South Dakota throws down the gauntlet

[Philistine]

While I don't disagree with the majority of your post, a couple of caveats.

Originally Posted by Feltan

{snip}
In general, the states offer reciprocity on just about everything. You can get married at 14 in Kentucky, and other states (who's laws may differ) will recognize the marriage.

Not always. Though states can, and often do, recognize marriages which would not be allowed in their own state--they do not always do so. Especially on issues on consanguinity (e.g. states that do not recognize 1st cousin marriages may refuse to recognize a marriage from a state which does).

If abortion was allowed to be decided on a state-by-state basis, what is legal within one state cannot be prosecuted in another. For instatnce, you can go to a house of ill repute in Nevada, but when you go home to Iowa you will not be prosecuted even though it is illegal in Iowa.

Again--not necessarily.

As an example--the Mann Act would apply to someone transporting a minor across state lines and having sex with them, even if the minor was over the age of consent of the state they ended up in.

I don't think it at all farfetched to postulate a federal law criminalizing interstate travel for the purpose of abortion.

--Philistine

[keith]

Originally Posted by Philistine

I don't think it at all farfetched to postulate a federal law criminalizing interstate travel for the purpose of abortion.

....or even a federal law banning international travel for the purpose of abortion.

[wrdbrn]

So why can HIPPA be mandated federally? Look - abortion is not a decision that anyone WANTS to come to. Certianly as a regular form of birth control it is not feesable, hard on the body, and well there is a long list here.

In 1977 one of my first jobs was with a Bill Collection agency. We did a LOT of medical work. When you opened the "jackets" containing the charges you had to be able to explain to the consumer a myriad of things. What I learned is that there are women from as young as 12 who have used everything from a coathanger to ingesting cleaning chemicals inorder to end a pregnancy. I have yet to see any of this data posted in my esteemed fore-posters presentation. I also submit to you that we have not looked at incest and other deplorable behaviors. Or perhaps we need to discuss having day care readily available at the HS level -- social acceptance is a double edged sword alone.

Keeping the medical treatment of abortion safe and clean and informed is by far the better choice. I dont think that even having parents, or impregnators sign off or be notified is necessary. In many cases it can put the person in great danger.

I challenge you to dig a bit deeper in to the historical aspects of the original appoval. Afterall greater minds that ours have noted that those who forget their history are doomed to repeat it.

Sigh... no time for spell or grammer check... mail just dropped.... of to the daily grind.... ill be reading

[Feltan]

Originally Posted by Philistine

While I don't disagree with the majority of your post, a couple of caveats.



Not always. Though states can, and often do, recognize marriages which would not be allowed in their own state--they do not always do so. Especially on issues on consanguinity (e.g. states that do not recognize 1st cousin marriages may refuse to recognize a marriage from a state which does).



Again--not necessarily.

As an example--the Mann Act would apply to someone transporting a minor across state lines and having sex with them, even if the minor was over the age of consent of the state they ended up in.

I don't think it at all farfetched to postulate a federal law criminalizing interstate travel for the purpose of abortion.

--Philistine

Noted sir. I was speaking in general, with the expectation that there would be exceptions.

However, your final conclusion is one that I find troubling. Not so farfetched as to be unrealistic, but one that offends my republican (little r) sensibilities.

Regards,
Feltan

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by Philistine

I don't think it at all farfetched to postulate a federal law criminalizing interstate travel for the purpose of abortion.

--Philistine

IIRC, Ireland has (had?) a law banning foreign travel for the sake of abortion, and prosecuted/detained a young gal who went to/wanted to go to britain for that reason. I do not remember if they got her before or after her desired travel.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[PalmFrond]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

IIRC, Ireland has (had?) a law banning foreign travel for the sake of abortion, and prosecuted/detained a young gal who went to/wanted to go to britain for that reason. I do not remember if they got her before or after her desired travel.

