In Judith Warner's op-ed piece in today's New York Times (subscription required), she argues that the Child Custody Protection Act passed by the Senate this week will have unintended consequences up to and including horrible deaths of young teenage girls. Further, cold heartless "extreme right-wing ideologues" like myself are ". . .willing to sacrifice girls’ lives on the road to their greater goal of making Roe v. Wade a dead letter; empowering girls to take control of their bodies and their lives — through, for example, reality-based sex education and access to contraception — has never been high on [our] list of priorities."
Here is the bill as summarized by Warner:
"The new bill, the Child Custody Protection Act, like its even more draconian House counterpart, would make it illegal for any adult other than a parent to take a minor across state lines to get an abortion. If the bill makes it into law, an incest victim, a rape victim or any other vulnerable pregnant teen who lives in a state that requires parental notification for abortion will no longer be able to seek the help of, say, a grandma, if she’s too frightened or ashamed to tell her parents that she is pregnant."
The crux of Warner's argument is that victims of incest -- or even more, any girl whose parents are abusive (and Warner seems to imply that any parent who would not allow his or her daughter to have an abortion is abusive) -- need to have the option to get abortions without their parents' consent.
Ever since the Roe v. Wade decision came down from on high and normalized a demented, reprehensible practice, its defenders have appealed to the worst cases to justify it. If a person is intent on killing an unborn baby because the baby is the product of some form of abuse (rape, incest, etc.) -- so the argument goes -- it is best to do it in such a way that it minimizes the physical and psychological damage to the baby-killer(s).
In Warner's piece, she appeals to those of us who are "loving parents" not to hand over the daughters of abusive parents to said parents' control. She argues that the Senate bill subjects such girls to the predations of their family members:
"No one knows how many of these girls are incest victims, fleeing fathers or stepfathers or brothers or uncles who abuse them in families where there’s no one stepping forward to protect them."
I agree, we don't know. Further, we don't know how many baby's lives would be saved if underage girls who are pregnant because they've made a choice to be sexually active would inform their parents about both their choice to be sexually active and the consequence of that choice. We also don't know the full extent of the psychological and phsical damage caused by "safe," legal abortions. But we do know that the less restrictions there are on abortions, the more women choose to kill their babies. We do know that the vast majority of minors who are sexually active are in such a state of their own volition -- not as victims of rape or incest. And living in the St. Louis metro area, I know that when Planned Parenthood sends its vans from abortion-friendly Illinois over to abortion-disliking Missouri to pick up teenage girls and bring them back over here to kill their babies, PP is not doing it because they are concerned for the welfare or family-situation of the pregnant minors. They are doing it because PP's main source of funding is the massive amount of money they make by killing babies.
Warner concludes:
"For our society to deny these girls access to freedom from forced pregnancy, I believe, is to abuse them further. I don’t want to be a party to that abuse, and neither, I imagine, would most loving parents — if only they’d think to extend their kind caretaking beyond the borders of their own backyards."
I'm not moved. Helping a girl kill her baby doesn't solve anything. Enshrining baby-killing as an inalienable right for everyone who is sexually active doesn't make incest and rape go away. Committing violence against unborn babies doesn't undo the violence committed against the baby's mother by a rapist, be he the mother's father or some other relative or a complete stranger. And protecting parents' right to know about choices their children are making is not draconian.