Abortion Candidates

Archived Posts from this Category

November 11, 2007

Massachusetts Extends Abortion Buffer

Posted by Elena Carvin under Abortion, Abortion Candidates, Abortion Discussion, Abortion Law
1 Comment 

The State of Massachusetts legislature has given the approval Thursday, November 8, to a bill that mandates that Abortion protesters to stand at least 35 feet from Doctor’s offices and clinics that offer abortion services and private abortion care.

The present Govenor, Gov. Deval L. Patrick is expected to sign the legislation into law.

The bill, expected to be signed next week, will be the among the nation’s strictest state law requiring stable, fixed zones that protesters cannot enter around those reproductive health offices and clinics that offer abortions and reproductive care services.

The current law was enacted in 2000, declares that protesters cannot go within 6 feet of a person in an 18-foot zone outside the doors of an office that offers . The agencies responsible for protecting the zones have said it was difficult to enforce.

The bill passed the Senate unanimously on Thursday and the House in a 122-to-28 vote. There are 10 reproductive health offices in the state offer abortion care.

“The basic goal of the bill is to make sure patients and staff can enter reproductive health facilities without being obstructed, intimidated and harassed,” said Representative Carl M. Sciortino. Sciortino is a Democrat and is one of the bill’s sponsors. He also noted that “Current law is completely unenforceable and did not protect patients and staff the way it intended.”

Opponents of the new bill, in a typical response to laws protecting individuals from their ceaseless harassments, say the law will violate their freedom of speech.

The call for buffer zones started in 1994 after John C. Salvi III killed two women and wounded five other people at two offices offering abortion care in Brookline, Mass.

Colorado, Florida, and Montana have buffer zone laws similar to the current Massachusetts law. Interstingly, the country’s largest fixed buffer zone, 36 feet, is mandated in Melbourne, Fla.

 

November 5, 2007

The Alaska Supreme Court issued a decision . . .

Posted by Elena Carvin under Abortion, Abortion Candidates, Abortion Discussion, Abortion Law, Abortion Pill, Abortion Rights
[19] Comments 

On this past Friday the Alaska Supreme Court issued a decision overturning a state law allowing parents the right to agree to or deny abortions their minor teenager daughters may be considering. The state’s parental consent law has been tied up in court ever since the state legislature approved in in 1997. It is refreshing to hear that Alaska’s Supreme Court had the good intelligence to protect teenagers and allowing a path to their emancipation. In other words they would not be forced to carry a pregnancy and go through labor if they did not want to endure this process which may place their bodies in harm’s way.

The most important point here is that the rights of the individual outweigh the rights of other’s trying to impose their view on what that individual should or should not do with their body.

The court issued a 3-2 decision on the law stating that it denies a teenager her right to an abortion.

Both the majority and the two dissenting judges agree that parents should play a vital role in their children’s lives and health care decisions but the majority said parents should not have a veto power to override a teen’s decision to get an abortion.

Justices Walter Carpeneti and Warren Matthews issued dissents in the case and said the state legislature carefully balanced the right of parents and teenagers and said the measure “is the least restrictive alternative which will effectively advance the state’s compelling interests while protecting the child’s constitutional right.”

Information on providers who offer abortion care or the abortion pill can be found at a number of sites including Abortion.com and RU486.com. According to statistics from the state health department, there were 1,923 abortions in Alaska in 2006 and 126 were done on girls 17 or younger who would have been subject to the parental consent law.

The ruling is the second time the Alaska Supreme Court has weighed in on the parental consent law. In 2001, the justices ruled the measure invalid and cited the state’s privacy clause as the reason, despite any wording saying the clause was meant to uphold an unlimited right to abortion.

Hopefully, this can be seen as a positive step toward maintaining the right of an individual to choose privately the choices they make in their reproductive lives.

 

November 3, 2007

Abortion.com – A Resource

Posted by Elena Carvin under Abortion, Abortion & Religion, Abortion Candidates, Abortion Law, Abortion Rights
1 Comment 

It is difficult in the unbounded infinite internet to find a definitive source of anything, let alone, Doctor’s to provide Abortion services. One visiting Abortion.com (http://www.Abortion.com) will discover several hundred providers of abortion and reproductive services.

The Doctor’s offices listed in this very special directory are either (or both) members of A) The National Abortion Federation (NAF) and/or B) The National Coalition of Abortion Providers (NCAP). The former performs inspections of and validates the providers by a wide variety of processes. Providers, Medical & Surgical doctors, on Abortion.com have been licensed by their respective State licensing boards. The majority are board certified Obstetricians & Gynecologists. In a world where one has great difficulty validating who their doctor is, it is a relief to know that there is validation by 1) The state licensing boards, 2) Independent organizations, often nonprofit, NAF, NCAP, and The Abortion Conversation Project. These organizations often have as their sole mission the advocacy of reproductive rights and routinely defend the rights of women for their self determination on a daily basis.

One should be thankful that such organizations exist as so few individuals are actively seeking the protection of our civil liberties in this fashion.

 

November 3, 2007

The Human Advocate

Posted by Elena Carvin under Abortion, Abortion & Religion, Abortion Candidates, Abortion Discussion, Abortion Law, Abortion Pill, Abortion Rights
[3] Comments 

Regarding the inalienable right of an individual to maintain the privacy and control of their body, specifically in the realm of reproductive advocasy, we may always find a historically relevant perspective paraphrased from Ms. Margaret Sanger.

We maintain that a person possessing an adequate functional fund of knowledge of their reproductive anatomy and functionality is the finest judge of the time, circumstance & conditions under which their pregnancy should be managed. We continue to assert that it is the right, regardless of all and any other considerations, to ascertain if they will have a child or not, and how many children they will decide to bring into the world if they choose to decide to become a parent . . . Only upon a free, self-determining individual can lay the foundation for any unshakable structure of gender betterment.

 

« Previous Page