!
"Who is ultimately responsible?"
The girl. If she goes through with the pregancy and has the baby -- guess what, she's now a mother! How is that some commenters here do not see that as a highly relevant factor in this scenario?
Adoption is very much an option. Quite a backlog of adoptive parents-to-be.
On-topic, Emma should know this is enslavement, hence nothing new: The Fugitive Slave Law of 1793 said, pursuant to the Constitution: Sec 6. ... "In no trial or hearing under this act shall the testimony of such alleged fugitive be admitted in evidence; and the certificates in this and the first section mentioned shall be conclusive of the right of the person or persons in whose favor granted to remove such fugitive to the State or Territory from which he escaped, and shall prevent all molestation of said person or persons by any process issued by any court, judge, magistrate, or other person whomsoever." Got that? Oh, but there's more. Before the 13th Amendment freed teenagers and grownups alike from involuntary servitude, here's how Conservatism legislated: Section 7 ...
Good!
On-topic, The Fugitive Slave Law further enforced the Constitution Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3 thusly: Sec. 7. And be it further enacted, That any person who shall knowingly and willingly obstruct, hinder, or prevent such claimant, his agent or attorney, or any person or persons lawfully assisting him, her, or them, from arresting such a fugitive from service or labor, either with or aforesaid; or shall to rescue, such fugitive or labor, or from the custody of , his or her agent or attorney or other persons or persons lawfully assisting as aforesaid, when so arrested, pursuant to the authority herein given and declared; or shall aid, abet, or assist such person, so owing service or labor as aforesaid, directly or indirectly, to escape from such claimant, his agent or attorney, or other person or persons legally authorized as aforesaid; or shall harbor or conceal such fugitive, so as to prevent the discovery and arrest of such person, after notice or knowledge of the fact that such person was a fugitive from service or labor as aforesaid, shall, for either of said offences, be subject to a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisonment not exceeding six months, by indictment and conviction before the District Court of the United States for the district in which such offence may have been committed, or before the proper court of criminal jurisdiction, if committed within any one of the organized Territories of the United States; and shall moreover forfeit and pay, by way of civil damages to the party injured by such illegal conduct, the sum of one thousand dollars for each fugitive so lost as aforesaid, to be recovered by action of debt in any of the District or Territorial Courts aforesaid, within whose jurisdiction the said offence may have been committed. --Fugitive Slave Law of 1793 when gold was $19.75 a troy oz. That fine today would be $109,000. Slavery is enslavement!
Better not enslave any more fetuses, Hank.
Remember, in the new Progresso-libertarin dogma, parents actually have fewer rights than unrelated people when it comes to their children. And state officials trump them all.
Those aren’t your children; Those are [OUR] children! /s
+1000000000… The Power-mad arrogance of these politicians is disturbing.
... And a 2-year minimum prison sentence to boot.
Making money online more than $15k just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info on this page…
AND GOOD LUCK HERE......................>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
Making money online more than $15k just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info on this page…
AND GOOD LUCK HERE………………….>>> http://www.apprichs.com
I don't have a problem with this law. I've always wondered how a 17 year old could get an abortion without her parents' consent. Having impregnated my girlfriend when we both were underage, I can fully understand the dilemma, but that doesn't make it right to keep parents out of a medical procedure performed on their child.
What a load of BS. Mandatory 2-years of prison for getting the day after pill.
Obviously I've been giving Republicans too much credit for supporting principles of Liberty and Justice. They get just as Power-Mad CRAZY with a little bit of newly granted power as the left does.
Maybe it's just not POLITICIANS job to be legislating people parts.