home

Pro-Privacy, Not Pro-Abortion

(Guest Post by Big Tent Democrat)

It seems almost a made up story, but apparently true:

A Maine couple accused of tying up their 19-year-old daughter, throwing her in their car and driving her out of state to get an abortion were upset because the baby's father is black, a Maine sheriff said Tuesday.

Katelyn Kampf, who is white, told Cumberland County Sheriff Mark Dion that her mother "was pretty irate at the fact that the child's father was black, and she had made a number of disparaging remarks about that," he said. The Kampfs were apparently taking their daughter to New York to try to force her to get an abortion there, police said.

It seems to me that the pro-choice position could not be exemplified more clearly. A nineteen year old woman (we can quibble about parental notification later) has a right to privacy and liberty. This right includes the control of her own body. The apparent attempt by the Kampfs (no jokes please) to impose their will on Katelyn Kampf is precisely what the right to privacy is about. It is not pro-abortion - it is pro-liberty, pro-choice. It was and is Katelyn Kampf's right to decide about her pregnancy, no one else's. Not the state's. Not the parents. Not the husband/boyfriend. Just hers. If she chooses to carry to term, then her choice must be respected. If she chooses to terminate her pregnancy, that too is her choice. That is her right. Her fundamental right to privacy. Not her fundamental right to have an abortion. Her right is the right make her own private decision and have it be respected. By everyone.

There is no acceptable reason for the Kampf's to interfere with their daughter's choice. That they apparently had an abhorrent one does not mean that there are acceptable ones. And the same would be true if they attempted to interfere had she made another choice, Her right. Her decision. That is what privacy and liberty mean. Pro privacy groups, please take note and use this event to properly explain the position

< Mending Fences | Hofstadter Proven Correct Again >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: Pro-Privacy, Not Pro-Abortion (none / 0) (#1)
    by roger on Wed Sep 20, 2006 at 01:35:19 PM EST
    Parental rights in this area are a staple of the right. It doesnt always turn out the way they planned

    Re: Pro-Privacy, Not Pro-Abortion (none / 0) (#4)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Sep 20, 2006 at 02:10:04 PM EST
    Gee, I don't know anyone who doesn't understand that a 19 year old is an adult. Looks like kidnapping. Big Tent? Why are you trying to turn this into an abortion issue? Slow day in the neighborhood?

    Re: Pro-Privacy, Not Pro-Abortion (none / 0) (#7)
    by Sailor on Wed Sep 20, 2006 at 02:33:01 PM EST
    Count on ppj to miss the point. I know of no one who is "pro abortion", people like me are pro choice, and that was the example given by Big Tent.

    Re: Pro-Privacy, Not Pro-Abortion (none / 0) (#5)
    by Gabriel Malor on Wed Sep 20, 2006 at 04:20:28 PM EST
    Roger, Kidnapping cannot be said to come under the heading of "parental rights." And blaming "the right" for parents attempting to force their grown daughter to get an abortion is quite a stretch. This case is doubly objectionable as a kidnapping and an attempt at forced abortion. But it is certainly not the fault of "the right." After all, "the right" opposes both kidnapping and abortion. Regarding parental rights in general, I never knew that the left opposed parental rights outside of the one topic of abortion (and I'm not convinced that leftist parents are as opposed to parental notification rights when it comes to abortion as you imply). Are there other areas where those on the left oppose parental rights? My understanding of parental rights follows. I'm unsure of what is really controversial about it, but I look forward to hearing from anyone who knows. While in their minority, children have have extremely limited choices with respect to their parents' wishes. It was not kidnapping for my mother to take me to school every day, despite my sincerest protest. (And I really did love school, I just didn't want to ride the crappy old bus.) Moreover, it was not kidnapping when she took me to the doctor either, despite my vocal protestations. Parents have wide latitude when it comes to procuring medical procedures for their children. They need little justification other than a showing that a medical procedure is "in the child's best interest." Here, even setting aside the fact that the daughter was 19 and therefore no longer a minor it is highly unlikely that any physician (much less a court of law) would agree that an abortion was in Katelyn's (the daughter) best interests. So, while shocking that this happened (though, does anyonen really think this was the first time?) I fail to see how "parental rights" should be implicated at all.

