T.R. Rowe’s Pro-Life, Pro-Woman Bill
January 18th, 2007 by Peter
A pro-life stalwart and member of FIC’s legislative advisory council is proposing a state law to require abortion clinics to report suspected rape cases to local law enforcement agencies. From a print edition-only article in today’s Republican-American:
Trumbull Rep. T.R. Rowe sponsored a bill to require abortion clinics to determine if a person seeking an abortion is under age 18.
If that is the case, the legislation mandates that abortion providers inform local law enforcement and requires police to investigate if a sexual assault has occurred. The bill is before the Judiciary Committee.
A few years ago a pro-life group called a Connecticut abortion clinic pretending to be an underage girl seeking an abortion. When she said she was impregnated by an adult the clinic employee replied that he would pretend he did not hear the man’s age. It seems there is a need for T.R.’s bill.
Pro-abortion lobbyists seeking to force Catholic hospitals to provide abortifacients to sex assault victims say their goal is to help the victims, not attack the religious freedom of those hospitals. But if they are all about helping the victims shouldn’t these same lobbyists support T.R.’s pro-life, pro-woman bill?
It is great to see that we have such a strong ally in the Legislature as we do with Rep. T.R. Rowe and a few others. We should keep an eye on those willing to co-sponsor his bill.
Those who oppose this bill would seem to be making the point that giving birth to a child is worse than rape – or at least that statutory rape is not a serious crime.
We heard so often in last year’s debate about “Plan B” chemical abortions about concern for victims of rape. That “Plan B” supporters would oppose this bill demonstrates that, for them, maintaining unlimited access to abortion supercedes all other concerns.
If opponents are against the bill because of medical privacy concerns, there are already reporting requirement for medical providers such as reporting of gunshot wounds.
There may be another option which may have a similar effect of exposing statutory rape – parental notification of a minor’s intention to seek an abortion. A parent would be much more likely to pursue a rape complaint than a child looking to hide a sexual encounter.
These are rational and moderate proposals that are in effect elsewhere in the nation and can be supported by individuals of all political persuasions. It will be interesting to see how the media portrays this bill – or if it covers it at all.
So if someone goes into drug rehab, the rehab clinic should push the patient to disclose who their dealer is? Or if an illegal alien goes to the ER with a gunshot wound, the hospital is supposed to call the INS?
Sorry, that’s not the health care provider’s job. Plus it violates a patient’s right of privacy.
What happens in cases of incest? Should the victim only be allowed the abortion if she presses charges against her uncle or father?
Your argument negates the whole idea of advocacy. According to your logic, attorneys, accountants, etc. would need to answer to the state before their clients. Thankfully that’s not how America is structured.
If a patient turns up in a hospital with a gunshot wound, I think the hospital is required to report it to the police. The police are then required to apprehend the suspect, and the usual legal process ensues. The hospital is not required to report the incident to the INS, nor should it be. In a rape it is not only the body that is violated, but the victims will as well. A drug “victim” chooses his course; a rape victim doesn’t. So these are different categories of crimes. We want persons addicted to drugs to seek help, and so they should not be impeded by conditioning medical help on the identification of their dealers. How does it help a rape victim – especially if the person who violated them may repeat the act – to draw a veil over the person who harmed them? Here is the way America is structured: If you commit a crime of violence against an innocent under aged victim, you should be apprehended and punished. You will not be apprehended unless the crime is reported. That is why this bill makes sense.
I suspect the end goal of support for this bill is to discourage women from going to abortion clinics.
Chele,
I think you miss the point. This bill has nothing to do with women. This bill has to do with reporting the rape of a CHILD.
Gregg, I’m pretty sure you just completely missed Chele’s point… On purpose.
We need to support poticians such as T. R. Rowe who are supporting women and young girls through legislation. When did it become “out of the mainstream” for our representatives to advocate for minors in abusive relationships or for the unfortunate victims of sexual assault? Adults who assault and rape children should be identified and punished. Let’s not be distracted by false comparisons or claims of privacy issues.
