Wednesday, October 05, 2005
12:09 AM — blame the victim
Crossposted from a comment at Rosefox's LJ. Read the article first.
Holy fucking fuck fuck.
Picture this scenario: a teenage girl in the Mid-West gets raped. The rapist doesn't use a condom b/c (1) he learned in school that they're ineffective, and (2) they're required to have warnings on the labels that reinforce this. She is not on birth control because her pharmacist wouldn't fill the prescription. She is not allowed to get the morning-after pill without a prescription from her doctor, and her earliest appointment to see her doctor is long after the 72-hour window of effectiveness. She tries to go to a Planned Parenthood for information about abortion, and is stoned and cursed at on her way in, at which point she finds out that she'd have to get parental permission. By the time she does so, it's in the third trimester, and "partial birth" abortion is illegal. Then on top of all that she has the baby, is FUCKING FINED for it, and has to drop out of school to take care of the child.
"So, we do want to have laws that protect the children." Explain that one to me again, would you? ¶ permalink | 1 musings
Holy fucking fuck fuck.
Picture this scenario: a teenage girl in the Mid-West gets raped. The rapist doesn't use a condom b/c (1) he learned in school that they're ineffective, and (2) they're required to have warnings on the labels that reinforce this. She is not on birth control because her pharmacist wouldn't fill the prescription. She is not allowed to get the morning-after pill without a prescription from her doctor, and her earliest appointment to see her doctor is long after the 72-hour window of effectiveness. She tries to go to a Planned Parenthood for information about abortion, and is stoned and cursed at on her way in, at which point she finds out that she'd have to get parental permission. By the time she does so, it's in the third trimester, and "partial birth" abortion is illegal. Then on top of all that she has the baby, is FUCKING FINED for it, and has to drop out of school to take care of the child.
"So, we do want to have laws that protect the children." Explain that one to me again, would you? ¶ permalink | 1 musings
Comments:
Main Blog
Let's not get carried away here. All that's currently under debate is assisted reproduction.
Here's another article that seems to be slightly less foamy at the mouth:
Gays, lesbians and single Hoosiers would be prohibited from using medical science to help have a child under a bill being considered by an interim legislative committee.
[...]
There are two parts to the draft legislation – the first dealing with some irregularities in central Indiana regarding surrogacy and adoptions. But the part of the bill raising eyebrows involves assisted reproduction. It defines assisted reproduction as causing pregnancy by means other than sexual intercourse, including intrauterine insemination, donation of an egg, donation of an embryo, in vitro fertilization and transfer of an embryo, and sperm injection. The bill then requires “intended parents” to be married to each other and specifically says an unmarried person may not be an intended parent. A doctor can’t begin an assisted reproduction technology procedure that may result in a child’s being born until the intended parents of the child have received a certificate of satisfactory completion of an assessment required under the bill.
The assessment is very similar to what is required for infant adoption and would be conducted by a licensed child placing agency in Indiana. Some of the required information includes the fertility history of the parents, education and employment information, hobbies, personality descriptions, verification of marital status, child care plans, letter of reference and criminal history checks. A description of the family lifestyle of the intended parents is also required, including individual participation in faith-based or church activities.
Still pretty awful, but not quite as awful as you make it out to be.
Post a Comment
Here's another article that seems to be slightly less foamy at the mouth:
Gays, lesbians and single Hoosiers would be prohibited from using medical science to help have a child under a bill being considered by an interim legislative committee.
[...]
There are two parts to the draft legislation – the first dealing with some irregularities in central Indiana regarding surrogacy and adoptions. But the part of the bill raising eyebrows involves assisted reproduction. It defines assisted reproduction as causing pregnancy by means other than sexual intercourse, including intrauterine insemination, donation of an egg, donation of an embryo, in vitro fertilization and transfer of an embryo, and sperm injection. The bill then requires “intended parents” to be married to each other and specifically says an unmarried person may not be an intended parent. A doctor can’t begin an assisted reproduction technology procedure that may result in a child’s being born until the intended parents of the child have received a certificate of satisfactory completion of an assessment required under the bill.
The assessment is very similar to what is required for infant adoption and would be conducted by a licensed child placing agency in Indiana. Some of the required information includes the fertility history of the parents, education and employment information, hobbies, personality descriptions, verification of marital status, child care plans, letter of reference and criminal history checks. A description of the family lifestyle of the intended parents is also required, including individual participation in faith-based or church activities.
Still pretty awful, but not quite as awful as you make it out to be.
this musing
| 
| 12:50 AM
| 12:50 AMMain Blog
