November 7, 2004


Florida abortion activists regroup after referendum loss (Sean Salai, November 6, 2004, Boca Raton News)

South Florida abortion activists are regrouping this weekend after decisively losing a referendum on parental notification in Tuesday’s general election.

Amendment 1, which passed by more than two million votes, authorizes the Florida legislature to require that abortion providers notify parents when their underage daughters are considering an abortion. But the south Palm Beach and Broward Counties chapter of Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, has vowed to organize a grassroots effort to fight the state constitutional amendment.

The Left never sounds more divorced from American reality than when they claim that a conservative Court overturning Roe v. Wade and returning abortion law to the states is the issue that will bring them back to power.

Posted by Orrin Judd at November 7, 2004 7:13 PM

"vowed to organize a grassroots effort to fight the state constitutional amendment"

Better be a heckuva grassroots movement to overcome a two million vote deficit.

Posted by: Fred Jacobsen (San Fran) at November 7, 2004 8:16 PM

Mr. Jacobsen: I think that is code for "recruit activist liberal justices to our side."

Posted by: Buttercup at November 8, 2004 6:26 AM

While I would have voted against the parental notification law, because I feel that the parents for whom this is necessary have abjected failed at their duties or in many cases have abandoned their daughters to the schools and government and that someone who is a parent in the biological sense only is beneath contempt, mine is a minority position.

Further, the notion that one should go to the mattresses on this issues is just loopy. That bilge may sell in the Hamptons or in South Beach but not in 99% of Florida. Moreover, the notion that we need a national standard, a la Roe v Wade, is even dopier. I can think of no issue, or group of issues, like that of abortion which more merits the application of different approaches among the states.

Posted by: Bart at November 8, 2004 6:36 AM


Strange that it passed statewide in a swiong state then. Sometimes it's just easierb to admit you're wrong.

Posted by: oj at November 8, 2004 7:32 AM

Note the use of the term "abortion advocates" to mean those who, um, advocate abortion.

Posted by: David Cohen at November 8, 2004 7:38 AM


I clearly stated that mine is a minority position and that I thought it is an issue to be left to the states.

Posted by: Bart at November 8, 2004 7:43 AM

Bart: Have a daughter and you'll see how long your position lasts.

I find it disturbing that if my daughter got pregnant by an older man, wished to hide the possibly illegal relationship from me and her father (adolescents are notorious for 1) not wanting to get in trouble and 2) not being capable of adult decisions) that is okay. Shouldn't the laws be working with parents to help kids. If it is a question of incest (say a father abusing the daughter) who is best served by covering up the relation? Who is best served in covering up teenage sex? It isn't the girl's best interest at stake here.

Posted by: Buttercup at November 8, 2004 8:24 AM


You've droned on endlessly about how voters reject abortion restrictions.

Posted by: oj at November 8, 2004 8:29 AM

That last statement would better read that the girl's best interest are not served by enabling her to get an abortion with out notifying the parent. Libertarians (I'm not saying Bart is one but I get the flavor of it in his posts) love to say as far at the culture goes that it is my responsibility alone (no help from the society) to curb what amoral forces are out there (the typical "you and only you control what your child sees on tv...etc.") but are quick to take away my parental authority regarding surgery and a major life choice for my underage daughter. You guys want it both ways!

And, this probably is a little too cynical for this forum,(you can always flame me!) but the girl's the loser. The guy who helped bring about the pregnancy and now gets off the hook is not. Methinks that self interest is the dictating principle.

Posted by: Buttercup at November 8, 2004 8:32 AM


Parental notification is not a restriction. It is an attempt to chill the child from getting an abortion, through the use of shame and/or guilt. If the child were capable of foresight, she would not be pregnant in the first place. Do we really want these people to bring their babies to term when they have no means of supporting them, and certainly lack the emotional maturity to have kids?


I'd prefer for abortions to be unnecessary, for our culture to become ethical enough and smart enough so that people dont' see it as an option.

Perhaps, I was raised differently from most people. I never acted out in public. I learned early on about matters like etiquette and courtesy. My parents and I have a free and easy manner in discussions about personal topics. I never felt a need to hide anything of significance from them. Certainly, I don't trust them completely but I don't trust anyone but my dog. My father taught me about contraception when I was in my late pre-teens and has always been surprised/disappointed at my relative disinterest in sexual matters. So, all this sneaking and skulking around concerning serious matters is totally foreign to me. It strikes me as the product of failed parenting. Impulsive behavior is almost always unwise and should be discouraged as early as possible.

Posted by: Bart at November 8, 2004 12:17 PM

Funny you should link Roe V Wade and Tora Bora when the aftermath of the first has chipped away at my respect for women to the point it's now somewhere below The Handmaid's Tale and The Taliban.

Posted by: Ken at November 8, 2004 12:34 PM


Ha! good one--you're in a Blue denial.

Posted by: oj at November 8, 2004 3:30 PM

Bart: I'm glad your parents raised you well, I'd still prefer to know about what is going on with my daughter, thank you.

So glad you have parenting all figured out. Don't be so smug around your friends, though. They'll barely contain their glee if your children turn out to be human.

Hey, in your response to Mr. Judd, you say that they lack the emotional maturity to have kids. Guess what? You just described 99.9% of people who have kids.

Posted by: Buttercup at November 8, 2004 10:22 PM

The reason Roe v Wade became a civil war-sparking hot button on the level of slavery is the way it came about -- By Supreme Court Decree (five-to-four?). That added the resentment of being forced on us by Decree from On High, something that has always rankled Americans.

If abortion laws had changed gradually over time through normal state-level legislative means, you'd have still seen objections, but nowhere near this level of resentment.

Posted by: Ken at November 9, 2004 5:02 PM