2013 Favs: The War on Girls: Sterilize Your Teen-Aged Daughter for Free (and without your consent)

I’ve been aware of this for several months. I’ve wanted to blog about it, but the Democrats and the Republicans have taken up sooooo much space with their shenanigans that I kept putting it back.

Today is the day.

Did you know that the “women’s health” advocates in our government are making sterilization available to teen-aged girls without parental consent?

I could rant about the obvious hypocrisy in this. I could also talk about the hundred-year history of eugenic sterilizations and manipulations of women’s bodies that continues into the present. In fact, I AM going to do both those things. For a starter, check out another of today’s posts here.

But for today, I think I’ll let the facts speak for themselves. This is an excerpt of a CNS article talking about the phenomena of government-sponsored sterilizations for teen-aged girls without parental consent. 

Oh, and one more tiny thing: This is one of the things that the HHS Mandate would force the Catholic Church and all Christian ministries to pay for. 

I’ll talk about this more in the future. Stay tuned. Here’s the article:

Washington D.C., Sep 25, 2012 / 04:06 am (CNA/EWTN News).- Minor children on their parents’ health care plans will have free coverage of sterilization and contraception, including abortion-causing drugs, under the controversial HHS mandate – and depending on the state, they can obtain access without parental consent.

Matt Bowman, senior counsel for the religious liberty legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, said the mandate “tramples parental rights” because it requires them to “pay for and sponsor coverage of abortifacients, sterilization, contraception and education in favor of the same for their own children.”

The Department of Health and Human Services ruled in January 2012 that most employers who have 50 or more employees must provide the coverage as “preventive care” for “all women with reproductive capacity.”

The mandate also requires the coverage for beneficiaries, including minors, on the affected health plans, Bowman told CNA Sept. 20. That means that a minor on her parents’ plan could be sterilized if she finds a doctor willing to perform the procedure.

“She can be sterilized at no cost,” Bowman stated. “Whether her parents will know and/or consent might differ by state. But the Guttmacher Institute and other abortion advocates explicitly advocated for this mandated coverage of minors so that access without parental involvement might be able to increase.”

The Guttmacher Institute, in a Sept. 1 briefing on state policies, said that an increase in minors’ access to reproductive health care over the last 30 years shows a broader recognition that “while parental involvement in minors’ health care decisions is desirable, many minors will not avail themselves of important services if they are forced to involve their parents.”

The institute, the former research arm of abortion provider Planned Parenthood, said that 26 states and the District of Columbia allow all minors 12 years and older to consent to contraceptive services. At least one state, Oregon, allows 15-year-olds to consent to sterilization. (Read more here.)

  • vickie

    A few years back, I read a book “Seeds of Destruction” by William Engdahl. He started the exploration over GMO foods, and discovered that many wealthy people are very threatened by third world population growth. There is also NSM200 a memorandum tying US National Security to third world population control. Now these things seemed to take place during the Soviet era, when the US was worrying about socialist revolutions in poorer countries.

    Rebecca, to what extent have you experienced this sort of mentality with the political class of your area? I am curious about the extent to which those ideas are implemented now. Your observations are valued.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      There is a divide in the political people I know. One side is against this, but only from a viewpoint of what will give them a political advantage. What I mean by that is that they attack their opponent’s allies, in this case the population controllers, BECAUSE they are their opponents’ allies. The other side is convinced that by backing this sort of thing they are acting out a morally superior viewpoint that the unwashed masses of us are too weak-brained to understand. They can be very nasty about this.
      There are a few folks who see this for the evil it is and oppose it because of that. They usually end up being ridiculed and marginalized by both sides.

      • vickie

        I was dismayed by attitude of some of the GOP types that I spoke with one year. But these were just folks at a country fair, not movers and shakers. Still it makes me consider if this is one reason that we can’t develop a genuine culture of life. From what you are saying the ideas are still prevalent in the upper tier as well. Do you believe that they are actively being implemented?

        • Rebecca Hamilton

          You’re very astute Vickie. I agree that this is one of the reasons why we are at stalemate (or worse) about developing a culture of life.
          Yes, I think they are being actively implemented. I’ve seen it.

          • Arkenaten

            Odd bunch, humans.
            Mandela said a nation can be judged by the way it treats its children.
            In the States, 21 is the generally accepted legal age one has to be before one can get utterly plastered on booze, yet one can ‘demand’ a sterilization at what…..14?,15?, 16? …And mummy and daddy don’t have the RIGHT to know?
            As one of my favourite TV characters says, “Holy crap on a cracker.”
            The mind boggles.
            Perhaps Mr. Obama might have a change of heart if one of his kids …no. I’ll let that one go.

