Kansas abortions for 10 year old rape victims...

[amicus]

The Oregon coast is getting the first autumn storm with gale force winds as I stepped outside to smoke and watch the weather. I wondered why only Sea Gulls were still flying about in the 40 knots winds and was going to maybe compose a lil thing for here.

But on the way back to the computer, I paused to watch a news item about 10 and 11 year old pregnant girls getting abortions in Kansas…I caught just the tail end of the story so I searched: Kansas Kline teenage abortions…

http://www*****news.com/state1179.html

"Child rape is a serious crime, and when a 10-year-old is pregnant, she has been raped under Kansas law," Kline has said. "As the state's chief law enforcement official, I have a duty to investigate in order to protect Kansas children."

Kansas law requires medical personnel to report suspicions of statutory rape to authorities and bans abortions conducted after 22 weeks of pregnancy unless there is a serious health threat for the mother.

In 2004, 79 girls under the age of 15 had abortions in Kansas….”

~~~

My anti-abortion position is well known here, so I won’t belabor the point, however, there are several articles on the matter under those keywords…find one that suits your fancy.

Amicus…

 

[Pure]

sounds like good news to me; abortion for the pregnant 10 yearold, who is a rape victim. (very likely a father or uncle or stepdad who's the perpetrator-- hence a case of incest).

no doubt if it was your daughter you'd be keen on her having the 'motherhood experience' no female should be without.
----

i'm reminded that the point of this controversy, which ami hasn't explained is the the religious right do not want 'hush hush' abortions performed on pregnant 10 year olds. they want the authorities called in before hand. not sure of the reasoning.


*presumably* with it out in the open that she's pregnant, the 'right' have a greater chance of stopping it. maybe the 'right' folks want a chance to pressure the father or mother, one of whom would otherwise not necessarily know. IOW, maybe mom would sneak her young daughter with Uncle Billy's child to the abortion, without telling her husband, Uncle Billy's brother.

Or is it that her dad, recognizing his brother Bill did it, is going to want to keep the kid, or give it to Bill? hence he witholds permission?

{giving this some thought. we know that it's the baby of the pregnant ten year old who is the person of interest. IF the ten year old is faced with a) an abortion, and b) having to appear at a criminal trial of Uncle Bill, she's just going to shut up and bite the bullet and have the kid. or perhaps one of her parents may think this way (spare the girl the trial). }

there is a tiny grain of real issue here: we don't want criminal acts against ten year olds covered up. but the right *pretend* interest in the ten year old, only.

IF her bearing the child is the desired outcome (which she does quietly in order to avoid being in a rape trial), what hypocrisy to pretend an interest in the criminal matter of the 'rapist'. the real aim is to keep the whole matter out of the sight of the authorities.

surely IF we favor criminal charges we might also favor a 'hush hush' abortion, to spare the girl.

 

[amicus]

It is a legal issue, a moral issue and a political one, Pure, of course you know that, but God almighty how you muddy the issue.

Assuming you have read at least some of the links available you will understand the the abortion clinic, and or, Planned Parenthood, thinking apparently as you do, did not report the crime of child rape to the authorities, for whatever social reason you choose to highlight.

The moral and ethical question concerning abortion is being fought at another level, although the child rape controversy surely involves all sides, the legal issue here is that responsible adults did not report the crime of child rape.

It seems that the abortion clinic and planned parenthood are culpable as they conspired not to report the crime.

So muddy away my nearsighted friend and miss the larger picture like you always do.

amicus...

 

[SeaCat]

The Oregon coast is getting the first autumn storm with gale force winds as I stepped outside to smoke and watch the weather. I wondered why only Sea Gulls were still flying about in the 40 knots winds and was going to maybe compose a lil thing for here.

But on the way back to the computer, I paused to watch a news item about 10 and 11 year old pregnant girls getting abortions in Kansas…I caught just the tail end of the story so I searched: Kansas Kline teenage abortions…

http://www*****news.com/state1179.html

"Child rape is a serious crime, and when a 10-year-old is pregnant, she has been raped under Kansas law," Kline has said. "As the state's chief law enforcement official, I have a duty to investigate in order to protect Kansas children."

Kansas law requires medical personnel to report suspicions of statutory rape to authorities and bans abortions conducted after 22 weeks of pregnancy unless there is a serious health threat for the mother.

In 2004, 79 girls under the age of 15 had abortions in Kansas….”

