Skip to content

New Hampshire to Revisit the Parental Notification Law

February 17, 2008

no_babies1.jpg In a previous post I wrote about New Hampshire repealed it’s parental notification law. This law would have made it the parent’s right to know when their UNDERAGE daughter was going to have an abortion. The fact that we need a law that makes it a parent’s right to know what their MINOR daughter is up to is astounding enough, but the fact that this was repealed is just plain disgusting. A child can’t even go on a school field trip without a permission slip, yet she can have an invasive medical procedure without her parent’s knowledge.  I won’t even get into the fact that if a MINOR child is pregnant than according to law she was raped.

 Now two differing bill are to come before the state for review on parental notification. The first one will mandate that a child’s parents must be notified before an abortion is performed on the UNDERAGE daughter, but will include an exception if the child’s life is in danger. ( The potential mother, not the unborn child, the unborn child is doomed) On it’s face this seems like a good idea. It is definitely an improvement over there being no law. But I do have a problem with this.

Wendelboe’s bill restores a requirement that parents be notified before a minor has an abortion, and adds medical emergency language

 Isn’t it of the utmost importance to a parent if their child’s life is in danger? Wouldn’t that be the time where it would be critical to notify the parents that their daughter needs “emergency surgery” to save her life. Can you imagine if something happened to a child during this procedure( again I am referring to the potential mother and not the child whose life is being purposely ended), and as a parent you didn’t even know anything was wrong until you were given the news AFTER THE FACT?

 But this bill is at least an improvement, the second bill is another attempt at taking away a parent’s right to raise their own child.

The Health and Human Services Committee will hear the bill Sen. Kathy Sgambati has sponsored to require adult involvement, not necessarily parental input, on abortion decisions.

 A child can go to any adult if this bill passes and notify them that they are going to have an abortion, it doesn’t have to be her parents. This is just plain unbelievable, I don’t know what to say. Instead of a child going to her parents, she has the right to tell anybody but her parents. She could go to a parent of a friend, potentially an adult that her parents don’t even know and tell them instead of her parents. Again, undercutting the parent’s rights to raise their children the way they see fit.

 So, does anybody care to guess which bill Governor Lynch prefers? He prefers the one child_state_150.jpgwhich takes away any parental involvement and let’s any adult other than the child’s parents help her to make such a tough decision.

 Governor Lynch is in favor of taking the parents out of the decision making of their MINOR daughter’s life and handing it over to anyone else, preferably the state.

 Governor Lynch, WHO THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE?!?!?!?!?!?!?

4 Comments leave one →
  1. TRM's avatar
    February 18, 2008 9:26 am

    Well pink sounds like Gov Lynch is a scumbag leftist who should have his ass beat….

    He’s got three kids, I think two are daughters…. let’s see how he feels when his daughters become interested in boys…

    Like

  2. Gary's avatar
    February 19, 2008 9:30 am

    Pink,

    There is another level to this. In the court systems, “for the life of the mother” has been distorted into meaning for the emotional life, for the mental health life, and any other potential distortion to take it away from the meaning of the pregnancy will be fatal to the physical life of the mother. Until the laws specify the mortal danger to the physical life of the mother, then the laws are meaningless as a free for all w/ a BS reason attached.

    So once again, the refrain is the same. We wouldn’t have so many issues if we would actually follow the existing laws in place.

    Like

  3. Steve Dennis's avatar
    February 19, 2008 9:45 pm

    It will be a different story then, won’t it TRM.
    Gary, good point, this whole “when the life of the mother is in danger” argument is nothing but an out for pregnant women who want to use that as an excuse. That is the only reason that provision is in there. If a mother’s life is trully in danger, I can understand her decision, but in this case it is simply a way for underage girls to sneak around behind their parent’s backs. How often can it be detremined that the mother’s life is in danger before it is obvious to everyone including her parents that she is pregnant?

    Like

  4. Gary's avatar
    February 19, 2008 11:25 pm

    Not being an OB/ GYN but still being married w/ a child I think the answer would be obvious around the 2nd trimester. i.e. When the mother would also be showing.

    It would be better if there was a written letter of medical necessity provided but then someone would have to pay for the child’s trip to the doctor. Oh, yeah. That’s right, the parents would foot that bill.

    Like

Leave a reply to mpinkeyes Cancel reply