            • Rebecca Hamilton

              I don’t understand it either.

  • Arkenaten

    First: This is horrendous and I’ll leave it at that.
    Second: Was there talk/allusion of this mandate prior to Obama’s election? – Was it part of his campaign etc?
    Third: You previously directed me to a particular post then deleted my comment. Was it for asking pertinent questions about contraception and the Church?

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      1. Yes. It is.
      2. I first heard about the mandate a little over a year ago. That was when the committee was in the process of drafting it. The actual mandate didn’t take effect until last January. It is not part of the health care act. It is an agency regulation which President Obama signed, thus giving it the effect of a law. He has made “women’s health” and the “war on women” part of his campaign and has obfuscated the effects of the mandate in the process.
      3. I remember directing you to a link. I honestly don’t know which of your posts I deleted because of it. If you think I was unfair, you can try again. I may have gotten trigger happy with my deletes. If so, I apologize to you, Douglas. Just please, follow the new board rules. If you do that, you are welcome here.

      • Arkenaten

        Thank you for the explanation re the HHS Mandate.
        The link was :
        http://www.patheos.com/blogs/publiccatholic/2012/08/the-child-isnt-the-one-that-needs-killing/
        I don’t think I’ll rewrite it. I fear you would not answer the questions anyway.
        But I will say this: Nina’s comments were valid.

        • Rebecca Hamilton

          Why don’t you go say that and tell me why you think this … in a kind way.
          I know you have a good heart Douglas. I’ve seen it in some of the things you say. Let that show.
          I’ll always answer that.

          • Arkenaten

            Smile. Thank you but no. I foresee it would be considered a debate and I might get deleted once more. You are aware of my feelings towards religiously driven agenda but a post like this even rubs an atheist like me up the wrong way.

            • Rebecca Hamilton

              That’s because, as I’ve said, you have a good heart, Mr Douglas.

  • http://jscafenette.com Manny

    This is an outrage. You can’t give an aspirin to a child without parental consent but you can give them an abortion or a sterilization? I really don’t know where this culture is headed.

    I noticed you said this in the comment above: “One side is against this, but only from a viewpoint of what will give them a political advantage.”

    To cite hypocrisy, Rebecca, in politics is really not a very strong argument. One could ask, do Democrats really care about the poor? Everything is for political advantage. EVERYTHING. All sides are hypocritical. As a voter one decides which side best fits your values. Sure there may be Republicans who actually personally favor this but vote the party line. But let me ask you, which is better for me to support? A Republican who personally favors sterilization but votes against it or a Democrat who personally doesn’t favor it but votes for it?

    By the way, I’m not persuaded by the hypocrisy argument. By and large each side roughly and generally favors what the party stands for. Consider me me having rose colored glasses.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      “To cite hypocrisy, Rebecca, in politics is really not a very strong argument.”
      ‘Tis true, my friend.
      However, it is still egregious, even if those who do it refuse to see that.
      As for repubs vs demos, you got it right in that they parties divide about this along those lines, but not as absolutely as it appears from the outside. In truth, hypocrisy is a serious matter. The reason is that the Republicans will do anything the Chamber of Commerce wants and the Chamber has a heavy dose of biggies who are linked directly and indirectly with Planned Parenthood and its various allies. They are Republicans also, but their concern is getting government money in their little hot hands. In the meantime, they push these hypocritical repubs to stand down and do nothing on this issue.
      The trouble with hypocrisy is that it’s for sale. And it will never stand in the clinches.
      That’s why there’s a lot of saber rattling about de-funding Planned Parenthood and no action. It’s also why 100% pro life legislators work behind the scenes to kill pro life bills.
      Hypocrisy matters my friend.
      (FWIW, I’m not defending the Ds. I am defending life. The D vs R thing is inconsequential to me compared t the lives of human beings.)

      • Rebecca Hamilton

        I forgot to say: Thanks for your comment. It’s good to hear from you.

        • Rebecca Hamilton

          BTW, you said it here:

          “This is an outrage. You can’t give an aspirin to a child without parental consent but you can give them an abortion or a sterilization? I really don’t know where this culture is headed.”

      • http://jscafenette.com Manny

        It matters, I agree. However I catch myself in hypocritical positions too. We are all pushed by complex issues which interact with others. I guess those are human responses. The pure cynical hypocrisy which I think you’re getting at is repulsive. I agree with you. I tend to see politicians as having difficult jobs. They have get to a consensus position of thousands or even millions of people. However, something so immoral as this goes beyond consensus. here moral clarity is required.