    Re: Pro-Privacy, Not Pro-Abortion (none / 0) (#6)
    by scribe on Wed Sep 20, 2006 at 04:20:28 PM EST
    Liberty is the central value, principle, and right protected by the right to privacy. For this reason, when one reads Griswold, Roe and all the other cases commonly-considered "abortion rights cases", one will see, to a greater or lesser degree, that the Court is deciding whether the person has a protectible liberty interest. "Where, if anywhere, does the liberty of the individual end?" is the central question. Sometimes, the right is "located" or "found" in the 14th Amendment, sometimes elsewhere, even the 9th, but it's a liberty right, at its core. The wingers, beating up on Courts for "finding" rights "not listed in the Constitution" (some of their preachers make a big deal out of it come "Justice Sunday"), who would give me unending laughter, were they not so dangerous. This usually happens when the Courts reach a result not to the wingers' liking, of course. I know it's not polite to laugh at them in their ignorance/stupidity, but when one has to remind them time and again that the Constitution (as evinced in and by, e.g., the text of the 9th and 10th amendments)is structured as a liberty-protecting document. Its basic structure is that the Government's powers are limited and constrained; those not given the Government in the Constitution, the Government does not have. Those relinquished by the people (en masse or individually) are the only liberties and rights relinquished. All others, are retained by the people. Would that more took the time to pay attention. As to the Kampf parents, their daughter is better off rid of them.

    Re: Pro-Privacy, Not Pro-Abortion (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Sep 20, 2006 at 04:20:28 PM EST
    lots of people are pro-abortion. they make lots of money performing them. they happily would do one for a 10 year old if brought in by her adult rapist, all without telling her parents. don't try to pass the nonsense you pass as fact.

    Re: Pro-Privacy, Not Pro-Abortion (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Sep 20, 2006 at 04:20:28 PM EST
    About the only right that parents of a 19 yesar old have left is to terminate their social relations with her if they are opposed to her choices. Kidnapping someone that old is crazy -- she's old enough to be in Iraq, for god's sake!

    Re: Pro-Privacy, Not Pro-Abortion (none / 0) (#2)
    by desertswine on Wed Sep 20, 2006 at 04:20:29 PM EST
    A Maine couple accused of tying up their 19-year-old daughter, throwing her in their car and driving her out of state to get an abortion were upset because the baby's father is black, a Maine sheriff said Tuesday.
    This is hard to believe... there are black people in Maine?

    Re: Pro-Privacy, Not Pro-Abortion (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Sep 20, 2006 at 04:20:29 PM EST
    I have some issues with the ease with which you grant the mother all rights to the life of the child....doesn't the father (who IS 50% responsible) have any say? If you take away the father's ability to influence and help decide the outcome, then as I see it, you are also removing the responsibility to raise the child. If daddy says abort, and Mommy keeps the kid, can daddy be forced to pay child-support? If he has no input, than he also should have significantly lessened responsibility....I don't want to pay child support for a kid I didn't want, and would have chosen to abort...

    Re: Pro-Privacy, Not Pro-Abortion (none / 0) (#10)
    by Patrick on Wed Sep 20, 2006 at 06:05:38 PM EST
    Sailor, I don't think PPJ missed the point completely. She is 19 and clearly has a right to privacy and a right not to be forced by her parents to do anything, including being forced across state lines for the purpose of obtaining an abortion. I do have one question, why did they need to go to New York? Aren't abortions legal in Maine?

    Re: Pro-Privacy, Not Pro-Abortion (none / 0) (#11)
    by Kitt on Wed Sep 20, 2006 at 06:05:38 PM EST
    Posted by Anonymous September 20, 2006 03:39 PM lots of people are pro-abortion. they make lots of money performing them. they happily would do one for a 10 year old if brought in by her adult rapist, all without telling her parents. don't try to pass the nonsense you pass as fact.
    Don't try to pass your bullsh*t as fact or even a logical argument. It starts with this "lots of people are pro-abortion" and drops off the mountain from there.

    Re: Pro-Privacy, Not Pro-Abortion (none / 0) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Sep 20, 2006 at 07:22:34 PM EST
    Patrick - Ah, Sailor just wants to be disagreeable. My point remains. Why use this for anything but what it is. A kidnapping. The motives, etc., may be of interest, but what is all the speculation about the "Right" have to do with anything? I just think Big Tent ran out of something to say.

    Re: Pro-Privacy, Not Pro-Abortion (none / 0) (#16)
    by Sailor on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 07:54:03 AM EST
    The motives, etc., may be of interest, but what is all the speculation about the "Right" have to do with anything? I just think Big Tent ran out of something to say.
    Big Tent didn't mention a word about 'the right', all he talked about was rights.
    I do have one question, why did they need to go to New York? Aren't abortions legal in Maine?
    Hi Patrick, I think it had something to do with the nature of the laws, maybe late term or something. I'd seen it in a previous article but can't locate it easily right now.

    Re: Pro-Privacy, Not Pro-Abortion (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 08:13:11 AM EST
    It is beyond time for an ammendment ensuring the right to privacy in the Constitution.

    Re: Pro-Privacy, Not Pro-Abortion (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 08:13:12 AM EST
    Mr. Malor, parental notification laws are dangerous for a very simple reason, and on this I quote Molly Ivins: "Please, please understand that you do not know the definition of 'dysfunctional family' until you read some of these applications for judicial bypass." Still can't understand the danger? Ask 13 year old Spring Adams. Oh wait, you can't. She's dead.

