Posted on 07/04/2005 9:28:47 AM PDT by ConservativeMan55
WASHINGTON, D.C. (AP) -- US Senator Tom Coburn has introduced a bill that would require parents be notified before contraceptive drugs and prescription devices are distributed to minor children by certain public health clinics.
The Oklahoma Republican and practicing physician says he disagrees with the federal policy that allows children to make reproductive decisions without their parent's knowledge.
He says the policy contributes to a growing problem of sexually transmitted diseases and unintended teen pregnancies and abortions by discouraging parental involvement.
A companion bill was introduced in the House by Representatives by Missouri Republican Todd Akin.
Talkin' about your buddies Coburn and Watts over here.
ping!
I think an honest evaluation of the constitutionality of laws would determine that Federal spending for states is illegal. I don't see any authority to take money and give it to states.
No do not be so quick to assume.
The parental notification laws can be set up to be constitutional.
Then it falls on exposing which groups are providing lawyers for court ordered bypasses.
I think we know which groups those are.
The federal government has no constitutional business spending money on public health clinics in the first place. Using those subsidies to regulate matters that would otherwise be outside its control only aggravates the constitutional offense.
Lawmakers around the nation are also debating parental notification laws requiring doctors to notify parents before performing abortions on minors. These issues have grown into a major sources of controversy among pro-life and pro-abortion groups.
Thanks for the ping! Keep telling everyone if they have someone running for Senate to follow the Dr. Tom playbook. It is so great to see him in the US Senate -- all the work was more than worth it IMHO!
Maybe one of the few times that Sooners and Cowboys joined together for a worthy cause -- electing Dr. Tom! :)
No Problem bump!
We are all benefiting from this wonderful man.
bttt
The thing is that they need to determine once and for all if parents are responsible for theri children until the age of 18 or not and if this applies to to health care as well. They want it both ways, saying that parents must give adequate health care but then allow abortion or birth control without parental permission.
They shouldn't be allowed to have it both ways.
If Congress wanted to something to help those state and local lawmakers, it could remove jurisdiction to review such laws from all federal courts. That would be constitutional and effective.
I'm certainly not disputing that. But you've got two facts: 1. The federal government is spending the money. 2. Contraceptives are being distributed according to federal policy without notification to parents.
It will be far easier to fix problem 2 than fixing problem 1. Problem 2, therefore, needs to get fixed now and we need to keep working on Problem 1. But to do that, Coburn needs people like you and me convincing our friends, family and neighbors that Problem 1 is a problem. A lot of people see federal spending on health clinics as a birthright.
Maybe addressing problem 2 can help you and I to talk to people about problem 1.
Nice Analysis!
Spoken better than I could have!
Very interesting idea...
Sadly...Some judge would strike it down, lol.
Ping!
bump!
Are you saying that these clinics are being required by federal policy to distribute these items to children without parental notification, or merely that they're allowed to? If required, then I agree that the requirement should be removed, because the federal government should not be using subsidies (unconstitutional to begin with) as a means of regulation.
Maybe addressing problem 2 can help you and I to talk to people about problem 1.
I don't see it that way. If we sanctify the notion that subsidies can be used for regulation, then it will be harder to get rid of subsidies. This is because politicians aren't interested in subsidies as and end in themselves, but as a means to an end. They see subsidies as a way of extending their control. Take away their ability to use subsidies as a form of regulation, and you'll remove the incentive for them, from a politician's perspective.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.