Posted on 03/08/2012 3:29:27 PM PST by wagglebee
A U.S. House hearing today focused on a bill that would help stop a pervasive practice by abortion businesses and pro-abortion activists of taking minor girls for secret abortions in other states without their parents’ knowing.
Lawmakers have introduced the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act that would help states across the country better enforce their parental involvement laws on abortion that require teen girls to get their parents permission or notify them about a decision to have an abortion. The legislation is needed as sexual abusers, family members and even staff at abortion centers routinely take teenage girls across state lines for secret abortions without their parents knowledge or permission.
This morning, the House Constitution Subcommittee held a hearing on the legislation.
Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Florida Republican, has introduced CIANA in each Congress since 2005 and the bill currently has 151 cosponsors. She says CIANA would make it a federal crime to transport a minor across state lines for the purposes of having an abortion and circumventing the parental consent/notification laws of the minor’s home state.
“CIANA is a critical piece of legislation that ensures that parental rights are upheld, while promoting the inherent dignity of the unborn. The majority of the American people and more than 30 state legislatures have made it clear that parents have the right to know whether their child is trying to undergo an abortion,” she said.
Ros-Lehtinen continued, “At such a vulnerable time in a young girl’s life, she deserves to have the guidance and love of her family. Minors should not be ferried across state lines by those who would wish to deny parents of their right to be involved in their children’s lives. I thank Subcommittee Chairman Trent Franks for holding this hearing. I hope that the House will give this legislation the thoughtful consideration it deserves.”
During the hearing, Professor Teresa Collett a law professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law testified that the law was constitutionally sound. During her testimony, she rejected speculation from pro-abortion Democrats on the panel about numerous what-if situations and whether other people could be prosecuted under the law other than those who purposefully take minor girls to another state for an abortion.
Dr. Michael New a political science professor at the University of Michigan – Dearborn told lawmakers that studies show parental involvement laws not only reduce the number of teen abortions but also help teens avoid sexually transmitted diseases.
He told members of Congress that he knows of no studies validating the pro-abortion claim that teens will be subject to abuse or harm by their parents because of having to tell them of their pregnancy and potential abortion.
The Very Reverend Dr. Katherine Hancock Ragsdale, the president of Episcopal Divinity School, testified against the measure but often struggled to come up with answers to lawmakers challenging questions about her aversions to the bill.
If enacted, CIANA would serve two goals. First, it would prohibit the act of knowingly taking a minor across state lines with the intent of obtaining an abortion if this action evades the parental involvement law in her home state. And second, it would require abortion providers to notify a parent of an out-of-state minor before performing an abortion. With disparate state laws regarding parental involvement all across the country, this bill would ensure those state laws are enforced regardless of where an abortion may be performed.
CIANA allows for punishment, in the form of fines or imprisonment, of physicians who knowingly perform an abortion on a minor who has traveled across state lines and any individual who transported the minor across state lines. This legislation does not apply in the cases of a medical emergency, abuse or neglect.
Pro-abortion Willard Romney wont like this..
He declared during the 2002 MASS Gov debate that if the parents said NO that the girl should ask a judge for permission...
Isn’t taking a minor across a state line without parental permission, kidnapping?
How do these people get away with this. If I did this it would be years before I say daylight unfiltered by bars.
And Ron Paul voted against this bill in the past.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Phillip D. "Phill" Kline (born December 31, 1959) is the former district attorney of Johnson County, Kansas, USA. From January 2003 to January 2007, he was the Attorney General of Kansas.[1] Kline, a member of the Republican Party, lost re-election as attorney general to Democratic challenger Paul Morrison on November 7, 2006, 58%-41%.[2] Kline became the district attorney of Johnson County on the day he left office as attorney general, effectively switching jobs with Morrison. Kline then ran for a full term as district attorney, but Steve Howe defeated Kline in the August 5, 2008, Republican primary.[3]
Kline was a polarizing figure in state politics, using his offices to aggressively prosecute abortion providers.[4] He filed charges against George Tiller, a late-term abortion provider, and led a years-long effort to prosecute Planned Parenthood in Kansas.[4][5] Kline's tactics drew legal and ethical scrutiny; he testified before an ethics investigation that he had the right to deceive other state agencies and had no duty to immediately correct false information provided to a trial judge in the course of his investigations of abortion providers.[5] In 2011, the Kansas state Board of Discipline of Attorneys recommended that Kline's law license be indefinitely suspended, citing a pattern of repeatedly misleading statements, "dishonest and selfish motives", and a failure to "take any responsibility for his misconduct." Kline disputed the Board's findings as politically motivated.[6]
per Wikipedia
Hmmmm? Mann Act anyone?
***********************************
Absolutely. It's also illegal to transport females across state lines for the purpose of immorality:
From WikipediaThe White-Slave Traffic Act, better known as the Mann Act, is a United States law, passed June 25, 1910 (ch. 395, 36 Stat. 825; codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. §§ 2421–2424). It is named after Congressman James Robert Mann, and in its original form prohibited white slavery and the interstate transport of females for “immoral purposes”. Its primary stated intent was to address prostitution, "immorality", and human trafficking; however, its ambiguous language of "immorality" allowed selective prosecutions for many years, and was used to criminalize forms of consensual sexual behavior.[1] It was later amended by Congress in 1978, and again in 1986 to apply only to transport for the purpose of prostitution or illegal sexual acts.[1]
What is more immoral than abortion?
Exactly. Please see my post, which follows yours.
In a sane world, this be under the Mann act.
What about an Imprison the Bastards Act?
The individual being transported to have an abortion is in essence carrying a controlled substance within her body.
Therefore whoever transports her across State lines without the permission of the legal guardian is guilty of interstate transportation of a controlled substance the same as would be someone who had their child swallow balloons of heroin or cocaine.
JMHO
Thanks. It also begs the question of what happens if a teacher takes a fourteen year old girl across state lines and doesn’t bring her back, if he doesn’t lay a hand on her?
Under this morphed law, it seems there wouldn’t be a problem.
There must be something on the books that prevents this.
Absolutely, but this regime has an agenda.
I was going to say getting her pregnant first, but I truly see these both as vile disturbing acts. I would have to come down on the side of the cessation of life being worse, but the trauma of the minor child would also cause me to have to view both these acts as pure evil.
Until Congress went and rewrote it in ‘86, they could have prosecuted them under the Mann Act for these shenanigans.
It sure does.
> What is more immoral than abortion?
Sadly it is consider a “right” to be able have an abortion.
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.