        Nice to hear from you too. I wasn’t avoiding you; just too much to engage here on Patheos Catholic channel…lol.

        • Rebecca Hamilton

          You’re right Manny. Public office is a difficult job, and people, good people, do get twisted up in the complications of issues. I am talking about “pure cynical hypocrisy.” I think it may have affected me too much, having to deal with it every day as I have. It’s not good for anyone.

    • http://nebraskaenergyobserver.wordpress.com neenergyobserver

      “By the way, I’m not persuaded by the hypocrisy argument. By and large each side roughly and generally favors what the party stands for. Consider me me having rose colored glasses.”

      Uh, No, they don’t. They generally give lip service to what get them elected/reelected and then they do whatever get them the most lobbyist support (I call it bribery, but I’m not a lawyer, so what could I know about it)

      Rebecca has done absolutely the best series on politicians I have ever read in her “Stop Hate Voting” series. What she says tracks 100% with my empirical finding from a lifetime of dealing with state governments. Hypocrisy is the driving force in legislative politics and will be until we fix it, it’s not D & R, its us and them.

      And yes this is a horrendous ruling, contraception/abortion is very bad but sterilization is the end of civilization as we knew it.

  • http://peicurmudgeon.wordpress.com/ peicurmudgeon

    The other side of the issue is the young girls who are being sexually abused by family members, or those who fear they would be disowned of they were found to be pregnant. Abuse can lead to severe emotional problems throughout life, and compounding this are the negative physical and mental health effects of pregnancy.

    Ethical issues are not usually zero sum games, and certainly there are downsides to being absolute on contraception.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      I don’t think I understand you. I doubt that you’re saying that young girls who are sexually abused should be sterilized. But … what are you saying?

      • http://peicurmudgeon.wordpress.com/ peicurmudgeon

        The sterilization issue is a red herrring. The real question is whether or not teens should have rights with regards to contraception and abortion. I guess I wasn’t clear on that.

        • Rebecca Hamilton

          It is the current law of the land that teen-aged girls may be sterilized without parental permission. That’s a little more than a red herring.

  • http://biltrix.wordpress.com Biltrix

    It is actually questionable whether a teenager should be allowed to be sterilized even with parental consent, but that is not the issue.

    Why do we have laws concerning the behavior of minors in the first place? What is the motive behind it if we were not already sure that there are certain behaviors people should not be allowed to engage in until they are at an age where we can be sure, for the most part, that they can exercise good use of their reason. Whether it is 18 or 21 is arbitrary. The fact that the law currently allows minors to have operations that could affect their sexual organs for the rest of their lives without their parents even knowing about it is frightening. Can anyone please tell me what this administration is thinking? Please! I don’t want to be cynical. Please, give me one good reason why passing this law clandestinely was the right thing to do.

    Thanks Rebecca for this article. Sharing it now!

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      I think that it should be a felony to sterilize a minor child with an elective surgery or procedure that is not related by accepted medical practice to preserving the life of the child or of a major bodily function or organ of the child. (Wheels turning. Legislator cap on. Thinking of legislation.)

      As to why a legislative body would enact this into law, I don’t know enough about this to answer. I will say that I imagine that a lot of them didn’t realize this was in the bill when they voted for it.

  • http://paulinesthoughts.com Pauline

    Children, prior to all of this new legislation, can go to see a psychiatrist under military insurance and parents do not have to be notified. (I have seen it on the forms that I have filed.) I do not know if this is true for all other insurance as I have not seen that on those forms.

    It is the line where a patient has to have a parent or guardian to sign the insurance form if under 18. The form says something about an exception for mental health.

    I haven’t had to file one for a minor who did it without a parent. I think that’s because the person I work for wouldn’t see a minor without parents’ consent and involvement in treatment. However, it is available – as you say above, if they can find a psychiatrist willing to see them. Perhaps it would be a military MD.

    So, this is already in psychiatrist, not just reproductive rights. Although, I do not know how many people know about this if they are not in that particular medical field.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      Interesting information. We had a bill dealing with this back when I was in the office the first time. (dark ages) I believe it dealt with public schools sending kids to “counseling” without parental consent and was meant to require parental consent. The bill drew an unusual cross-section of support including parents who were very liberal and those who were conservative. They were reacting as parents, not political advocates.

  • http://paulinesthoughts.com Pauline

    (I should have seen …already available in psychiatry.)

