Fw: now-action-list Urgent: Bill Threatens Safety of Young Women (fwd)
Brendan R Delaney
Sat Jun 20 02:33:11 CDT 1998
I'd prefer to see Edebate kept propaganda-less, or at least see that posts
have some relationship to debate....If I wanted on the now list, I can
"I fear that I shall journey alone, that the way will be dark; I fear the
unknown land, the presence of my King and the sentence of my judge."
--The dying words of St. Brendan
On Fri, 19 Jun 1998, Tracy Gonos and Paul Hayes wrote:
> Thought this would be of interest to many on the listserv.
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 16:15:06 -0400
> From: National Organization for Women <now at now.org>
> To: now-action-list at now.org
> Subject: now-action-list Urgent: Bill Threatens Safety of Young Women
> Feel free to forward the following to activists in its entirety or with
> proper attribution:
> >From the National Organization for Women Action Center:
> URGENT ACTION ALERT
> June 11, 1998
> BILL THREATENS THE SAFETY OF YOUNG WOMEN
> Very shortly, Congress will vote on a bill (S.1645/H.R. 3682) that would
> make it a federal crime for anyone to transport a minor across state lines
> for an abortion, unless the young woman already satisfied the requirements
> of her home state's parental notification and involvement laws. This bill,
> proposed by Sen. Spencer Abraham (R-MI), would not only deny young women
> help from adults they trust but could also endanger their health and
> violate the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
> This legislation, known as the Child Custody Protection Act or -- as a New
> York Times editorial termed it -- the Teen Endangerment Act, would allow
> for the prosecution and jailing of grandparents, aunts, uncles, ministers,
> close friends, siblings and de facto or temporary guardians who transport a
> minor across state lines to obtain an abortion. According to this bill,
> adults who aid these young women in their time of crisis would be guilty of
> a federal crime and, if convicted, fined or jailed for a year!
> It is unlikely that the Teen Endangerment Act would encourage more positive
> parental involvement in a young woman's decision to obtain an abortion. In
> most cases, young women (nearly 61%) consult with their parents regarding
> their decision to obtain an abortion, regardless of whether they are
> required by law to have such a discussion. Of those who do not talk about
> their choice with their parents, many fear abusive repercussions. This
> bill will not compel young women who do not already consult their parents
> to do so. Instead, minors pursue other options, including: going out of
> state alone to abort, delaying the procedure or obtaining an illegal and
> unsafe abortion.
> In promoting this restrictive legislation, abortion opponents have cited a
> 1995 case in upstate Pennsylvania as an illustration of why such a bill is
> needed. In this case, a woman transported a 13-year-old girl to
> Binghamton, New York for an abortion. The girl's boyfriend was the woman's
> 19 year-old stepson, who later accepted a guilty plea to statutory rape.
> Although, this incident was regrettable because of the tender ages of the
> couple, the Child Custody Protection Act, if it had been law at the time,
> would have not provided any good solutions.
> The bill seeks to protect the safety of minors; it instead causes them
> undue harm by endangering their health and interfering with their
> constitutional right to an abortion. We know from the Becky Bell case that
> young women have lost their lives because of a reluctance to tell their
> parents. The Indiana teen was 17 when she discovered she was pregnant. The
> parental notification law in that state required her to tell her parents
> which she felt she could not. Becky also believed that consulting with a
> judge, under the state's judicial bypass provision, was not an option for
> her, either. Becky Bell resorted to an unsafe
> back alley' abortion which
> resulted in the her tragic death due to uncontrolled hemorrhaging.
> Twenty-two states have laws requiring teens to notify their parents (or
> consult a judge) before getting an abortion. Consequently, teen-agers who
> believe that they can't tell their parents now cross state lines to obtain
> an abortion. Any adult who assists them -- grandparents, counselors,
> religious advisors, and even single parents, in some cases -- will face
> going to jail for this caring effort!
> How you can help:
> Please call your U.S. Representative as soon as possible and ask him or her
> to vote against the Child Custody Protection Act (H.R. 3682/S. 1645). A
> House Judiciary Subcommittee is completing work on the legislation
> Thursday, June 11th, and the full committee is expected to take it up soon.
> The schedule for the bill in the Senate has not been announced, but will
> probably begin in July. The anti-abortion majority leadership in Congress
> has vowed to have this bill on the President's desk by the August recess..