If there is such a law (which I doubt - possibly the case you mentioned had something to do with the girl's age) then it is not enforced. Everyone who wants an abortion goes to Britain for the procedure. In fact, birth control clinics give information on travelling for an abortion which I'd say they would be prevented from doing if it were illegal.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

IIRC, Ireland has (had?) a law banning foreign travel for the sake of abortion, and prosecuted/detained a young gal who went to/wanted to go to britain for that reason. I do not remember if they got her before or after her desired travel.

It wasn't a law against travel--but an injunction was granted by a lower court when a 14 year-old suicidal rape victim wanted to travel to England for an abortion (with her parents). (Authorities had found out when the parents asked if the DNA from the aborted fetus could be used in a rape prosecution).

The injunction was overturned by the Irish Supreme Court which held that an abortion was allowed when there was a serious threat to life (which the girl's suicidal statements provided). IIRC, the girl actually miscarried before she could get an abortion.

Since then, in response, Ireland voted for a constitutional amendment which stated that the Irish prohibition on abortion does not trump the right to travel.

--Philistine

[Fencing Mom]

First Peter Pirate says liberals in the city are spending the tax money, then. . .

Originally Posted by Inquartata

but they do have a vested interest in seeing government grow and budgets increase. Traditionally very Democratic concepts.

WHOOOAAAA! What country have you two been living in for the past six years? No liberal Democratic administration has come anywhere close to the irresponsible, out-of-control spending of this administation. Stop believing the mythology and look at the cold hard facts.

Sorry to change the subject, but I just could not let those ridiculous untruths go unchallenged.

[Inquartata]

That this Administration has spent like sailor on liberty is very true. But the point is not that policymakers like to spend taxpayer money; pols and bureaucrats of both parties suffer from that malady. My remarks concerned PiratePeter's premise ( of pickled peppers ) that blue-collar workers tended to vote "conservative". I was pointing out that unions, those blue-collar leviathans, certainly do NOT lean conservative, but the other direction...

By and large Republicans generally---workers, voters, common citizens, not stakeholders in government---still believe in smaller government and fiscal restraint, and that most problems are best solved in the private sector rather than by government. Democrats by and large, and certainly the memberships of unions, both private and public---still seem to believe that social ills are best addressed by a government program---or a multitude of them---paid for by taxpayers at large ( or better still, by the "rich" ones )....

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by Philistine

And Peter, aren't you the one who usually complains about thread drift.....


--Philistine

Guilty as charged. Will try harder to restrain myself in the future.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by Philistine

It wasn't a law against travel--but an injunction was granted by a lower court when a 14 year-old suicidal rape victim wanted to travel to England for an abortion (with her parents). (Authorities had found out when the parents asked if the DNA from the aborted fetus could be used in a rape prosecution).

The injunction was overturned by the Irish Supreme Court which held that an abortion was allowed when there was a serious threat to life (which the girl's suicidal statements provided). IIRC, the girl actually miscarried before she could get an abortion.

Since then, in response, Ireland voted for a constitutional amendment which stated that the Irish prohibition on abortion does not trump the right to travel.

--Philistine

Thanks for sorting out the entire Ireland issue, and correcting my misrememberings.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[keith]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

By and large Republicans generally---workers, voters, common citizens, not stakeholders in government---still believe in smaller government and fiscal restraint, and that most problems are best solved in the private sector rather than by government.

Indeed they do, right up to the moment they are asked to pay for it. Government in general is unpopular with a large demographic in virtually all countries. The catch is that the specifics are often very popular. Which is why you tend not to hear of many politicians running on the platform of reducing government by cutting social security, medicare and medicaid. In the US those programmes are the government (well plus the military, the rest is pocket change).

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Democrats by and large, and certainly the memberships of unions, both private and public---still seem to believe that social ills are best addressed by a government program---or a multitude of them---paid for by taxpayers at large ( or better still, by the "rich" ones )....

...and yet when it's nuts on the block time Republicans drop the rhetoric and borrow from their kids.

[Feltan]

Originally Posted by keith

...and yet when it's nuts on the block time Republicans drop the rhetoric and borrow from their kids.

Interesting turn of a phrase.

I love my kids. But, if MY nuts are on the block, they better get their damn checkbooks out!

Regards,
Feltan