Originally Posted By vbdad55 Parents are legally responsible and financially responsible for an under 18 year old in their house...why would they not be notified ? Although there certainly are cases where it is not true, the majority of parents would help guide better decisions than a 16 year old on their own. If they don't show up for school you wouldbe called, but if they go to seek an abortion you would not...I just see no common sense in that at all. As far as kids being afraid to talk to their parents, why sure...who wouldn't be, but not every family is a snapshot of those on the Jerry Springer show...and this would be a time one would need family most. just my 2 cents
Originally Posted By jonvn "Parents are legally responsible and financially responsible for an under 18 year old in their house...why would they not be notified ?" Because they are not medically in charge of a child. "not every family is a snapshot of those on the Jerry Springer show..." For those who aren't fine. For those who are you don't want to put a law in place that hurts those people.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <"Parents are legally responsible and financially responsible for an under 18 year old in their house...why would they not be notified ?" Because they are not medically in charge of a child.< so when your 16 year old goes to the hospital with no insurance, who gets the bill ? Children under 18 can't even buy someover the counter medicines..so I am confused by your answer
Originally Posted By jonvn "so when your 16 year old goes to the hospital with no insurance, who gets the bill ?" That's being financially responsible, not medically in charge. "Children under 18 can't even buy someover the counter medicines..so I am confused by your answer" My answer is referring to the fact that parental charge of their children in medical situations is limited. For example, if your child needs a medical treatment, and you refuse to allow it, the courts then can order that the child's treatment be done against your wishes as a parent. This is because the child, as a separate individual, has certain rights aside from that of the parent.
Originally Posted By Big Thunder <<My answer is referring to the fact that parental charge of their children in medical situations is limited. For example, if your child needs a medical treatment, and you refuse to allow it, the courts then can order that the child's treatment be done against your wishes as a parent. >> On the flip side, if my child needs non emergency medical attention, be it an aspirin or an invasive surgery, the doctor asks for my consent first. By the way, this CA proposition is not even covering consent, it is about notification, it does NOT require parental *consent* for them to actually perform the abortion, it just says they will notify one parent within 48 hours of the procedure. They still don't need my permission However, if my child wants her ears pierced, I must consent.
Originally Posted By jonvn "However, if my child wants her ears pierced, I must consent." An ear piercing is not a medical procedure. And if the doctor needs to do invasive surgery, and you don't agree to it, and the doctor feels it is necessary, guess what? They go to court, and they do it anyway. As I said, parent's rights are limited when it comes to the medical needs of their children.
Originally Posted By Big Thunder <<"An ear piercing is not a medical procedure">> No it is not, but apparently the law says that as a parent I need to *consent* to it before they perform it, which I am glad for that law. I consented to one in each lobe, other than that, I dont want her having body piercings nor tattoos, that's my purgative as a parent as long as she is a minor. The point is, that something less significant [IMHO] requires parental consent. >>And if the doctor needs to do invasive surgery, and you don't agree to it, and the doctor feels it is necessary, guess what? They go to court, and they do it anyway. As I said, parent's rights are limited when it comes to the medical needs of their children."<< Basically you just turned the tables around on the parent/child and that's that would be the procedure for the child to avoid the notification process. You've stated that a few times in this topic, so if it's not that difficult for a doctor to seek that court order, why would you be concerned about a child doing the same thing, especially when they will surely have help from a clinic's staff. Regardless of that, you state that a parent has limited rights to medical procedures. I am not doubting that, in fact this law does not even require parental permission or consent. Read the proposition, it is simply about *notification* weather a parent opposes or not doesn't matter, the minor can still go ahead with the abortion, which is what you are concerned about, so what's the problem?
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Liberals want to take the parent and their control away from their children any way possible. That's the real thing to always watch.
Originally Posted By Big Thunder <a href="http://www.yeson85.net/Prop85-TextOfInitiative.html" target="_blank">http://www.yeson85.net/Prop85- TextOfInitiative.html</a>
Originally Posted By jonvn "No it is not, but apparently the law says that as a parent I need to *consent* to it before they perform it" Because it's not a medical procedure. "You've stated that a few times in this topic, so if it's not that difficult for a doctor to seek that court order, why would you be concerned about a child doing the same thing, especially when they will surely have help from a clinic's staff. " Because a doctor or other medical personnel are not as easily intimidated by the legal process, and they are not the child filing the order. What you are asking of a child is that they be able to file a court order. "I am not doubting that, in fact this law does not even require parental permission or consent. " That's not the point. The only reason this law would go into effect would be to try and put a chilling effect on those who would want an abortion, but would not get it due to parental notification. There is no other reason for it.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy << The only reason this law would go into effect would be to try and put a chilling effect on those who would want an abortion, but would not get it due to parental notification. There is no other reason for it. >> How about the reason that parents need to know what their kids are doing until they are 18 and they have the right to know what their kids are doing until they are 18. It's that simple.
