ACLU files motion FOR Rush Limbaugh

[lawrocket 3]

I'm one of the right-wing wackos who respects a lot of what the ACLU does. They have a history of fighting for a number of issues with which I agree.

Who here remembers that the ACLU defended Oliver North when he was duped with a fake immunity offer? The ACLU doesn't care whom it protects, it focuses on WHAT it is protecting.

Of course, there are numerous schisms between the national ACLU and local chapters. Many of the local chapters drop their affiliations when the national chapter defends the KKK's right to peaceful assembly of defends the Norths and Limbaughs of the country. In fact, the ACLU will have black lawyers represent the KKK. Google "David Baugh" and "KKK."

I respect that. I do not agree with their view on firearms. There are other areas in which I disagree with their stances. I even disagree with their overly restrictive view on religious speech in government activities.

But with general free speech, count me as one who agrees with them most of the time.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Perhaps you will give some examples where ACLU has supported trampling on an individual's rights.

How about the right to raise ones children as one sees fit without government interference? Explain to me how the ACLU position on Parental Notification advances ones right to raise their children in the way the parents see fit.

Tell me you don't think you have the right to know if your kids out there getting pregnant. I can't imagine any responsible parent agreeing with the ACLU on this. But hey, throw a few free condoms at them and tell them life's a party.

[kallend 2,129]

Quote

Perhaps I should have looked for a less "volatile" Amendment to use for my example.
My point was that they interpret the 2nd in a collective way - the "militia argument." They don't interpret it in an individual way - the "right to keep and bear arms argument."

The ACLU is for the BoR in the way they interpret it, that was my point.

Regardless of how they specifically interpret it, they still act in favor of it, and against confiscation of all individually owned firearms, for example.

I still challenge anyone to find a case where the ACLU has argued in court in favor of any government action against an individual. There are zillions of cases where ACLU has argued for an individual's rights against the government's (of any party) attempts to curtail them.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,129]

Quote

***
The ACLU sued him and the city for the comment. His response was that "God-fearing" is a generic term for honest and he just wanted someone honest for the job, he wasn't trying to exclude atheists.

Maybe he should have said that, then, instead of saying that he wanted a non-atheist. People in government have an obligation to obey the Constitution. Seems like ACLU made the right call on this one!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,092]

>How about the right to raise ones children as one sees fit without
> government interference? Explain to me how the ACLU position on
> Parental Notification advances ones right to raise their children in
> the way the parents see fit.

What parents and children tell each other about their pregnancies, abortions etc is up to NO ONE other than the parents and children involved. It it NOT up to the government, and there should be no laws that change that. I support the ACLU's position that it is up to the parents and children, not the government, to decide if parents are told or not. The government is not your mom.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Maybe he should have said that, then

The purpose of language is communication. Everyone understood what he meant. The ACLU just used it to nitpick. Personally, I think they were trying to limit his right of free speech by telling him how he could say it.

I don't believe that the ACLU ever picked on one individual exclusively, but they do pick/ignore issues on the agenda of a local organization too often.

Almost any school board can tell you that the ACLU will dictate to them what they can teach. It is an old simple rule, if you have enough money for lawyers, you can force people to do anything.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>How about the right to raise ones children as one sees fit without
> government interference? Explain to me how the ACLU position on
> Parental Notification advances ones right to raise their children in
> the way the parents see fit.

What parents and children tell each other about their pregnancies, abortions etc is up to NO ONE other than the parents and children involved. It it NOT up to the government, and there should be no laws that change that. I support the ACLU's position that it is up to the parents and children, not the government, to decide if parents are told or not. The government is not your mom.

I disagree. Children are children. They need to be raised as the parents see fit. Children are not always capable of acting in their own best interests. To have a law that prevents a parent from knowing his teenage daughter is pregnant is dispicable. How you figure the government would have to be involved in Parental Notification is beyond me. I would think it's between the parents and the doctor.

Tell me Bill, how would you feel if it was your kid. Don't you think you have the right to know? Do you believe it's up to YOUR minor child to tell YOU if THEY feel you need to know? Or do you feel you NEED to know so you can take whatever steps YOU as a parent deem necessary to perhaps change the direction you see YOUR child going in?

Don't have any kids do you Bill?

[kallend 2,129]

Quote

Quote

>How about the right to raise ones children as one sees fit without
> government interference? Explain to me how the ACLU position on
> Parental Notification advances ones right to raise their children in
> the way the parents see fit.

