A Minor Discrepancy
Michigan Proposal 3 and Cali. SB107 as Child Mutilation Without Parental Consent
In Michigan the pro-choice lobby denied allegations that the agenda behind Prop 3 is to target children for genitalia mutilation without parental consent. I am documenting the claims.
My best friend was upset I made this claim; he is correct that my exact allegation is not provable in expressed terms but by viewing the issue in context I defend my position.
“The American Medical Association, the Society for Adolescent Medicine, the American Public Health Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and other health professional organizations are in agreement against mandatory parental involvement in abortion decision making., Activists must be in solidarity with them against the harmful parental involvement restrictions that can put their health and well-being at risk. -Advocatesforyouth.org Abortion and Parental Involvement Laws (president Debra Houser holds a Masters in Public Health in Population Planning)
My argument is that psychoactive drugs are the thin end of the wedge toward the Globalist agenda as assisted suicide for terminal patients culminates in euthanasia for the homeless. I won’t claim the weed is objectively evil but instead that the promoters of these movements are bad actors and they have the power to impose these onto the naive masses.
Morality
Princeton Professor Liz Harman claims: “[all early fetuses] already did have moral status then. But we had moral status and virtue in our futures, in virtue of the fact that we were in the beginning stages of persons. But some early fetuses will die early in pregnancy, either due to abortion or miscarriage, and in my view, that’s a very different kind of entity; that’s something that doesn’t have a future as a person, and it doesn’t have a moral status.”
My immediate thought is who can know if a child will survive and to what arbitrary age do we make these designations, 9 weeks or 18 years? What constitutes a future, financial security or physical attractiveness? And what doesn’t, a speech impediment? We also know a post-modern can’t adopt value judgments (what is moral status?) while denying universals, this is evidence of cognitive dissonance or intellectual dishonesty.
Lia Mills at LifeSiteNews responds to Liz: “What about those scenarios where a fetus has no foreseeable future, where the abortion has already taken place, and yet, for whatever reason the child miraculously survives?… Will you stick to your argument and that, because the mothers of these children intended for them to die and therefore did not give them the precious gift of moral status, these men, women, and children are still without moral status and therefore any abuse or attack they endure is of no moral consequence?.. Women have neither the right nor the responsibility to regulate personhood. Person hood ultimately rests entirely on humanity.Couldn’t one argue then that infanticide is morally justifiable so long as the mother chooses not to give moral status to that child…”
Mary Curtis for the Washington Post in ‘After-birth abortion’: Can they be serious? Reports on Alberto Guibilini and Francesca Minerva
“We claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk,”,“The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual., we also need to consider the interests of the mother, and the ability or disability of the newborn is not the issue because “having a child can itself be an unbearable burden for the psychological health of the woman or for the already existing children, regardless of the condition of the fetus”
After public criticism they backpedal on their controversial stance. In an open letter they say, “This article was supposed to be read by other bioethicists who were already familiar with this topic and our arguments”. “We never meant to suggest that after-birth abortion should become legal. But we are not policy makers, we are philosophers, and we deal with concepts, not with legal policy.”
I cannot be bothered to argue that academia tries and succeeds in influencing culture and law while they await Marxist revolutionary terror! On the contrary, don’t confuse morality with our legal tradition.
Brevity is not my friend but I find no choice but to dissect the original text After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? Giubilini, Minerva (Published JOME Volume 39-5) because it has not been exposed to my satisfaction. And don’t think the depopulation proponents watched grass grow for the last 10 years, they are teaching your children this everyday while Netflix plays at home.
“We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her. This means that many non-human animals and mentally retarded human individuals are persons, but that all the individuals who are not in the condition of attributing any value to their own existence are not persons. Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.”
They are not “policy makers” nor do they aim to effect “legal policy” but not only do they play the definition of a “person” game (“non-human animals are persons”, “individuals... are not... persons” and humans may not possess a right to life) they also claim because some laws permit research on spare embryos and abortion this fact alone serves as proof for their argument. By this logic couldn’t we say because some laws ban abortion then fetuses do possess a right to life; Simply a carefully concealed logical fallacy! Meanwhile, animals have more rights than infants.