~~~

My anti-abortion position is well known here, so I won’t belabor the point, however, there are several articles on the matter under those keywords…find one that suits your fancy.

Amicus…

Ami,

My views on abortion and the rights of those who chose to have an abortion are also well known here.

Possibly surprising to you, in this case I agree with the D.A. It seems as though he had specific information about cases and wanted to investigate these specific cases.

My problem comes when there are cases like the D.A. here in Florida where they demanded open access to patient records. They wanted access to all of the clinics records, unedited, for several years. The reason for his demands were to investigate these clinics for "possible" violations. This D.A. who was quite vocally Anti-Abortion wanted everything. Names, dates, etc. In other words he wanted to violate Federal Laws in a witch hunt. ("If I dig deep enough I'm sure I can find something.")

This to me would be much like the Oregon D.A. walking into your house, siezing your computer, and checking it for anything illegal just because you use the Internet. ("I know you use your computer to access the Internet, where I know there is Kiddie Porn, so I'm going to check just to make sure you aren't doing anything illegal.")

Cat

 

[Liar]

"Child rape is a serious crime, and when a 10-year-old is pregnant, she has been raped under Kansas law," Kline has said. "As the state's chief law enforcement official, I have a duty to investigate in order to protect Kansas children."

Kansas law requires medical personnel to report suspicions of statutory rape to authorities and bans abortions conducted after 22 weeks of pregnancy unless there is a serious health threat for the mother.

When is being ten and pregnant NOT a serious health threat to the mother?

 

[Oblimo]

How the Hell can a Randian be Pro-Life?

 

[Weird Harold]

Possibly surprising to you, in this case I agree with the D.A. It seems as though he had specific information about cases and wanted to investigate these specific cases.

My problem comes when there are cases like the D.A. here in Florida where they demanded open access to patient records. They wanted access to all of the clinics records, unedited, for several years. The reason for his demands were to investigate these clinics for "possible" violations. This D.A. who was quite vocally Anti-Abortion wanted everything. Names, dates, etc. In other words he wanted to violate Federal Laws in a witch hunt. ("If I dig deep enough I'm sure I can find something.")

Cat, Mr. Kline, the DA in Kansas makes your Florida DA's request for unedited records seem reasonable -- In fact your DA probably got the idea from Kline's repeated failures to get the same kind of information from Planned Parenthood and any clinic that performs abortions.

Contrary to Mr. Kline's interpretation, underage sexual activity does NOT automatically mean that Statuatory Rape has occured under Kansas law and the Kansas supreme court and federal courts have told him that several times.

However, with an election coming up next week, I'm not at all surprised that Mr Kline is spouting his hypocritical "it's for the children's protection" line again -- from someone else, I might not consider it hypocritical, but Mr. Kline has along history of saying one thing and doing something else.

 

[Guest]

Cat, Mr. Kline, the DA in Kansas makes your Florida DA's request for unedited records seem reasonable -- In fact your DA probably got the idea from Kline's repeated failures to get the same kind of information from Planned Parenthood and any clinic that performs abortions.

Contrary to Mr. Kline's interpretation, underage sexual activity does NOT automatically mean that Statuatory Rape has occured under Kansas law and the Kansas supreme court and federal courts have told him that several times.

However, with an election coming up next week, I'm not at all surprised that Mr Kline is spouting his hypocritical "it's for the children's protection" line again -- from someone else, I might not consider it hypocritical, but Mr. Kline has along history of saying one thing and doing something else.

This is a serious election in Kansas.

The negative ads are intense and amazing right now. Every hour on TV and radio.

Kline has attacked relentlessly. Morrison (Democratic opponent) has not.

And it is very hypocritical. "It's for our children's protection."