What parents and children tell each other about their pregnancies, abortions etc is up to NO ONE other than the parents and children involved. It it NOT up to the government, and there should be no laws that change that. I support the ACLU's position that it is up to the parents and children, not the government, to decide if parents are told or not. The government is not your mom.

I disagree. Children are children. They need to be raised as the parents see fit. Children are not always capable of acting in their own best interests. To have a law that prevents a parent from knowing his teenage daughter is pregnant is dispicable. How you figure the government would have to be involved in Parental Notification is beyond me. I would think it's between the parents and the doctor.

Tell me Bill, how would you feel if it was your kid. Don't you think you have the right to know? Do you believe it's up to YOUR minor child to tell YOU if THEY feel you need to know? Or do you feel you NEED to know so you can take whatever steps YOU as a parent deem necessary to perhaps change the direction you see YOUR child going in?

Don't have any kids do you Bill?

Typical misrepresentation. The child is not prevented from telling the parent anything. The ACLU has never taken the position that the child should not consult the parents. The ACLU position is that the GOVERNMENT should not be involved.

I have 4 kids, should it mean anything to you.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Nightingale 0]

Personally, I find the parental consent law to be a very grey area, for the simple reason that while parental consent for ANY surgical procedure should be required, abortion is such a sensitive issue that not every parent and child are able to discuss it.

I'm honestly not sure how to feel about this law. I'm very uncomfortable with a child having a surgical procedure without the consent of a parent, but I'm also uncomfortable with the idea that obtaining that parental consent could put the child in an even more dangerous situation.

[billvon 3,092]

>I disagree. Children are children. They need to be raised as the
>parents see fit.

I agree.

>Children are not always capable of acting in their own best interests.

To some degree. A fertilized egg has few rights. A newborn has a lot of rights, but not as many as an adult. As children mature, they gain more and more rights, until they are completely independent of their parents. It's a gradual process. That happens at age 16 for some, age 21 for others.

>To have a law that prevents a parent from knowing his teenage
> daughter is pregnant is dispicable.

It does not. The parent is still 100% free to know. It simply does not ENFORCE that he knows from the doctor. Parents, not the goverment, are responsible for their children.

>How you figure the government would have to be involved in Parental
> Notification is beyond me.

?? Because the government passes and enforces laws, perhaps? Including this one.

>Tell me Bill, how would you feel if it was your kid.

I would feel badly that I had done such a bad job as a parent that they felt they couldn't talk to me about it. And if they did want an abortion, and they felt that a pregnancy would absolutely ruin their life, then I think that option should be open to them - without any requirement that the doctor get my approval.

Once a child has a functioning reproductive system, a parent MUST have taught them how it works and what can happen. Having a law that says a doctor must notify you about abortions is like having a law that says a fire inspector must inform you that your smoke detector batteries are dead after your house burns down. You fix the batteries BEFORE the fire or you've pretty much failed; you talk to your kids about pregnancy BEFORE they need an abortion or you've pretty much failed.

What your child tells you, and what you tell them, or give them permission to do, is up to you. No governmental laws should interfere with that. No law in the world can make you a better parent, but laws can interfere with your ability to _be_ a good parent. The government does not belong in parenting.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

What parents and children tell each other about their pregnancies, abortions etc is up to NO ONE other than the parents and children involved. It it NOT up to the government, and there should be no laws that change that. I support the ACLU's position that it is up to the parents and children, not the government, to decide if parents are told or not. The government is not your mom.

Actually, under California law, the parents have no role or say in this matter. In direct contravention of your statement, the parents have no say in whether they are told or not, or consent, to a minor child's abortion. A parent has no right to even be informed of the minor's pregancy, regardless of whether consent is an issue.

This was the law stated by the California Supreme Court in American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren in 1997. The AAP filed suit along with the ACLU of Northern California to overturn a parental notification law, which required a parent's consent for an abortion to be performed. It was argued by ACLU-NC.

Now, the parents have no say in whether they are informed. It is up to the child whether to inform the parent. The system explicitly forbids a parent from receiving any information whatsover about a minor's pregancy, treatment, or termination of pregnancy without written consent of the minor. This does not apply for emergency medical procedures or other procedures. Only abortion.

Thus, the decision of abortion or prenatal care is not up to the parent. It is at the discretion of perhaps a 12 year-old girl what the course of pregnancy will be. It is also up to the minor, and not the parent, whether the parent will be informed.

