Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Legislature / Woods Rep. Tony Shipley Launches New Crusade Against Family Planning
Posted by Jeff Woods on Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 11:16 AM
Shipley thinks this is a great idea. He worked himself up into an arm-waving, frothing lather over the issue in a House subcommittee hearing this week. He stopped short of invoking God's wrath but just barely.
"I am indignant. I'm here asking you as your colleague, as a father, it is time that we pushed back against whoever, whatever and whenever someone tries to interfere with our rights as a parent. Let's take back our children from a state that has no right to them."
Rep. Henry Fincher politely pointed out to Shipley that his bill makes no exceptions for parents who sexually or physically abuse their children or for those whose parental rights have been terminated. And oh yes, there's that little matter of the $6.5 million in federal funds for family planning that the state might lose for enacting Shipley's bill into law. Clinics supported by those funds serve adolescents on a confidential basis. They provide preventive educational services to young people, including an emphasis on the postponement of sexual activity, as well as counseling and contraceptives.
"I don't share your passion for this bill as it's worded," Fincher told Shipley.
Our hero was unfazed. "I suggest we give it back to the federal government," he said of the family planning money. But he finally agreed to postpone his bill until some of these little issues can be cleared up.
Comments (2)
Showing 1-2 of 2
Just offer a friendly amendment and shut you pie hole. This should be common sense. The parent should have a right over the child.
like
dislike
As a physician, I can speak to the issue of protecting children from abusers accessing information. Currently, a physician is required to report abuse if suspected. No harm should come to the child as the physician would have already reported this incident. If this proceeds to a court of law for prosecution, I believe the defendant then has the right to see these records anyway. So this bill does not significantly alter current process except in relation to time course.
As for the 6.5 million? As long as states beg at the federal government's door for money, states will continue to prostitute their sovereignty to self govern. Each acceptance of federal money comes with strings and we should consider their implications in each case.
Finally, I find your article's picture to be humurous, yet a below the belt punch. "Tacky" is another thought.
Sincerely,
Doc
