CALiberal's picture

A young girl's privacy rights

I made this comment in response to Lorraine's posting of the diary originally. It was in answer to the privacy young girls deserve to have, it dealt with parental notification laws and also the bill that was passed, with Majority Leader Harry Reid's affirmative vote, federal bill S403 which prevents young girls from crossing state lines into states that have parental notification laws. As is seen on the map Lorraine has posted, it's in more states than not by a wide margin.

This is my first comment on Culture Kitchen, I don't know how to do blockquotes or italicize yet so I ask your indulgence, here's the comment to Lorraine's diary on My Left Wing.

When S403, the bill that makes it illegal to help a young girl cross state lines to have an abortion, was being debated on the senate floor, Barbara Boxer spoke of what an egregious bill it is, she said it's really the worse piece of legislation she has seen in all her years of holding office, she said there are so many things in it that need to be fixed, she also said something that is heartbreaking, she said there will be many, many young girls who will choose to take their own lives because they don't feel they have any other choice.

The bill gives a rapist father full parental rights. The only thing Boxer was able to change in the bill, so far, is that the rapist father can no longer sue those who help his daughter in terminating the pregnancy that comes as a result of the incestuous act he forced upon her.

I hear the argument so often that some can't imagine a more vulnerable being than that of an unborn fetus. I have to disagree, I can't imagine a more vulnerable being that a young girl or a woman who finds herself pregnant when she doesn't have the means to support that child, either emotionally, financially or physically.

The bans on abortion, including parental notification, have to be considered. How vulnerable do some people think a young girl or woman is when they are told their very lives are at stake if they don't terminate their pregnancy? How vulnerable are young girls or women who have been raped and are forced to carry a pregnancy to term that is a consequence of that rape? How vulnerable are women who are the victims of unrelenting domestic abuse? How vulnerable are teenaged girls or preteens who live with fathers who rape them?

How vulnerable is a young girl who lives in extreme poverty? How vulnerable is she if there are no abortion clinics in her state? Isn't it bad enough that money, the funds needed to have an abortion, aren't readily available? What if that young girl isn't able to seek help? How does that cycle of deep poverty stop if these young girls have no access to terminate a pregnancy?

We are told we have a right to privacy but that is a lie if we don't have the freedom that comes with knowing we have control over what happens to our bodies, if we don't have the freedom to our design our own future what do we have?

I've been that teenaged girl without a choice. I know, in the deepest part of me, that terror and horror, I know what it's like to be driven to a place where life is the greatest obstacle imaginable, I know that place, that deep down dread, I can still hear my footsteps taking me to that drawer that held the knife I used to slit my wrist. I've been that teenaged girl who woke up in the hospital when the first thought was, why didn't I die?

It makes me weep for all those young girls who will, guaranteed WILL, feel all those things, all those girls who will bear the same scars as they're either lowered into the ground or as they live their lives, those scars will always be there as a reminder of what happens when we've lost our freedom to be who we were born to be.


Reply

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You may link to webpages through the weblinks registry
  • Web and e-mail addresses are automatically converted into links.
  • Textual smileys will be replaced with graphical ones.
  • Easily link to terms in various wikis. For help, see interwiki.
  • Images can be added to this post.
More information about formatting options

Visit our sponsors

Fill up our coffee fund

BlogAds

Buy it!


Visit our sponsors

Get our Digestifs du jour

Nibble daily on our brainy goodness with our daily syndication digest. You'll receive an email with a list and links to the previous day's posts.



Powered by FeedBlitz

culturekitchens

The Publisher
Liza Sabater

Daily servings of political dissent
culturekitchen

Grassroots News and
Activism for New Yorkers

Daily Gotham

Feminist Bloggers
Network

BlogSheroes

A new kind of vouyerism
Voogling

Art + Code + Philosophy
Potatoland.blog

Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP.


Member's articles and stories

More stories

Google Ads

The Big Dialog


Who's online

There are currently 0 users and 733 guests online.

Instant Congress

Don't know your Senators or US Representatives' phone numbers?
Enter your street address and zip code and find out right now.
Street number and name only:
Zip Code (5 digits):


Upcoming events

  • no upcoming events available

Words to live by

So the recent struggles about network neutrality have led me to recognize something I hadn't quite seen before. And that something in turn makes more puzzling the debates that have been raised around network neutrality. The something to recognize is that in a fundamental sense, fair use (FU) and network neutrality (NN) are the same thing. They are both state enforced limits on the property rights of others. In both cases, the limits are slight --the vast range of uses granted a copyright holder are only slightly restricted by FU; the vast range of uses allowed a network owner are only slightly restricted by NN. And in both cases, the line defining the limits is uncertain. But in both cases, those who support each say that the limits imposed on the property right are necessary for some important social end (admittedly, different in each case), and that the costs of enforcing those limits are outweighed by the benefits of protecting that social end. So from this perspective, it is easy to understand those who reject FU and NN (who are they?). And it is easy to understand those who embrace FU and NN. What gets difficult is understanding those who embrace one while rejecting the other --at least when that rejection is articulated in terms of "government regulation".

Subscribe Buttons

Feed IconGoogleDeliciousYahoo!BloglinesNewsgatorMSNFeedsterAOLFurlRojoNewsburstPluckFeedFeedsAdd KinjaMultiRSSrMailRSSFwdBlogarithmSimplify