“or if economical, social or psychological circumstances change such that taking care of the offspring becomes an unbearable burden on someone, then people should be given the chance of not being forced to do something they cannot afford.
“If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the fetus and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn.”
If rhetorical “logic” arguments don’t sell they include other excuses whether it be subjective mental health or economics and to ensure a congruent de-pop agenda they also argue against adoption:
we also need to consider the interests of the mother who might suffer psychological distress from giving her child up for adoption. Birthmothers are often reported to experience serious psychological problems due to the inability to elaborate their loss and to cope with their grief. It is true that grief and sense of loss may accompany both abortion and after-birth abortion as well as adoption, but we cannot assume that for the birthmother the latter is the least traumatic. For example, ‘those who grieve a death must accept the irreversibility of the loss, but natural mothers often dream that their child will return to them. This makes it difficult to accept the reality of the loss because they can never be quite sure whether or not it is irreversible’.
Back to contemporary news; As evidence of our trajectory. I present Ellen Wiebe: Doc who euthanized 400 brags she helped kill man deemed unfit for assisted suicide By Kanul Dey 1-9-23
She pushes the controversial law which permits her practice. “The unnamed man [she killed] has previously been rejected by a Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) assessor because he did not have a serious illness or “the capacity to make informed decisions about his own personal health”. -Dey
“Former Paralympian Chrisine Gautier railed against the government for offering her euthanasia when she was angered by delays in upgrading her home for wheelchair use. -Dey
“Physician assisted suicide was initially legalized in Canada only for terminally ill patients in 2016. Last year, the law expanded to allow assisted suicide for patients whose natural death wasn’t imminent. Whats next A new law set to take effect next year will also allow people with mental illness to seek physician- assisted suicide, according tot eh Daily Mail.” -Dey
Adderall for ADHD, Ecstasy for PTSD, and now Suicide for a subjective mental disorder. Or is that merely “ theoretically..., but not realistically”.
For further demonstration of the context which targets not only children for sterilization but also homeless or handicapped for “deliveries” please view Tucker Carlson’s video New Canadian Law Would Allow Minors to Euthanize without Parental Consent 10-27-22 where he hosts author Charles C. Camosy. Mind you condemning Tucker does little to detract from facts!
California Anti-Federal Jargon
SB 107 was designed in part to prevent California courts from participating in another states attempt to take custody away from parents for providing gender affirming care.” Fact Check California law gives courts clear jurisdiction over minors seeking gender care in the state Reuters (IMO this fact check further proves the claim it aims to dismiss)
“All the bill does is provide guidance to courts about hearing cases where they already are allowed to do so under California law.”, revises existing rules to provide California courts “jurisdictional guidance” -Fact Check California
‘when minors are in the state for gender- affirming care they cannot receive elsewhere, the bill says that the situation falls into an existing category of “emergencies” that give California courts clear jurisdiction over a child if the child is present in the state.” -Fact Check California
“Orr, a senior attorney Transgender Youth Project Director says “State courts...have the authority to consider whether to retain jurisdiction over a custody matter involving a child who recently came into the state… The law simply clarifies that courts should retain jurisdiction in situations where a parent brings their child to California...from a state that has banned... access to that care.” -Fact Check California
The inclusion of “a parent” in the above quote is a deliberate obfuscation in my opinion.
“This guidance ensures that California courts do not apply the law of a state that prohibits access to medical treatment for transgender youth when deciding a custody matter involving that issue.” Fact Check California
“The senate Judiciary Committee analysis notes that courts always have discretion to decide that a different forum is more appropriate for a particular case, and the new law would not change that.”Fact Check California
”notwithstanding general considerations to determine whether a court in this state is an inconvenient forum, a court shall not, in a case where the provision of gender- affirming health care or gender-affirming mental health care to the child is at issue, determine that is is an inconvenient forum where the law or policy of the other state that may take jurisdiction limits the ability of a parent to obtain gender-affirming health care or gender affirming mental health care for the child.”
