"Even the mildest restrictions on ______"
As a "civil rights nut," nothing gets me unhinged faster than hearing some blowhard piously claiming that some "mild restriction" on our rights will somehow cause the milk and honey to start flowing, or help bring about the Second Coming, or some other alleged nonsense.
I'm not talking about restricting reckless behavior (yelling fire in the theater, speeding through traffic, brandishing loaded firearms at the paperboy, etc.), but restricting behavior that either does no one else any harm or that is no one else's business (i.e, banning smoking in a bar with other adults, banning smoking a joint in your own house, banning "Village People bondage games," banning concealed handgun permit holders from National Parks . . . you get the point).
Here from the DC Examiner is but the latest example in the anti-choice wars:
That's a "mild" restriction? If a young girl can't go talk to her parents about her medical concerns, THAT IS THE PROBLEM, not what that medical concern may be. The fact that she may petition the courts until she is blue in the face is a GOOD thing since it is HER health that is at stake. How many death row inmates get that chance?
These parental consent laws are all BS, anyway.
Here is a link to an excellent article on the issue(no unbiased opinion from me, no sir)
I'm not talking about restricting reckless behavior (yelling fire in the theater, speeding through traffic, brandishing loaded firearms at the paperboy, etc.), but restricting behavior that either does no one else any harm or that is no one else's business (i.e, banning smoking in a bar with other adults, banning smoking a joint in your own house, banning "Village People bondage games," banning concealed handgun permit holders from National Parks . . . you get the point).
Here from the DC Examiner is but the latest example in the anti-choice wars:
Ohio case not a minor abortion decision
Quin Hillyer, The Examiner
Dec 1, 2006 3:00 AM (10 hrs ago)
WASHINGTON - While much of the nation’s legal attention is focused on the Supreme Court’s pending partial-birth abortion case, lower courts continue to use any excuse at hand, no matter how far-fetched, to strike down even the mildest restrictions on abortion.
These courts act as if sophistry in support of abortion is no vice.
The latest example occurred earlier this month, when a panel of the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Cincinnati Women’s Services v. Taft that the state of Ohio had no right to limit the number of petitions a minor can file to ask for judicial approval for an abortion without informing her parents.
That's a "mild" restriction? If a young girl can't go talk to her parents about her medical concerns, THAT IS THE PROBLEM, not what that medical concern may be. The fact that she may petition the courts until she is blue in the face is a GOOD thing since it is HER health that is at stake. How many death row inmates get that chance?
These parental consent laws are all BS, anyway.
Here is a link to an excellent article on the issue(no unbiased opinion from me, no sir)
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home