    Re: Pro-Privacy, Not Pro-Abortion (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 08:13:12 AM EST
    Who did they think would perform the forced abortion? Did they have someone willing to do that? It would be easier, I think, to find someone to kill a woman than to abort her against her will and let her walk away and go to the police. I don't understand how the Kampfs hoped to have things work out.

    Re: Pro-Privacy, Not Pro-Abortion (none / 0) (#12)
    by scribe on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 08:20:10 AM EST
    The initial report I read yesterday re the Kampf parents indicated that they couldn't figure out whether Maine allowed their daughter to have an abortion (forced or not), so they figured they'd take her to New York. They must have assumed/concluded that Wicked New York is the kind of place where everything the Rethugs rail against is legal, so they could get it done there. See what happens when you listen to Rush? Your brains turn to oatmeal. And, no, no one gets rich doing abortions. Hiring protection against oatmeal-brain whack-jobs costs money.

    Re: Pro-Privacy, Not Pro-Abortion (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 08:48:01 AM EST
    Sailor - His whole argument has to with pro choice, something I happen to agree with. But to tie that in with a simple kidnapping case as if those who oppose choice approve kidnapping is disingenuous at best. Show a little respect for your opponents and you might actually hold their attention long enough to change thier minds.

    Re: Pro-Privacy, Not Pro-Abortion (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 03:13:34 PM EST
    Jim: Your cmments do not make much sense to me. I was arguing about how the pro-choice movement could better explain itself. To wit, by embracing this woman and her personal decision (to carry to term) the ro-choice movement would put to the lie the argument that there are pro-abortion forces as the anti-abortion movement pretends. And to be clear, the anti-abortion forces are anti, that is against abortions. The pro-choice movement is pro-choice, the women deciding whethr or not to carry to term. You really are grasping at reasons to disagree with me here. That kidnapping is bad is not the point.

    Re: Pro-Privacy, Not Pro-Abortion (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 03:13:34 PM EST
    Basing the argument on the mother's privacy rights is what makes abortion so contentious. The question that causes all the angst on both sides of this issue isn't whether mom has privacy rights, it's when does human life begin -- more specifically when does human life merit legal protection? No one is pro-murder or infanticide, so shifting the debate to "privacy" clouds the fact that what we're really arguing about is whether abortion is a form of homicide. That question depends on when one believes human life begins. Reasonable people can believe human life begins at conception, or perhaps not until implantation, or when the fetus takes on an arguably human shape, or when it becomes viable outside the womb (a rapidly shifting standard), or at birth, or at any point in between. The Supreme Court's dictate about privacy prevents a political, if not social, consensus from emerging on an issue that is clearly of great importance to all involved. The stinger for those who lean to the life-begins-at-conception end of the spectrum is that the Court simply ignores their belief that the fetus acquires rights and protections that should be balanced against those of its mother. We draw such distinctions throughout our laws. Murder is not a constitutional rights violation, it is a statutory judgment that depriving another human being of life is gravely wrong. Manslaughter recognizes that not all homicide is as wrongful as murder. But the Supreme Court has decided that society no longer is competent to make the determination, through our elected leaders, about when punitive measures are appropriate for depriving another person of life.

    Re: Pro-Privacy, Not Pro-Abortion (none / 0) (#21)
    by Kevin Hayden on Thu Sep 21, 2006 at 03:13:34 PM EST
    I don't want to pay child support for a kid I didn't want, and would have chosen to abort... You do have a choice in it, Fred. It's called 'abstinence.' Don't play if you don't want to pay. If you want to grow something living, become a scientist and join a lab. But when your organism uses a living 'petri dish', then the dish has the right to choose what will continue to grow in it and what won't. Fathers have rights when a child exists. But even then, they don't and shouldn't have rights to control what goes on in a woman's body. Just like women shouldn't have any decisionmaking power over your body.

    Re: Pro-Privacy, Not Pro-Abortion (none / 0) (#22)
    by Patrick on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 10:16:00 AM EST
    Big Tent, Good point. There are many out there, myself included, who do believe the whole "Pro-Choice" segment of society is rife with people who are truly pro-abortion. So a stance like you are suggesting would go some distance, at least with me, in dispelling that notion. The parents obviously had an ill-conceived idea that they would somehow be able to got a forced abortion. I wonder where they got that idea from? Are there places in America where such hideous proceedures as forced abortions are practiced? Are there pro-abortion groups out there that would assist in facilitating that? I don't know, and as of five minutes ago would have thought no way....Now I wonder...

    Re: Pro-Privacy, Not Pro-Abortion (none / 0) (#23)
    by Patrick on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 10:16:00 AM EST
    Big Tent, I need to add, that it wasn't that clear to me reading the initial post either....It now is with that added comment...