The current law can be stated as follows:

"What parents and children tell each other about their pregnancies, abortions etc is up to NO ONE other than the parents and children involved. It it NOT up to the government, and there should be no laws that change that. I support the ACLU's position that it is up to the parents and children, not the government, to decide if parents are told or not. The government is not your mom [and neither is your mom, in this instance]"

As applied to abortion laws, parents simply do not exist in California - not even for information issues.

Edited to add - the parent probably cannot get a court order of the child's medical records reflecting pregnancy without the minor's consent.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rehmwa 2]

Honest question here: If the doctor tells the parent the minor child is pregnant, is that against the law?

Who knows?

Edit: Posted at the same time as Lawrocket above. I think that answered my question thoroughly.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,092]

>Actually, under California law, the parents have no role or say in this matter.

Nonsense. They have just as much say as they have in any other part of the child's life. The kid can start smoking with a friend's cigarettes, and can either tell or not tell his parents. They can jump off a bridge, play chicken with trains, have sex with strangers - and again can either tell or not tell their parents. It is up to the PARENTS to both raise their children and talk to them about what they're doing. No law in California or anywhere else in the US can prevent that, nor should it. Nor should any laws try to enforce good child-parent communication. It's an area that the government should just leave alone. We don't need the government to raise our kids, we need good parents.

[lawrocket 3]

And on that statement, I fully agree with you. Looking back, I see that is what you were hinting at in your initial post.

Once the parents fail to establish a line of communications with their children, the government cannot force this line of communications open with regards to abortion. Methinks you are saying that it is up to the parents to ensure that such intervention is never necessary.

I'd never thought of it that way. Good point.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Nightingale 0]

my parents had a conversation with me when I started dating that went something like: "we don't want you to be having sex. You're too young to have to deal with the responsibilities and consequences that go along with it. Ideally, we would like you to wait til you're married. However, should you choose to go against this advice, and, at this point it is your choice, because we can't watch over you every second, please come to us so we can make sure you have the resources to stay relatively safe. And, should you get pregnant, please, come to us and tell us. Of course, we'll be upset at first, but after we calm down, we'll support you in whatever way we can and help you make the right decisions."

Knowing that I COULD talk to my parents about stuff like that was probably a major factor influencing my decisions when I was a teenager. I did make the right choices at the time, because when I was confused, I knew I could go talk to mom. Hell, I STILL go talk to mom if I'm confused about something! She's a wonderful sounding board, and gives advice when asked, and doesn't judge me, whether or not I choose to take her advice.

Ultimately, I feel it is the parents' responsibility to keep the lines of communication open. If the parents fail to do so, they have made their choice about whether they want to know what's going on in the lives of their children.

[TheAnvil 0]

Horrid bit of logic.

Quote

They have just as much say as they have in any other part of the child's life. The kid can start smoking with a friend's cigarettes, and can either tell or not tell his parents. They can jump off a bridge, play chicken with trains, have sex with strangers - and again can either tell or not tell their parents.

Should children be able to enter into legal contracts as well? Obtain plastic surgery without parental consent? Be prescribed Ritalin by schoolteachers without parental consent? How about a sex change operation? Hey Mom! Look at me! Forget Michael - now I'm Michele! (No offense to the dz.com'er
Malarkey.

Quote

It is up to the PARENTS to both raise their children and talk to them about what they're doing. No law in California or anywhere else in the US can prevent that, nor should it. Nor should any laws try to enforce good child-parent communication. It's an area that the government should just leave alone. We don't need the government to raise our kids, we need good parents.

Agreed. Nor should laws exist that impede parents from performing their parental duties. Not requiring medical professionals (I use the term loosely in including a good majority of abortionists in this category) to obtain parental consent prior to an ELECTIVE medical procedure is utterly asinine. Abortion is elective, just like plastic surgery or a sex change operation. Parental consent should be required for all three - and any other medical issue a minor might have.

To preempt the 'what about parental abuse' torrent of posts sure to follow, I add the following: if a medical professional doesn't know the right thing to do in such cases, then he/she got their degree out of a cracker jack box and shouldn't be practicing medicine.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[quade 4]

Quote

To preempt the 'what about parental abuse' torrent of posts sure to follow, I add the following: if a medical professional doesn't know the right thing to do in such cases, then he/she got their degree out of a cracker jack box and shouldn't be practicing medicine.

Practicing medicine and understanding the relationships of parents and children they have scant knowledge of are two different things.

One requires years of education, hard work and state board certification.

The other would be almost entirely guesswork.