Bullshit.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I think I saw the same TV show. It was the O'Reilly Factor, and Dr. Tiller is the doctor who performs the abortions. He does so after diagnosing the expectant mother as being clinically depressed, which would be a life-threatening condition. A depressed woman who could not get an abortion might kill herself, or try to abort the fetus herself, killing or seriously injuring herself in the process.

As for the girls who are pregnant, if they wanted it reported, it would be. She might be PG by her 12 year old boyfriend, which would not be statutory rape. More likely, it would have been an older man. If it happened to be a close relative, her family might have hushed it up, or she might have hushed it up. Either way, this would be parent-doctor confidentially. I really, really hate the idea of the guy getting away with it.

 

[SeaCat]

Cat, Mr. Kline, the DA in Kansas makes your Florida DA's request for unedited records seem reasonable -- In fact your DA probably got the idea from Kline's repeated failures to get the same kind of information from Planned Parenthood and any clinic that performs abortions.

Contrary to Mr. Kline's interpretation, underage sexual activity does NOT automatically mean that Statuatory Rape has occured under Kansas law and the Kansas supreme court and federal courts have told him that several times.

However, with an election coming up next week, I'm not at all surprised that Mr Kline is spouting his hypocritical "it's for the children's protection" line again -- from someone else, I might not consider it hypocritical, but Mr. Kline has along history of saying one thing and doing something else.

OKay,

I see I edited out one part of my comment. The part where I said that while this was interesting it did tell only one part of the story. (My mistake.) I would like to see the other side.

It also raises an interesting question, and one that I have raised her before. Does the Impregnation of a 14 year old Girl by a 13 or 14 year old Boy, (Yes it is physiologicaly possible,) Constitute Rape under any name?

Cat

 

[Pure]

To Oblimo

How the Hell can a Randian be Pro-Life?

A minority of Randians are pro life; i don't know the size of the minority, but one can google some of their articles. Amicus is not the only one.

They simply say (oh my!) Rand got things wrong in her views and her 'pro choice' stance. Rand (correctly) pointed out the simple point that a potential something is NOT an actual something. An acorn is not an oak tree; an embryo is not a person (full fledged human being).

Needless to say, she styled her argument as rational and objectively correct.

Further she believed generally in women being autonomous and making choices (this obviously applies especially where no other person is involved; i.e. in private matters like birth control).

Later in her life she did-- like many of us-- express reservations about the very late fetus. After all it's pretty much like a baby. But she never changed her basic stand. IOW she was contemplating limits to very late abortions.

 

[Pure]

Answer to seacat

It also raises an interesting question, and one that I have raised her before. Does the Impregnation of a 14 year old Girl by a 13 or 14 year old Boy, (Yes it is physiologicaly possible,) Constitute Rape under any name?

Many if not most states have exemptions [to laws about sex with 'underage' persons], styled as 'romeo and juliet' or 'near in age' exceptions (i.e the male is no more than 3 [or 5] years older). So there is no crime in such cases of consensual sex. After all, 15 year olds-- and formerly 14 year olds--could marry in some states.

Probably more states, informally, have such exemptions, based on the juries' unwillingness to jail a 'romeo' or 'juliet.'

 

[Boxlicker101]

OKay,

I see I edited out one part of my comment. The part where I said that while this was interesting it did tell only one part of the story. (My mistake.) I would like to see the other side.

It also raises an interesting question, and one that I have raised her before. Does the Impregnation of a 14 year old Girl by a 13 or 14 year old Boy, (Yes it is physiologicaly possible,) Constitute Rape under any name?

Cat

I think most states exclude such occurences from the definition of "statutory rape". Otherwise, you would have the ludicrous situation of both of them being both victim and perpetrator. Usually, they would probably just prosecute the boy, but what if he was 12 and she was 15? Being that much older might make her more culpable.

 

[sister76]

The Oregon coast is getting the first autumn storm with gale force winds as I stepped outside to smoke and watch the weather. I wondered why only Sea Gulls were still flying about in the 40 knots winds and was going to maybe compose a lil thing for here.