> In addition to the fast track in Congress for the legislation, President
> Clinton has been reticent to disclose his position on the Child Custody
> Protection Act. Activists should call the White House and ask the
> President to oppose this legislation.. You can refer to it as the Teen
> Endangerment Act, if you like, since that seems more appropriate.
> The Child Custody Protection Act endangers the health of young women and is
> unconstitutional. It should be defeated. President Clinton (
> mailto:president at whitehouse.gov ) needs to let Congress know that he will
> veto this terrible bill. The main number for Congress is (202) 224-3121,
> and the operator will connect you with your U.S. Representative. The White
> House comment line is (202) 456-1111. Connect to
> http://www.visi.com/juan/congress for congressional fax, phone and email
> See http://www.now.org/conference for information about the 1998 NOW
> Women's Rights Convention and Vision Summit
> now at now.org
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo at now.org with the text:
> unsubscribe now-action-list or connect to http://www.now.org/actions/
> Please *do* unsubscribe yourself before cancelling your e-mail account.
> Visit the NOW Web site at http://www.now.org/
> Please support these efforts by joining NOW. You can do so on our Web
> site. Our Web site also has an online catalog with clothing, books,
> and computer accessories.
>From Sat Jun 20 03:55:42 1998
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
spool id 52369 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sat, 20 Jun 1998 03:55:59
Received: from imo14.mx.aol.com (imo14.mx.aol.com [18.104.22.168]) by
list.uvm.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with ESMTP id DAA14340 for
<edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Sat, 20 Jun 1998 03:55:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from MATTANDLEO at aol.com by imo14.mx.aol.com (IMOv14_b1.1) id
8PNUa13456 for <edebate at list.uvm.edu>; Sat, 20 Jun 1998 03:55:42
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 18
Message-ID: <5f4c709e.358b6aff at aol.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 03:55:42 EDT
Reply-To: MATTANDLEO at AOL.COM
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Matt Stannard <MATTANDLEO at AOL.COM>
Subject: Loving America
The next time someone tells you: "Before you criticize the (Army, government,
whatever), think about all the rights and privileges you enjoy...you seem to
have no problem enjoying all the benefits of being a citizen of the country
you criticize..." or anything like that, tell them this:
Every one of those "benefits" came from struggle. Universal education,
universal suffrage, the right to organize in the workplace, all were opposed
by the "mainstream" and in each case the dominant ideology of the time was
constructed by elites to maintain their privileges. So while the rights and
benefits of US citizenship are real (eg, more political space, relatively
greater prosperity), they came from the struggles of working people, and were
opposed by people with the same dispositions as YOU patriot-conservatives have
The constitution was certainly a unique approach. But its actualization has
been an ongoing struggle which has often been waged by the "lowest" members of
society. Popular will and radical sparks have had to spur history in the
right direction. There was a time when only communists and anarchists
supported women's liberation, civil rights, and social welfare. Where would
YOU have stood then? It's easy to give "America" credit for the gains of the
past. Can you look ahead a little and wonder which of your cocksure ideas
will be obsolete in fifty years?
Or are you always quick to defend the institutions? Do you accuse the
"radicals" of paranoia or of always looking to criticize? Shame on us for
being up in arms about cover-ups and expositions of brutality. We ought to
just sigh and pray for better days when we discover mass graves in Panama,
slaughtered Iraqi civilians, U.S. support for death squads...after all, "the
enemy" does it too, maybe worse...
Shame on us for suggesting that BOTH Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just as much
messages to the Soviet Union as they were methods of winning a war (itself
with causes more complicated than good-evil).
I am a socialist who loves America. I love America because I love the ideas
of free speech, equal opportunity and the rule of law. Unlike some (not most)
socialists, I don't blow those things off as being liberal nonsense. They are
real. But they are no more uniquely American than anything else here. They
originated during times of intense struggle, and that is how they will
sometimes need to be maintained. So either deficate or get off the apparatus.
The process of democratization is still continuing, and that's a project I'm
ready to defend.
And to anyone who thinks I'm wasting my time discussing politics on a debate
listserve instead of "going out and changing the world," all I can say is that
you know far less about your beloved country than you thin you do. This, like
everything else, IS reality.
More information about the Mailman