Support Rowe and others who support families and legislation to protect children both the born and unborn.
At what age does a female child become a woman, Gregg?
Apparently Gregg has no answer. Alas.
No, but I did, yesterday, and it hasn’t posted yet for some reason. Leave your smugness at home, chele. It doesn’t become a grown adult, really.
I will try to post again what I posted yesterday, probably have to put it into smaller segments. Will get to that soon, I hope.
Statutory rape. That’s what we’re talking about here, folks. Not “forcible rape” which can be statutory but doesn’t have to be.
If you all would like to hear for yourself the audiotapes and read the transcripts of Planned Parenthood doing just what is referred to in this post, the links are all found here: http://afterabortion.blogspot.com/2005/12/sex-lies-and-audiotape-update-121605.html
That links to a story about Planned Parenthood boasting about hiding a rape of an 11-year old girl.
It also links to the audiofiles of the phone calls made to 73 Planned Parenthoods and 20 other abortion clinics in California alone (I believe they called over 800 clinics nationwide) that show how abortion clinics hide these instances of statutory rape as a matter of policy. If you don’t want to get all the corolloary info, you can just go straight to the audiotapes here, http://tapes.yeson73.net/
…
(cont)
Chele, allow me to answer your question to Gregg.
In Connecticut, anyone who has sexual relations or sexual contact with a person under age sixteen is engaging in and can be prosecuted for statutory rape, which is punishable by up to ten years in prison, and up to twenty years in prison if the victim is under age thirteen. The charge could be a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on several factors, including, but not limited to:If the victim is under age thirteen,
If the age difference between the two people is more than two years,
The extent of the sexual activity between the two people.Planned Parenthood chapters have long been in much hot water for not reporting this crime to police. They are required to do so; as far as I know.
Interestingly, this applies too if a girl under age 16 tries to buy Plan B or go to a hospital for a “rape kit.” If she hasn’t been statutory-raped, she wouldn’t need Plan B kit or rape kit.
So this goes for TrueBlueCT too: It IS part of the health care provider’s job.
…
The Child Welfare Information Gateway (formerly known as the National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information) explains that most states’ laws hold that anyone in a “public trust of a child” position (like teachers, nurses, doctors, clergy) must report when they learn of any sex crime against a child under 16. Some states require all people regardless of profession to report: Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming.” (NOTE how Connecticut ain’t one of them) http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/manda.cfm#backnotefour
http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/usermanuals/educator/educatorc.cfm includes statutory rape as one of the mandatory reporting instances. If the girl is pregnant (i.e. if she’s going to get an abortion), and under the age of 16, by law she is a victim of statutory rape whether the sex was consensual or not.
The organization also says, “In all other States, territories, and the District of Columbia, any person is permitted to report.” All those REQUIRED TO REPORT are called “mandatory reporters,” and that website gives more info here, http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/manda.cfm
…
“Individuals typically designated as mandatory reporters have frequent contact with children. Such individuals include:
Health care workers
School personnel
Child care providers
Social workers
Law enforcement officers
Mental health professionals”
That site used to say also that some states also mandate animal control officers, veterinarians, commercial film or photograph processors, substance abuse counselors, and firefighters to report abuse or neglect. It also said somewhere (they’ve changed their name and hence the URLs so it’s hard to find the new pages) “Four States–Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, and South Dakota–include domestic violence workers on the list of mandated reporters.”
The point is, abortion clinic workers and doctors are all “HEALTHCARE WORKERS.” I don’t know where you got the idea that they’re NOT obligated to report statutory rape and/or child abuse (which is what statutory rape is), but it isn’t and has never been accurate. This doesn’t negate the advocacy availability in the case of incest, but that’s the police’s and courts’ jobs to safeguard the child from the guilty family member, not the healthcare worker’s.
