This week, Washington is debating whether parents have a right to be involved in their teenage daughters’ lives. Now, if that daughter goes out with a gang and wrecks the neighborhood, the parents will be held liable. Yet, we have to debate whether parents should even know if their daughters are hiring abortionists to kill their grandchildren.
We live in a schizophrenic society. On one hand, our government, through the supposedly learned men and women of the U.S. Supreme Court, sanctions the killing of innocent children in the name of “choice.” On the other hand, state and federal officials often like to act as surrogate nannies, trying to tell parents how they should feed, educate, and raise their children.
This week, Washington is debating whether parents have a right to be involved in their teenage daughters’ lives. Now, if that daughter goes out with a gang and wrecks the neighborhood, the parents will be held liable. Yet, we have to debate whether parents should even know if their daughters are hiring abortionists to kill their grandchildren.
At issue is something called the Child Custody Protection Act. What it says is this: no one should be allowed to transport your daughter across state lines for a secret abortion.
Unfortunately, there are some unscrupulous characters out there—some of them, the parents of irresponsible boyfriends—who try to circumvent state parental notice laws on abortion by driving or busing a girl to a state that has no such law.
As you might expect, pro-abortion Democrats are doing their best to try to weaken not only the legislation, but the relationship between parent and child. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), for instance, thinks grandparents or clergy members should be able to transport girls out of state for abortions. Of course, one would have to ask why a grandparent would want their great-grandchild killed…or why a man or woman of the cloth would want to sanction child-killing, but we do live in a post-Roe world, after all.
As National Right to Life stated, “Among other problems, this means that anyone designated as ‘clergy’ would be empowered to take a minor girl out of state for a secret abortion—even if he is the sexual abuser who impregnated her, even if he is the leader of a dangerous cult, and even if he is affiliated with an abortion clinic.”
In the wake of the well-publicized clergy sex abuse scandal, it’s curious why any Senator would want to place a loophole in the law that would give special rights to sex abusers. But, again, we do live in a post-Roe world, where anything goes.
The most likely scenario, though, is that a clergy member who supports NARAL and Planned Parenthood would run a kind of abortion underground railroad, recruiting minor girls as clients for the abortion money-making machine. Since its founding, Planned Parenthood has attempted to align itself with clergy—particularly black clergy—in an effort to make its anti-life message more palpable to church-goers.
The Democrats are also pushing the idea that the Child Custody Protection Act should not apply to any minor who has an abortion “as a result of a pregnancy caused by an act of incest.”
That may sound reasonable enough, but consider this: an uncle or some other male relative who has gotten a girl pregnant could transport her to another state for an abortion without her parents’ knowing it. Again, another loophole for sex offenders. And I have to wonder, if your teenage daughter needs my consent to have her belly-button pierced, why shouldn’t I have some say when she is contemplating undergoing a procedure that can leave her physically and emotionally scarred for life?
After all, when these oh-so-well-meaning adults take a daughter out of state to abort her child, the parents will be left to deal with the aftermath: the daughter’s depression, possible suicide attempts, promiscuity, drug and alcohol abuse, and other problems linked to abortion. Her parents will be forced to pay the medical bills, foot the bill for the counseling sessions, and pay all the other costs associated with post-traumatic abortion syndrome.
Or should we just send the bills to Senator Feinstein or Senator Kennedy?
Nathan Tabor regularly appears on radio and is writing a book for Thomas Nelson Publishing. Nathan received his BA in psychology from St. Andrews Presbyterian College and his MA in public policy from Regent University.
In 2004, Nathan ran for Congress (NC5) in an eight-way primary. He raised over $850,000 and received over 7,500 votes in the most expensive primary in American history. Nathan's supporters included Dick Armey, Ed Meese, Steve Moore, Art Laffer, Pat Robertson, Bob Jones III, Congressman Robert Aderholt, Congressman Trent Franks, Congressman Jim Ryun, Beverly and Tim LaHaye, Mike Farris and many others. Dr. Jerry Falwell dubbed him the "young Jesse Helms."
Cover
•
Commentary
•
Books & Reviews
•
Climate Change
•
Site Links
•
Feedback