Tighten your thinking cap as we are now knee deep in legal doublespeak! Do I have it right? In these cases the court has the jurisdiction to decide this dispute and [but regarding personum jurisdiction] it does “have the authority to consider whether to retain jurisdiction over a custody matter involving a child who recently came into the state” but the law simply clarifies that courts should retain jurisdiction meanwhile courts always have discretion to decide that a different forum is more appropriate for a particular case, and the new law would not change that but of course a court shall not.. determine that is an inconvenient forum.
“The bill also bans arresting or extraditing someone based on another state’s restrictions for providing gender health services to a child.” -Newsom signs Bill Making California Sanctuary For Child Gender Surgery by Mairead Elordi
“In 2020, Wiener sponsored another law Newsom signed that says adults who have oral or anal sex with a child ten years younger than them may not have to register as sex offenders… The law supposedly addressed discrimination against LGBT people.”-Elordi
“The law may indeed face legal challenges, since federal requirements say states must recognize other states’ laws when residents travel. Elordi
Out-of-state parents say California bill ignores their rights when kids want sex reassignment -By Casey Harper
Parental rights groups write a letter: “This legislation allows the ‘taking of a child’ to California (without parental knowledge or consent) to obtain gender transition procedures – including puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and irreversible surgeries - and impermissibly gives California courts the power to strip custody from lawful and well-intentioned parents (regardless of where they live) who may have legitimate concerns for their child’s mental and physical health.”
“Parents say this part, in particular, violated the Constitution, arguing that it “unlawfully overrides the jurisdiction of courts in a family’s home state that are usually the proper forum for custody determinations, and also conflicts with various federal laws governing which state courts have jurisdiction to determine child custody.”
“Deference to the laws and jurisdictions of the 49 other states is required under the ‘full faith and credit’ clause of the U.S. Constitution,” the letter said. “California cannot ignore the authority and jurisdiction of other states.”
Just as Michigan does with Weed the State can defy the Federal Government as long as they promote the Globalist agenda. Most of the articles cover over the fact that unaccompanied minors without any legal guardian can go to California and receive these services, instead most articles give the impression that one legal guardian is required.
Michigan’s “Individual” Child
Prop 3 ballot language does “allow state to prohibit abortion after fetal viability unless needed to protect a patients life or physical or mental health, , [and] invalidate(s) all state laws that conflict with this amendment.”-Bridge 10-3-22, Yu Michigan Proposal 3 fact check
The point I am making below is that they are saying for certain that the parental consent laws will not be challenged.
Law experts who spoke to bridge say they believe the parental consent law would withstand a legal challenge even if voters adopt proposal 3. -Bridge 10-3-22
Richards of University of Detroit Mercy said defenders could easily prove the state has a compelling interest to ensure “that minors are consulting with their parents before undergoing a pretty serious decision”. -Bridge 10-3-22
Mae Kuykendall, a law professor at Michigan State University, previously told Bridge the proposal may create room for “modification” of state law, but would not conflict with the parental consent requirements because they provide “assistance” instead of “burden” to minors. -Bridge 10-3-22,
Here legal positivism is rejected to fabricate an excuse;
“Archibald said abortion up until the moment of birth theoretically could happen under the proposal, but not realistically. Anxiety issues would also likely come up earlier in the pregnancy rather than close to birth, she said.” -Bridge 10-3-22
We return to legal positivism; “Archibald, a law professor, said the state legislature could attempt to define “mental health” to clarify the issue if the proposal passes.”-Bridge 10-3-22
How will the law define subjective “anxiety”?
