No Restriction is Too Small - How the Supreme Court Enables Child Rapists

This was posted by John Bambenek from Ravings of John C. A. Bambenek. Original post here.

No restriction is too small for the Supreme Court to rule unconstitutional if it prevents a raped 9 year old from getting an abortion to cover up for her rapist. No restriction can be allowed to prevent minors from having abortions.

In all things, until you are 18, you are a child with parents who make decisions for you. You can't get a tattoo, you can't choose your school, you can't get a credit card, you can't even go on a school field trip unless your parents say ok. But if you want an abortion, and only if you want an abortion, are you suddenly charged with power to make your own decisions. This is the kind of judicial stupidity imposed upon society by the juristocracy.

Of course, the ACLU is trying to overturn this law. The heroes of freedom at the ACLU want to make sure that all child predators are free and clear when it comes to impregnating kids and getting away with it (* see footnotes). Planned Parenthood even glorifies young girls dating (and having sex with) older men on their own website for kids.

- Sources that indicate as the age of the impregnanted girl goes down, the age of the father goes up.

· Males M, Chew K, "The Ages of Fathers in California Adolescent Births, 1993," American Journal of Public Health, 1996, 86(4):565-568

· Males, "Adult involvement in teenage childbearing and STD," The Lancet, 1995, 346:64-65.

· Montfort, Sue, Brick, Peggy. Unequal Partners, Second Edition. The Center for Family Life Education, Planned Parenthood of Greater northern New Jersey, Inc.: Morristown, NJ, 2000.

Article tags

Spread the word
Bookmark and Share
Profile image for john-bambenek

Article Author: John Bambenek

John Bambenek is a freelance columnist and author. His first technical book is the grep Pocket Reference. He is a digitial forensics expert and owns his own cybercrime consulting firm, Bambenek Consulting.

Visit John Bambenek's author pageJohn Bambenek's Blog

Read comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own
  • No image found

Article comments

  • 1 - bhw

    May 24, 2005 at 12:23 am

    Planned Parenthood even glorifies young girls dating (and having sex with) older men on their own website for kids.

    Do you actually read the web sites you write about, or do you just make shit up willy-nilly?

    Here's what the site says about girls and older men:

    Best Friend Question #1: Isn't dating an older guy illegal?

    Yes â€" if he's above your state's age of consent, and you are below it, and you have sex, it's called statutory rape, and he could be sent to jail. Even if you say you were willing, the law says you are not mature enough to give legal consent.

    Best Friend Question #2: Isn't dating an older guy risky?

    * He's more sexually experienced

    He's been around. You're thinking, "He can transport me to ecstasy. He can teach me the ins and outs (so to speak) of sex." On the other hand, he's been with a heap of partners. Increasing the chance he'll pass on "the gift that keeps on giving" â€" a sexually transmitted infection.

    He might also expect too much. You could end up as a victim of date rape, used, abused, and possibly pregnant.

    * He's powerful

    Older Guy has more money and strength than you do. That's very manly, no? But come to think of it, that makes you the weaker one. Ever hear the phrase "balance of power"? When a relationship isn't evenly balanced, it can mean trouble. Trouble, as in bullying. As in, "I never use a condom." Or even dating violence.

    * He doesn't have to answer to anyone

    Independence can be a great thing. But it also means your parents, friends, and teachers don't know Mr. O.G. A guy who's not part of your circle might feel less accountable for how he treats you.

    Drugs and alcohol are easily available to him. Being drunk or high is often an aspect of rape and other abuse cases. And don't forget, it's hard to make responsible choices when you're not sober.

    Best Friend Question #3: What red flags should you watch for?

    * He treats females disrespectfully. He calls women "hos" or "sluts." Watch out.

    * There's gossip that he's been violent. Sometimes where there's smoke, there really is fire. Be very cautious.

    * He dates younger girls only. Way older guys who only date young girls may be immature, unsuccessful with women, or so self-centered they need to be admired by someone who will be in awe of them.

    * He doesn't want to hang around with your family and friends. Ask yourself, "Why?"

    * He pressures you to do anything that makes you feel unsafe or weirded-out.