The problem, as I see it, is that it's very difficult to -know- how people are going to react to "news" even after years of living with them. How is the Doctor supposed to have any clue as to how a parent is going to react? I don't think he can and I don't think the government should force him to be involved in that part of what is happening.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[TheAnvil 0]

So because parents can't be trusted to raise their kids we take away their rights as parents?

Here Tommy. You've been very bad at school today. Take this nice Ritalin pill. We'll be giving you one every day from now on - along with some ice cream as long as you don't tell your mommy, OK?

Little difference.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Nightingale 0]

its very difficult for the average doctor to discriminate between the average teen saying "my parents going to kill me!" in that metaphorical dramatic way that teenagers have, and the abused victim of incest saying "my parents are going to kill me!" and really meaning it.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

its very difficult for the average doctor to discriminate between the average teen saying "my parents going to kill me!" in that metaphorical dramatic way that teenagers have, and the abused victim of incest saying "my parents are going to kill me!" and really meaning it.

Actually, the reason for the holding that parents shall not be informed was supposedly just what you said.

Note that in many instances, for example to give drug or alcohol treatment, a physician can determine whether he believes that parental involvement is appropriate. Family Code 6929. And, parents must be notified of treatment for rape or sexual assault unless the doctor believes the parent did it. Family Code 6927 and 6928.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,092]

>Should children be able to enter into legal contracts as well? Obtain
> plastic surgery without parental consent? Be prescribed Ritalin by
> schoolteachers without parental consent? How about a sex change
> operation? Hey Mom! Look at me! Forget Michael - now I'm Michele!

Depends on their age. If they're 11? No. If they're 16? Perhaps. If they're 20? Almost definitely. Such decisions are best left up to parents, kids and doctors (in my opinion.) Laws are a poor substitute for good judgement.

>To preempt the 'what about parental abuse' torrent of posts sure to
> follow, I add the following: if a medical professional doesn't know
> the right thing to do in such cases, then he/she got their degree out
> of a cracker jack box and shouldn't be practicing medicine.

Hmm. Because it sure seems like you're saying "Those doctors can't be trusted! We need a LAW that tells them exactly what they must do. And if the father is going to beat her within an inch of her life? Sorry, it's a LAW. Break it and lose your license."

I agree that doctors should use their own judgement. We need good parents and good doctors, not more laws that tell us how we have to raise our kids.

[elfanie 0]

Quote

>Should children be able to enter into legal contracts as well? Obtain
> plastic surgery without parental consent? Be prescribed Ritalin by
> schoolteachers without parental consent? How about a sex change
> operation? Hey Mom! Look at me! Forget Michael - now I'm Michele!

Depends on their age. If they're 11? No. If they're 16? Perhaps. If they're 20? Almost definitely. Such decisions are best left up to parents, kids and doctors (in my opinion.) Laws are a poor substitute for good judgement.

Actually, if they are 11, no. If they are 16, no. If they are 20..absolutely. Once an adult, emancipated or of the age of 18, then legally they are an adult and the parents are no longer legally responsible for them or their actions or any results of their actions.

there are two things being discussed here...one is emotions and values, and the other is laws and legalities.

emotionally speaking..of course parents should have an active role in their childrens lives and open communication and blah blah blah.

legally speaking is a totally different thing..and legally we, as parents, are responsible for our children's decisions until the are adults. Why is an abortion separated and secluded and put into its own catagory? If a minor can not legally have a medical proceedure without parental consent, why is an abortion any different?

and that's not to say that I think that the physician should tell the parents...
but I don't think it should be legal for them to obtain an abortion without parental consent.

--------------------------------------------
Elfanie
My Skydiving Page
Fly Safe - Soft Landings

[Gravitymaster 0]

Good post. You've actually presented the honest reason most lefties are against parental notification-Unfettered access to abortion.

[SkydiverRick 0]

How is the Doctor supposed to have any clue as to how a parent is going to react? I don't think he can and I don't think the government should force him to be involved in that part of what is happening.

[Deuce 1]

Quote

Laws are a poor substitute for good judgement.

Bingo. I was responsible for enforcing stupid laws for a third of my life.

Lets decide what the age of majority is. For everything. Mortgages to consenting to sex. Once that's decided, let's enforce it.

Whatever that age is, my children cannot contract for services of any type when they are younger than that. For a tandem parachute waiver, or an abortion, or marriage.

Prior to that age, you need my consent.

If it's sixteen or twentyone, I'll raise my daughters accordingly. I happen to like giving them more time to be children, but we can adjust.