Originally Posted By jonvn How about you paying attention to the last 10 posts here and not come up with something that's already been covered?
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Because it's not a medical procedure. < I had to sign a medical consent and release for my daughter to be put to sleep for a tooth extraction -- is that not a medical procedure ? And those court cases you mention, often take a long time. I remember a few years ago when there was an outbreak of encephilitis on colleg campuses -- there was one family ( can;t remember what state) - whose religion forbade 'western medicine' - long before the courts could act and ge past appeals the child died. So let's not make this seem like it is a slam dunk. My wife works media for a hospital chain..and hospitals are very careful about what they take upon themselves.... when my daughters have traveled cross country and internationally toplay volleyball.. I have to have on file with the club a medical release assigning someone traveling with them the right to make these decisions, or a general release to allow the doctors to make these decisions if they cannot contact me before they deem performing whatever may be required in an emergency.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I had to sign a medical consent and release for my daughter to be put to sleep for a tooth extraction -- is that not a medical procedure ?" And if you hadn't, and it was deemed medically necessary, they simply could have done an end run around you. A parent has limited rights in terms of medical procedures. Basically, if the medical establishment (for lack of a better term) thinks that something should be done to your kid, and you disagree, you lose, they win. The things you have on file are really just legal niceties to make things fast. But in the end, you really can't stop something from happening if it is deemed medically necessary. There are a lot of court cases on the matter. Sometimes they take a while, sometimes they go very quickly. In these cases, though, the parent simply does not have the right to control how a child is treated, if it is in conflict with how medicine says the child should be treated.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<How about you paying attention to the last 10 posts here and not come up with something that's already been covered?>> Because you just said the entire reason for this law to go into effect would be to try and put a "chilling effect on those who would want an abortion". As if abortion is no big deal and how dare anyone want to put a " chilling effect " on abortion. Thing is your wrong. The reason for this prop is so parents know what their kids are doing, something you seem to be against.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Basically, if the medical establishment (for lack of a better term) thinks that something should be done to your kid, and you disagree, you lose, they win. >> What a crock. How often is a doctor going to tell anyone that an abortion is actually needed?
Originally Posted By jonvn In certain cases, if it means that the child does not get the medical care that she needs, then the parent does not need to be notified. The main goal is that the child gets the medical care needed. That is what is important, not that the parent be told. It is important that a parent be told, yes. But it is MORE important that the health care be provided when needed. And if parental notification would cause the health care to not be provided, then it's not a good law.
Originally Posted By jonvn "How often is a doctor going to tell anyone that an abortion is actually needed?" It happens all the time. Aside from that, if a child wants an abortion, and does not feel it proper for the parents to find out, or they will not get it, then that is what needs to be prevented.
Originally Posted By Big Thunder >>"That's not the point. The only reason this law would go into effect would be to try and put a chilling effect on those who would want an abortion, but would not get it due to parental notification. There is no other reason for it."<< No, that is NOT the only reason, there are many reasons, but the most basic & simple [which has been stated by others] and it happens to be my basic personal reason... is that I want to know what is going on with my minor age child. I believe that is my right as a parent. It's that simple, it is not a plot to scare anybody, it is a basic parental instinct to want to know what is going on with one's child. It is also remedial basic common sense, that if the law states I need to be contacted for simple medical and non medical procedures, why in the world would something as life changing, and potentially traumatic as an abortion be exempt from that? At this point, I am having a very difficult time understanding the logic behind your argument, I have been trying very hard to be open minded, but none of your opposing views make sense, especially when the reason for your opposition has been addressed and loop holed for you. Are you viewing this as a Pro-Life VS Pro-Choice kinda thing? Because it's not, we are not debating the morality of abortion, the discussion is about parents being notified, which for some reason you think is wrong. even when your objections are satisfied.
