Exempts abortion clinics from reporting child sex abuse
WICHITA, KANSAS – Aug 04, 2004 Operation Rescue West is appalled by Federal Court Judge Thomas Marten’s ruling last week that privacy concerns trump the protection of children who are victims of sexual abuse.
Marten’s decision came in a case filed by abortionists and other pro-abortion groups and individuals in response to Kansas State Attorney General Phil Kline’s opinion that sexual activity in children under 15 is suspicious and should be reported for the child’s well-being.
Marten said, in essence, that the State has no compelling interest in protecting children from rape or other abuse, but it does have an interest in protecting privacy rights.
Attorney General Kline has vowed to appeal. Operation Rescue West applauds Kline’s determination to protect minor girls from exploitation and abuse.
“This ruling is outrageous in that it provides a system of secrecy that child abusers can exploit to continue their abusive behavior,” said Operation Rescue spokeswoman Cheryl Sullenger. “The rapist can victimize a young girl, then take her to an abortion mill, where the evidence of his crime is destroyed through abortion or prevented through the dispensing of birth control pills or devices. Afterward, the abuser can take the child home and repeat the despicable act without fear of discovery. The abuser is the one protected by Judge Marten’s ruling, not the victim. It is hard to imagine a greater injustice.”
“When a rapist’s right to rape trumps a child’s right to protection from sexual abuse, we have a situation where no one’s daughter is safe,” continued Sullenger. “And the only ones who profit are the abortionists.”
6 Comments
i found this to be an interesting link
http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/16.7docs/16-7pg22.html
So is the point of this commentary that a 15 year old rape victim should have to birth the child that resulted from her attack?
Also, I was a bit curious about how you intend to protect children from this scenario. It’s pretty clear that you are an orginization based on family values, so shouldn’t the parents be protecting their children? What exactly could this judge do to prevent the rape of a child. I’m sure that if it were something he could do, he,or any other human, would do just that.
It is not my intention to be hostile in any way but I think it would benefit your arguement to offer a solution.
bill
statistics show that most rape victims do NOT become pregnant, due to the trauma of the experience. i don’t believe the story references a pregnancy.
your point about parental responsibility is hard to argue with, however, i would point out that throughout most of our nation’s history, judges, courts, and government agencies were not in an adversarial role with parents, but rather, supported moral virtue, parental rights and responsibilities, and were in essence, an added firewall, if you will, to help parents do their jobs. rulings like this tend to give more power to the perpetrators than to the victims, and i think, make it harder for parents to do their jobs. the same is true with what are called parental consent laws, which proabortionists fight aggressively – when all they do is to facilitate parental involvement in life or death decisions that their children would make.
there are laws, for instance, that require that a parent give his/her permission for a child to have their ears pierced….yet regarding abortion, the prodeath crowd does not want a parent to even KNOW about the pregnancy!
the point of this story, in my view, was to illustrate that the courts are not helping parents or children. to quote from the story
—
Marten said, in essence, that the State has no compelling interest in protecting children from rape or other abuse, but it does have an interest in protecting privacy rights.
—
privacy ‘rights’ are not mentioned in the constitution, but are the foundation for many abortion decisions, including roe v wade.
Jerry,
Your response to Bill’s message is thoughtful, sincere and grounded in the truth.
One only needs to read recent news headlines to understand just how far off the cliff our left wing State and Federal Judges have driven us;
1. Sanctioning the most horrific act of genocide in the history of mankind-40,000,000+ abortions
2. Children’s safety is second to pedophiles/perpetrators rights(story outlined above)
3. Banning the Ten Commandments
4. Approving Homosexual Marriage
5. Striking down the Partial Birth Abortion ban
6. Allowing a child to have an abortion WITHOUT the knowledge of her parents
7. attempts to ban the Pledge of Allegiance and bible study groups in public schools
The list goes on and on…
Jerry,
I am sorry but you skated the question a little bit. Is it your mandate that should a rape victim become pregnant, she should have to give birth to the child? (I only referance this because in an earlier post an abortion in this case was reffered to as “Destroying the evidence”
Brad,
I have to take issue with any point that faults a judge or law for removing a very specific religious symbol from a public place. The same laws that tell us that the 10 Commandments do not belong in the federal courthouse, are the same laws that guarantee that you will always be able to freely practice your own religion.
The point of America is that you are suppose to support the ability for people to worship as they please without legislating them into christianity. Now I agree that the ideals expressed in the bible are generally good, but they are not the law, and in America, they can’t be.
Bill,
here is a brief history lesson about what the U.S. Constitution actually says concerning the Ten Commandments;
The First Amendment to the Constitution plainly states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion …” Since there can be no federal law on the subject, there is no lawful basis for any element of the federal government — including the courts — to act in this area.
Moreover, the 10th Amendment to the Constitution plainly states that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This means that the power to make laws respecting an establishment of religion, having been explicitly withheld from the United States, is reserved to the states or to the people.
Taken together, therefore, the First and 10th Amendments reserve the power to address issues of religious establishment to the different states and their people, not the Federal Courts or Government.
Would it surpise you Bill that the overwhelming majority of Alabaman’s, and Americans, support the public display of the Ten Commandments? Yet ONE liberal, left wing Federal Judge can override the will of the people of Alabama and remove these life affirming principles from a public building?
Bill, I have to ask you a question. Here are 5 Commandments. Which of the following Commandments do you object to?
1. do not Steal
2. do not Murder
3. do not Dishonor your Parents
4. do not Commit Adultery
5. do not Covet your Neighbors House or Wife
I am praying for you Bill…