Don’t tell mom or dad be­fore killing your baby

The Washington Times Weekly - - Commentary - Bill O’Reilly

Last month, ac­tress Jane Wy­att died. She played the mom on the 1950s TV show “Fa­ther Knows Best.” I was think­ing about Miss Wy­att while an­a­lyz­ing the up­com­ing ref­er­en­dum, Propo­si­tion 85, in Cal­i­for­nia.

The pro­posed law is called “Wait­ing Pe­riod and Parental No­ti­fi­ca­tion Be­fore Ter­mi­na­tion of Mi­nor’s Preg­nancy.” If passed, it would re­quire a doc­tor to in­form an un­der­age girl’s par­ents be­fore per­form­ing an abor­tion, and wait at least 48 hours un­less there was a med­i­cal emer­gency or a parental waiver.

The pro­posed law does have the so-called “abuse ex­cep­tion.” If the girl feels she would be harmed by the parental no­ti­fi­ca­tion, the court would make the call. It also gives the girl a chance to ex­plain to the judge that she is ma­ture enough to make an abor­tion de­ci­sion on her own. So a judge could waive the no­ti­fi­ca­tion if he or she was con­vinced the child was emo­tion­ally equipped to han­dle the sit­u­a­tion.

Now, all of this sounds more than rea­son­able to me. The rights of par­ents to know the men­tal con­di­tion of their chil­dren are up­held, but if no­ti­fi­ca­tion could cause po­ten­tial dam­age to the child, the court de­cides. Good law, right? Wrong, if you are a sec­u­lar-pro­gres­sive (S.P.).

That group adamantly op­poses any le­gal re­stric­tion in­volv­ing a young girl’s ac­cess to an abor­tion. Thus, your 14year-old could leave the house one morn­ing, show up at a Planned Par­ent­hood clinic, un­dergo ma­jor surgery, and be back home in time for din­ner. So how was your day, Tammy?

This is in­sane. And Sen. Hil­lary Clin­ton sup­ports the in­san­ity. She ac­tu­ally recorded an au­dio spot urg­ing Cal­i­for­ni­ans to vote no on parental no­ti­fi­ca­tion. And, by the way, Hil­lary ne­glected to tell vot­ers about the “ex­cep­tions” in her ram­ble. She pleaded for “teens at risk” with­out men­tion­ing that the courts would bend over back­ward for those teens. Shame­ful.

Do you be­lieve for one sec­ond that Thomas Jef­fer­son, James Madi­son and Ben­jamin Franklin would sup­port a le­gal sys­tem that al­lows chil­dren alone to make de­ci­sions about elec­tive surgery — surgery that ter­mi­nates a po­ten­tial hu­man be­ing? No ra­tio­nal per­son could be­lieve The Found­ing Fa­thers would vio- late the doc­trine of parental re­spon­si­bil­ity in that way. So what the heck is go­ing on?

Well, it’s all part of the S.P. move­ment that sees the state, not the par­ent, as the fi­nal author­ity over a child’s wel­fare. S.P.’s want a break­down of tra­di­tional fam­ily roles, re­plac­ing them with a uni­form code of gov­ern­men­tal child-rear­ing. In that way, the youth of Amer­ica will be­come “eman­ci­pated” from their par­ents and be more sus­cep­ti­ble to S.P. think­ing.

That brings us back to “Fa­ther Knows Best” 2006. In this show, “Kit­ten,” the youngest child, has just been im­preg­nated by a lo­cal hooli­gan. Her brother, “Bud,” drives her to the clinic and the fe­tus is his­tory.

Later, the en­tire fam­ily goes out for burg­ers. But Fa­ther doesn’t know best in this up­dated sit­com. In fact, Fa­ther doesn’t know any­thing.

Bill O’Reilly is a na­tion­ally syn­di­cated colum­nist, host of the Fox News show “The O’Reilly Fac­tor” and au­thor of the book “Who’s Look­ing Out For You?”

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.