It is rather sarcastic to say that “I suspect the end goal of support for this bill is to discourage women from going to abortion clinics.”
Chele, you seem to prefer letting rapists of underage children go free then, to do it to more children and underage teens, just so that women won’t be discouraged from going to abortion clinics. Do you really think society ought to be that twisted in its priorities? How much more transparently abortion-protecting can one be than to totally jeopardize the safety of our children?
The end goal is to discourage men from statutory-raping children under the age of 16. Period.
And while I don’t have a daughter (I grievously regret aborting my only daughter 29 years ago), if I had a 17 year old daughter, I’d still want to know if she’d been forcibly raped as opposed to statutory-raped. It would appear, chele and TrueBlueCT, that neither of you are parents yet, or at least parents of daughters. Please, fellas, do us all here in Connecticut a big favor and get a little better educated first about all this before you say things to the whole wide world that are so clearly uninformed. (Perhaps I’m wrong to presume you’re male…I’ve been wrong before on that, but I’d be glad if you tell me if I am this time)
Oh, Gabe? It looks like all my comments above ought to have been addressed to you as well, since you chimed in rather smugly too.
I didn’t realize I had missed a question posed to me from Chele. I only discovered it today within another post. I’ll try to comment there as well.
Annie summed up the law quite well about who is covered under the laws of statutory rape. Thank you, Annie, for answering Chele’s question in my absence.
Chele’s comment about “discourag(ing) women from going to abortion clinics” is still completely irrelevant to the discussion of this bill. The bill only addresses situations of statutory rape – by definition a crime against a child.
Chele, are you still coming to this thread? Are you going to answer my questions here?
“Chele, you seem to prefer letting rapists of underage children go free then, to do it to more children and underage teens, just so that women won’t be discouraged from going to abortion clinics. Do you really think society ought to be that twisted in its priorities? How much more transparently abortion-protecting can one be than to totally jeopardize the safety of our children?”
And notably, sadly, still no response from Truebluect or Gabe.
I suppose I could be snide and say, “Apparently Truebluect or Gabe have no answer. Alas.”
You could, or you could note the fact that you called me smug a full five days after I posted. If I hadn’t maniaclly searched through old posts (on a different page no less!) to find out why you kept referring to me not answering you when I thought we had never engaged until today (the 16th of February 2007), I would never have seen this post!
That said, I wouldn’t call it smug to point out that Gregg changed the subject away from Chele’s point and tried to reframe the debate. If I was Chele, I would be smug, but since I just watched it happen, I am simply snarky. Ah, to be smug…
Oh, and I just noticed that Gregg answered, so I retract my snarkiness as well! Now I am just Gabe, without rhetorical flourish. So sad.
Gregg – Wouldn’t that require them to share confidential medical records with a third party?
For the record, I think this bill is 1,000,000 times better (literally) than the proposed policy of the (I think) KS AG, who wanted to impound the records of all women seeking abortions to figure out if any crimes had been committed…
– Calling someone “sarcasm-deficient”.
– Ridiculing someone for not posting on threads that are under a week old.
– Accusing someone of “completely miss[ing] Chele’s point… On purpose.”
– Asking snide, immature, yuk-yuk questions like “Do I have to get divorced if I get a vasectomy?”
– Quipping “and yes, I am oh so clever, thanks for noticing” and “My elementary school teachers do think I am adorable.”
– Holding an anti-Catholic double standard that one supports forcing Catholic doctors to give EC to a rape victim who might be pregnant but one refuses to accept that forcing a Muslim doctor to perform an abortion if it was after 120 days of pregnancy is as deeply grievous a respective religious restriction, therefore one wouldn’t demand the same severity of religious restriction of another religion, only the Catholics.
The definition of “smug” includes “self-important,” “self-satisfied.” Sarcastically said or seriously, your words and tone still drip those definitions.
If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, then it’s a duck.