But on the way back to the computer, I paused to watch a news item about 10 and 11 year old pregnant girls getting abortions in Kansas…I caught just the tail end of the story so I searched: Kansas Kline teenage abortions…

http://www*****news.com/state1179.html

"Child rape is a serious crime, and when a 10-year-old is pregnant, she has been raped under Kansas law," Kline has said. "As the state's chief law enforcement official, I have a duty to investigate in order to protect Kansas children."

Kansas law requires medical personnel to report suspicions of statutory rape to authorities and bans abortions conducted after 22 weeks of pregnancy unless there is a serious health threat for the mother.

In 2004, 79 girls under the age of 15 had abortions in Kansas….”

~~~

My anti-abortion position is well known here, so I won’t belabor the point, however, there are several articles on the matter under those keywords…find one that suits your fancy.

Amicus…

Are you anti-abortion for a 10-year-old rape victim? Just curious, 'cause if you are anti abortion for this you probably would be anti abortion under any circumstances.

I will say I am anti-abortion for myself. I would probably not have an abortion. The thought is repulsive to me. But, I do not think it should be outlawed for anyone to have an abortion.

If someone wants to have an abortion in the very early stages of a pregnancy who are you to say they need to keep it?

 

[Pure]

here's a ref.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/homlaws10.htm

In commenting on the conviction of a Matthew Limon, a gay person, in Kansas, the Kansas Supreme Court, June 2003, said that

If Limon had been caught engaging in sex with a young woman of that age, he would have been tried under the state's "Romeo and Juliet Law." It gives minimal sentences to cases of this type -- typically 13 to 15 months in jail. But that law only applies to opposite-sex encounters. [more exact wording is at ## below]

In other words, gay underage pairs should not face harsher penalties on that basis alone.
===

Decision is at
http://www.kscourts.org/kscases/supct/2005/20051021/85898.htm


Matthew Limon argues that the United States Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 156 L. Ed. 2d 508, 123 S. Ct. 2472 (2003), requires this court to find the statute unconstitutional because it results in a punishment for unlawful voluntary sexual conduct between members of the opposite sex that is less harsh than the punishment for the same conduct between members of the same sex.

##The statute subject to this challenge, commonly referred to as the Romeo and Juliet statute, applies to voluntary sexual intercourse, sodomy, or lewd touching when, at the time of the incident, (1) the victim is a child of 14 or 15; (2) the offender is less than 19 years of age and less than 4 years older than the victim; (3) the victim and offender are the only ones involved; and (4) the victim and offender are members of the opposite sex. K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 21-3522. Limon's conduct meets all of the elements of the Romeo and Juliet statute except the one limiting application to acts between members of the opposite sex.

---

P: apparently Texas also has such an exemption.

 

[Explaura]

This is such a sad situation.
I am not even quite sure what I think about it. On the one hand, child rape is reprehensible. People who do it should be held accountable. However, The thought that immediately comes to my mind is that often, when little girls get pregnant, its their father who is responsible. I personally know at least 2 girls who were in this situation before they were 13. I wonder if, in this situation, the fathers beleived that they were in legal danger if they had the baby aborted, and knew that the medical system would ask questions also, if the girls would even get adequate care. Or would they get an amature abortion? What would a daughter raping scumbag do, faced with this situation..? I can't imagine it would be in the best interest of the girl.

With that in mind, I guess I can see how PP wants to keep neutral, and stand between the government and their idealogically based policies, and the girls who have to deal with the reality and repercussions of being the ones in a powerless position.

But I guess the reality is, that until age 18 (mostly) girls are the responsibility of their parents, and their parents must be allowed to excersize that responsibility without the interference of the government. Also, if this responsibility is being abused parents shouldn't just get away with it. But, there are so many reasons why it can't be up to the children to get something done if there is abuse. What is the answer? I can't think of one..

Part of me thinks that PP should get with the program and report.. Victims will suffer but it will be the sole fault of the abuser. Noone will have failed the little girls but them. If fathers rape or beat their kids, well.. Terrible things do happen, everywhere..