“Proponents of the measure have remained steadfast that regulations such as laws requiring parental consent, a 24-hour waiting period and public health standards for clinics would remain in place.”-Bridge 12-8-2022 Michigan Democrats eye other abortion changes as Prop 3 set to take effect Yu Stella Yu &Robin Erb
Planned Parenthood Executive Director Nicole Wells Stallworth said “ I don’t anticipate that there may be any change to any of (the parental consent requirements), she said.--Bridge 12-8-2022
But someone had to admit it;
“Reproductive freedom for all, the campaign that spearheaded the proposal, issued press releases stating the initiative would not strike any law off the books. Bonsitu Kitaba, of ACLU, at first did not dispute the claim the proposal would nullify parental consent requirements, but later said that issue would likely go to court. -Bridge 10-3-22
“The reproductive freedom for all ballot initiative has nothing to do with gender identity or gender- affirming care. It covers decisions about matters relating to pregnancy. That’s it.”-Fact check: Michigan Prop 3 would not allow ‘child sterilization without parental consent’ Kayla Clarke
Is a consenting minor a consenting individual?
“under Roe (as well as basically every other constitutional amendment , minors don’t have the same rights as adults. For example, the text of the First Amendment doesn’t distinguish between minors and adults, and the Supreme Court has recognized that minors have First Amendment rights. Still, the court has said states have great latitude to restrict minors’ speech than adults. Same under the Second Amendment… but the court has recognized states can restrict minors rights more than they can restrict adults. ...States have greater latitude to restrict minors rights...“ -Fact Check: Kayla Clarke
So the pro-choice lobby is saying don’t worry about parental consent laws because the legislature and court will limit children's rights. We will return to this.
“Proposal 3 does not grant a right to gender-affirming care (that is not a matter related to pregnancy). And proposal 3 does not invalidate minor consent laws” - Fact Check: Kayla Clarke
Margot Cleveland takes a aggressive stance in Michigan Is Hiding a Children's Constitutional Right to Genital Amputation In Its Abortion Amendment:
The rights guaranteed by Prop 3 would be rights that both adults and children possess as “individuals,”.
We already heard the pro-choice argument against this; They are pro liberty from state intervention but their argument relies on the courts to limit minors access to the “individual” right. Most States, and Michigan, courts already have power to allow minors abortions via judicial bypass if the minor “is sufficiently mature and well enough informed to make the decision regarding abortion independently of her parents or legal guardian”, or “the waiver would be in the best interests of the minor.”
Only the most naive can believe the pro-choice lobby will not wage war against parental consent while hashing out 41 state laws and 70 sections pertaining to abortion in court.
“Alaska and Florida, courts have declared parental consent and parental notification statutes unconstitutional. And courts in California, Massachusetts, and New Jersey have struck parental consent statutes.” -Cleveland
Prop 3 Reproductive Freedom- “entails the right to make and effectuate decisions about all matters relating to pregnancy, including but not limited to.. sterilization... or infertility care.”... and without “discrimination”.
I can’t figure out how the pro-choice lobby argues this language does not protect puberty blockers or gender-affiriming surgery . It expressly reads “all matters related to pregnancy, including but not limited to … sterilization”.
Is it a stretch to argue that sex surgery relates to pregnancy? Perhaps “ theoretically... but not realistically”!
Planned parenthood advocates of Michigan helped lead the ballot initiative to amend the Michigan Reproductive Freedom for All” amendment, and planned Parenthood now represents “the second largest provider of ‘gender- affirming hormone therapy.” In fact,… Planned Parenthood [recently] launched an ad marketing puberty blockers to minors. -Cleveland
Cleveland goes farther in arguing as a fact that children will have access to these gender-affirming services without parental consent in Michigan but she is merely a prized lawyer with a 25 year career under a federal appellate judge.
Both sides admit they don’t know what the courts will do after this development. But my argument is that we do know the current trajectory of the West and parental consent does not seem to be a priority in State schools.
Many classical liberals or free market proponents easily adopt a pro-choice stance because we live within a nominalist/materialist worldview which views Liberty as freedom from external restraint rather than freedom from the bondage of sin. Our society rationalizes self interest by divorcing morality from economics and finding similar excuses to rationalize vice.
Examining our trajectory I speculate the Regime will continue to defend pedophilia, attempt to lower age of consent laws while claiming age is subjective to aid in this meanwhile this same age-ism argument will be used to allow minors to access these pro-choice/ mutilation services without parental consent.