Fw: now-action-list Urgent: Bill Threatens Safety of YoungWomen (fwd)

Brendan R Delaney brdst11+
Sat Jun 20 15:31:51 CDT 1998


Present the other side of teh issue then...Or is this the only correct
view of the proposed law?




Brendan




"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 Sat, 20 Jun 1998, Tracy Gonos and Paul Hayes wrote:

> Silly me - i thought this had something to do with civil rights.
>
> ----------
> > From: Brendan R Delaney <brdst11+ at PITT.EDU>
> > To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
> > Subject: Re: Fw: now-action-list Urgent: Bill Threatens Safety of
> YoungWomen              (fwd)
> > Date: Saturday, June 20, 1998 3:33 AM
> >
> > 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
> > subscribe myself...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Brendan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "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
> > >
> > > PROBLEM:
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > IMPORTANT:
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > BACKGROUND:
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > MESSAGE:
> > >
> > > 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
> > > addresses.
> > >
> > > =============================================================
> > > 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,
> > > calendars,
> > > and computer accessories.
> > > ----------
> > >
>

>From  Sat Jun 20 14:59:24 1998
Message-Id: <SAT.20.JUN.1998.145924.MST7MDT.>
Received: from LIST.UVM.EDU by LIST.UVM.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8c) with
 spool id 55559 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sat, 20 Jun 1998 17:00:03
 -0400
Received: from ns.suu.edu (ns.suu.edu [134.250.2.3]) by list.uvm.edu
 (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7/8.7) with SMTP id RAA69086 for
 <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>; Sat, 20 Jun 1998 17:00:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from centrum.cn.suu.edu ([134.250.80.20]) by ns.suu.edu with ESMTP
 for EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU; Sat, 20 Jun 1998 14:58:43 -0600
Received: from CENTRUM/SpoolDir by centrum.cn.suu.edu (Mercury 1.40); 20 Jun 98
 14:59:43 MST7MDT
Received: from SpoolDir by CENTRUM (Mercury 1.40); 20 Jun 98 14:59:25 MST7MDT
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22
Message-ID: <790F68D2AB6 at centrum.cn.suu.edu>
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998 14:59:24 MST7MDT
Reply-To: WEST at CENTRUM.CN.SUU.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Terry West <WEST at CENTRUM.CN.SUU.EDU>
Organization: Southern Utah University
Subject: Re: Congress as Agent of Action?

I certainly agree with Scott below, but there's another implication
that confuses me.  I think our community has gathered some
definitions/understandings of fiat that have me flabbergasted.

Maybe I'm just dumb, too old to allow to continue living, whatever,
but I've always seen fiat as nothing more than a game rule that
allows us to propose plans and counterplans without having to debate
what we used to call the "should/would fallacy" (sure, you've won
that we SHOULD do x, but congress would never actually pass it, or
Pres would never sign it, etc.).  Reasons this view of fiat prevails
in our argumentation/debate literature:

1)  It's the reason policy resolutions contain the word "should"
instead of "would."  If it were a burden to prove a plan would pass,
and the res is a statement we must find "true" or not, then it would
seem the res should say "would."

2)  You can't predict whether something will pass or not.  Or be
signed or not.  I can name numerous pieces of legislation that were
sure things that never got done.  Tobacco legislation anyone?

The other caveat about fiat that permeates most of the books I have
is that fiat has to be something within the bounds of reality.  You
can't fiat that the affirmative will become endowed with supernatural
powers to make everyone accept the critique, or whatever.  You have
to have solvency ev, in other words.

Am I the only one left in the universe with this understanding of
fiat?

Terry West
Southern Utah


 > Date sent:      Sat, 20 Jun 1998 14:22:01 -0500
> Send reply to:  Scott Deatherage <lsd041 at NWU.EDU>
> From:           Scott Deatherage <lsd041 at NWU.EDU>
> Subject:        Re: Congress as Agent of Action?
> To:             EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU

> Damn fine point.  And a good reason why we should stick with USFG in ALL
> wordings.  Do we really want our "civil rights" opportunity to turn into a
> discussion of the relative political capital merits of presidential
> leadership versus a congressional veto?  Yes, I understand that this might
> occur in some debates anyway, but let's not build it into the topic
> wording.  SD
>
> At 11:45 AM 6/20/98 -0400, Tracy Gonos and Paul Hayes wrote:
> >        If Congress is the agent of action, do affs get to fiat that
> Clinton signs
> >onto their plan?  It seems to me that they don't and will have to either
> >(1) prove he would sign on or (2) defend that congress pushes it past him
> >after a veto.  Makes for an interesting Clinton debate if  nothing else.  I
> >can imagine somebody responding to a "you make Clinton unpopular by passing
> >an unpopular plan" disad by pointing out that if the plans unpopular
> >Clinton wouldn't sign it and in fact would gain popularity by vetoing it.
> >My point being that specifying Congress as the actor may provide better
> >limits, but it may also make agent of action debates more complicated.
> >
> >Paul Hayes
> >
> >
>




More information about the Mailman mailing list