    * He tries to keep you from being with people you care for, or from doing things you enjoy.

    * You either don't have a father, or have a poor relationship with him â€" which ups your chance of being vulnerable to older guys.

    * He doesn't have friends or interests outside of you. Scary, huh?

    So are all older guy/younger girl relationships dangerous, harmful, and sick? Of course not. But the potential dangers should make anyone very cautious. But then, you already knew that. After all, you're the one who did all that research.


    Obviously, the site is warning girls about the dangers of dating and having sex with older men.

    Let's see...any other misrepresentations in your post? Oh yes, this bit that implies the SC has made a ruling about 9-year-olds getting abortions to cover up for their rapists.

    Here's what's really happening: the SC has agreed to hear a case challenging a NH parental notification law. The challenge to the law comes from the fact that there's no medical exception written into the law: if a girl's life or health are in danger, she might have to wait 48 hours before treatment under this law.

    The SC hasn't ruled on anything -- they've just agreed to hear the case.

    I have an idea. Why don't you try representing the facts accurately? Just once. Go ahead. It doesn't hurt. Honest.

  • 2 - gonzo marx

    May 24, 2005 at 12:30 am

    bhw gets a cookie for launching the twin torpedos of Fact and Logic and hulling the floundering ship of this "Article" at the waterline...

    enjoy the cookie bhw..

    you've earned it

    this has been a public service announcement, we now return you to your regularily shceduled programming

    Excelsior!

  • 3 - bhw

    May 24, 2005 at 12:32 am

    Yum!

  • 4 - Steve S

    May 24, 2005 at 1:56 am

    The heroes of freedom at the ACLU want to make sure that all child predators are free and clear when it comes to impregnating kids and getting away with it

    Planned Parenthood even glorifies young girls dating

    Do people really buy this shit?

  • 5 - SFC SKI

    May 24, 2005 at 8:46 am

    Nice rebuttal, bhw.

    I have a nine-year old daughter, so I am very interested in laws protecting children, especially females.

    If Planned Parenthood oversteps its bounds, you haven't proven it here. Posting a bunch of ill informed opinion does nothing to advance a solution to a problem.



  • 6 - John Bambenek

    May 24, 2005 at 8:59 am

    1) I linked to a study that shows that Planned Parenthood does NOT report child sex abuse. There are ongoing investigations in Kansas and Indiana that say basically Planned Parenthood doesn't believe they should HAVE to report because of privacy.

    2) I provided references that show that as the age of the teen mother goes down, the age of the father goes up.

    Ill informed? What information do I need? Why 30 year olds having sex with 12 year olds is a good thing? Why that in every other respect the parents make decisions for a child except in the case of abortion?

    What am I missing here?

    And the point wasn't to advance a solution, it was to point to a problem that isn't on anyone's radar

  • 7 - SFC SKI

    May 24, 2005 at 9:10 am

    I was referring to your assertion that Planned Parenthood ENCOURAGES sex. If you are going to make unfounded statements like this, automatically everything else you assert becomes suspect.
    If you are going to link to a study, I'd recommend you tell the reader what part of the study you are trying to make a point on, it wasn't clear from just following the link.

    NO one here has condoneed 30 year olds having sex with 12 yearr olds, or 9 year olds either.




  • 8 - Shark

    May 24, 2005 at 10:31 am

    This guy Bambi-Neck doesn't even deserve a response. His posts should be shunned by commentors so that they'll quickly disappear off the 'front page' of BC.

    They're an embarrassment to Blogcritics, and all domesticated bipeds everywhere.

    Sorry for the paradox! I had to post this to encourage others not to post.

    xxoo
    Shark (Robin Hood meets Simon Cowell)

  • 9 - John Bambenek

    May 24, 2005 at 8:43 pm

    Thanks for the constructive feedback.

Add your comment, speak your mind

Personal attacks are NOT allowed.
Please read our comment policy.
Please preview your comment.

blogcritics lists for May 21, 2013

fresh articles Most recent articles site-wide

fresh comments Most recent comments site-wide

most comments Most comments in 24hrs

top writers Most prolific Blogcritics for April

top commenters Most prolific Commenters in 24 hrs