Web sites can’t collect info on minors, but Florida wants all women,
including minors, to publish their sexual history in local newspapers before they’re allowed to give their child up for adoption. Abortions are difficult to get in Florida, almost impossible for some minors because of parental notification and permission requirements, yet wouldn’t this law push more women towards abortion rather than towards adoption?
I have so many issues with this law that I didn’t even know where to begin.
The issue of minors first: I really thought, although I’m having a difficult time finding case law to prove it, that minors enjoyed a certain higher level of privacy protection than did adults. For example, minor’s names are not usually used in newspaper reports when they are the victim of a crime, such as rape or incest.
This law, however, would force a minor to publicly release incredibly private information just because she chose *NOT* to have an abortion, and instead chose to give another family the chance to raise a baby. How f*cked up is that?
In Florida, a minor may not get an abortion unless she’s gone through the hoops of parental notification. Parents do have the right to stop a minor from getting an abortion…meaning that a minor could conceivably be *forced* into giving birth, forced into giving it up for adoption and forced into publishing her information in a public, searchable, permanent record…as newspapers are microfiched for ever. (So much for adoption confidentiality, no?)
I realize that this next sentence is rather dramatic…even for me, but
really…how many girls are going to try suicide or home-made abortions before they put themselves through all of that nonsense?
The situation is different, but not significantly better for women of “cross the state line” age. Assuming you have the money to get the hell out of Florida to either give birth or have an abortion, the law “theoretically” follows you if you chose to give
the child up for adoption and your still supposed to post public notices that you’ve given birth and there was this guy involved 9 months before.
Assuming a women may have the financial resources to go to another state for an abortion is a huge assumption in and of itself. I think we can safely assume that most women, when finding themselves with child, do not have the resources to relocate just so they can give birth.
This law is morally reprehensible, tactically unsound, draconian and possibly unconstitutional. It puts the rights of biological sperm donors above the rights of the woman who carries and gives birth to the issue of that donation…which is absurd.
Speaking as a 6 month pregnant woman, no man can ever understand what it is to feel a life quickening inside you…how many sleepless nights you spend thinking about what’s best for that child, the fluttering of their first kicks, the stretch marks, the morning sickness…and really…I’m guessing this part…but probably the agony of giving birth. (I’ve seen videos…it looks a tad painful. ouchies.)
‘m fortunate that with this pregnancy, I’m older, I’m stable, I’m financially prepared (well, as prepared as I’m ever going to get), I’m in a loving, long term marriage and we want this baby more than anything else in the world.
But for many woman, they don’t have those advantages…and yet some of those women rise above their own needs, and with
dignity and honor, carry a child to full term so that they can give joy to another family by letting them raise their little miracle.
Those women should be venerated, not abused. They should be able to walk through life knowing that they did a good thing, a selfless thing, a noble thing…not forced to publish their histories as though they were signing up for the Jerry Springer show.
This is not Victorian England, it isn’t Puritan America anymore and the Nathaniel Hawthorne’s of the world need to put away their stones and their scarlet letters and mind their own gardens instead of trying to tend their neighbor’s.