The other part of me says, the world isn't black and white and the emphasis shouldn't be on abstract moral imperatives, but on easing the plight of those girls in need. But, is failing to condem evil the same as condoning it? Isn't condoning it a little bit like encouraging it? PP obviously thinks no. I am again.. not sure.

Overall, I say the best plan is to reach out to people in our communites and be aware, incase the opportunity arrises to help prevent abuse from the end of the abuser or the victim.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Blah, blah, blah. Has anyone actually checked how many of these 79 girls under the age of 15 were actually raped? Or even how many of them were statutorily raped? Or how many of them were mentally and physically mature enough to consent to sex regardless of the law?

Let's just throw the words "child rape" into the mix and see what happens.

 

[Pure]

lauren,

as a couple posters suggest, and i had forgotten, the point is to access the clinic medical records for material to use against the clinic (showing it condones crimes against minors) or to embarrass its users. (and deter future users, re confidentiality).

 

[Lauren Hynde]

lauren,

as a couple posters suggest, and i had forgotten, the point is to access the clinic medical records for material to use against the clinic (showing it condones crimes against minors) or to embarrass its users. (and deter future users, re confidentiality).

And my point is that to throw the expression "child rape" into the mix without any context, only has one purpose.

 

[Tuomas]

10 years old? Wait, there are people here who say it's OK for this girl to undergo an extremely invasive, possibly life-threatening operation without the knowledge or consent of her parents/guardian? And there are people who think that the rapist should get away with it so as to "hush" the crime?

Blah, blah, blah. Has anyone actually checked how many of these 79 girls under the age of 15 were actually raped? Or even how many of them were statutorily raped? Or how many of them were mentally and physically mature enough to consent to sex regardless of the law?

Let's just throw the words "child rape" into the mix and see what happens.

I was thinking the same thing...

 

[FallingToFly]

Hells Bells...

10 years old and pregnant should be an automatic abortion and removal of the children into foster care while the investigation by DCF is conducted, IMO. (And no, I will not argue with anyone about it, it's my opinion, so shove off) I had three kids, all delivered in the normal way, and two of them without drugs (epidurals are not all they're cracked up to be)- you want a ten-year-old to go through that?

I am so glad I don't have girls... my oldest is seven, and if he were a girl I'd be contacting a friend of mine for a chastity belt. As it is I'm thinking about sending him to a monastery to finish out his schooling...

Hells.. babies having babies. How can anyone NOT see that as an abomination, regardless of how the pregnancy occured? Either their parents weren't doing their job and RAISING the child, or there's something screwy going on.

Chastity belts, I say! Everyone under the age of 16- put them in cast-iron CHASTITY BELTS!

[/random rantings]

 

[Guest]

The true issue at stake in this situation was that Kline was seeking open access to ALL women's medical records.

Shortly after he took office as Attorney General in 2003 he began investigating several clinics across the state where abortions were performed. He later issued subpoenas for the records of 90 females, saying he wished to further investigate and perhaps prosecute. It was, in effect, a fishing expedition.

But he was turned down in February of this year by the Kansas Supreme Court. The decision was held as a rebuke of Kline's anti-abortion stance as well as a triumph for privacy concerns for women.

His true intentions, many feel, were to halt legal and safe care services for women across the state and insert his political agenda into the state's judicial system. There have been no arrests and no prosecutions, and this entire situation has angered many Kansans over privacy rights.

 

[Weird Harold]

The true issue at stake in this situation was that Kline was seeking open access to ALL women's medical records.

...There have been no arrests and no prosecutions, and this entire situation has angered many Kansans over privacy rights.

I can only hope that he's angered enough Kansana to vote him out of office -- and that he hasn't poisoned the whole issue to the point where his successor can't do anything to protect pregnant ten-year-olds.

 

[Guest]

I can only hope that he's angered enough Kansana to vote him out of office -- and that he hasn't poisoned the whole issue to the point where his successor can't do anything to protect pregnant ten-year-olds.

Agreed.

 

[Guest]

I can only hope that he's angered enough Kansana to vote him out of office -- and that he hasn't poisoned the whole issue to the point where his successor can't do anything to protect pregnant ten-year-olds.

Bumped -

Because Kline just lost. He just conceded, and Morrison is currently giving his victory speech.

Thank God.