  • http://paulinesthoughts.com Pauline

    North Carolina does not allow anyone under 18 to get a tattoo with or without parental consent.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      Good point. But then, tattoo artists aren’t a major political lobby like Planned Parenthood.

  • http://peicurmudgeon.wordpress.com/ peicurmudgeon

    The first I have heard of the inculsion of sterilization is in the CNS article. If some one has a link to the pertinant part of the original piece of legislation, that would be useful. With the adventr of relatively term contraception devices and medications, I cannot imagine an instance where a minor would be sterilized for any reason other than to treat a serious medical condition. That is why I referred to it as a red herring.

    Persoanlly, for the same reasons I outlined above, mental health treatments should not always involve parents and/or guardians.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      I’m not a doctor and I may be wrong, but I can’t think of a single reason to EVER sterilize a minor child. I can see how it might happen as an unintended consequence of other medical treatments such as radiation for cancer, but I can’t think of a reason to directly sterilize a child for that purpose alone.

      • http://peicurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2012/09/17/revealing-the-amish/ peicurmudgeon

        There may be reasons why a pregnancy might be so detrimental to the health of a woman, that early sterilization is imperative. I can’t think of any either, nor can I imagine any doctor permanently sterilizing a young person without such a reason. That is why I believe the use of the concept is merely a red herring and not a real consideration. If these medical reasons do exist, then forcing a young woman to pay for saving her life in this particular instance seem unfair to me.

  • tom Quiner

    This is such sad, tragic news. On a positive note, here in Iowa, the Board of Medicine has just banned webcam abortions which allowed Planned Parenthood doctors to dispense RU-486 abortion-inducing pills to patients in remote offices over a computer monitor. I’m sure it is heading to court.

  • http://abb3w.livejournal.com/ abb3w

    I suggest there’s actually two distinct but related questions here:
    1) Under what circumstances should it be allowable for a minor to be sterilized?
    2) In cases where the procedure is allowed, under what circumstances should the procedure be covered by health insurance?

    From what I can tell from a quick poke at Google Scholar, there are heavy regulations on (1), which the ACA and HHS mandates appear to do nothing to change. Several states effectively require the minor get a court order which says it is in their best interest and that no other medically appropriate alternative is available. I am entirely fine with keeping such barriers for minors at such heights, and even increasing the number of states with such.

    That said, once past the hurdles for (1) and on to the territory of (2), I find it entirely appropriate that all such cases be covered as part of standard insurance, with whatever insurer having no voice in the medical decision. Conflating (2) with (1) seems duplicitous.

  • Amoridere

    Okay, someone already sterilized their kid for being “mildly retarded” (this was in the ’70s), and now they wish to have it where the girls don’t even have to have parental consent. Now, what if these were normal girls, the sort that that wouldn’t even think of sex and she had been sterilized come and find out that the procedure was permanent and now she can’t have children even when she’s ready? Yeah, these laws are unethical as it is and children are some pets that you can take to the vet and fixed and laws like this dehumanizes them. Anywho, who the hell was pushing these laws in the first place?

  • Eric Brian

    PROGRESSIVE UNDERBELLY EXPOSES RETREAD REGRESSIVES, EUGENISTS, MARXISTS, NAZIS & LIBERAL FASCISTS!
    You must be kidding. Don’t you realize this is all part of the “Progressive” Movement? It climaxed/bottomed with Nazis mass murdering millions of Jews, Catholics, “worthless eaters,” enemies of the statists, et al. Don’t leave out Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Marxists et al. They’re all collectivists: National Socialists, Bolsheviks & today’s Social Democrats/Liberal Fascists.
    U.S. Controlling Collectivists – Der Fuehrer Zer0bama, Dingy Harry Reid, Die-In Feinstein, Putrid Pelosi, & HillBillary Clitnons – are no different. They’re admitted, proud “Progressives.” They’ve worn out “liberal,” a hijacked term which means really liberty & freedom, which they abhor, really. Likewise jihadists, who, also, are collectivists with the hive mentality (think Muslim “Matrix”).
    These retread “progs” disguised as pros, profs & probs proceed as if we Christians are too stupid, forgetful &/or distracted by the Dems’ scandal diarrhea, and trailer-trash TV, to understand & stop their regressive programs while we “cling to guns or religion.” Guilty as charged, the last part anyway. They can’t handle that Christianity is for everyone, but we’re not buying into their choice: THEIR WAY OR THE DIE WAY.
    Never give in. Never surrender. Never submit. Never say die!

    Please do US a favor; familiarize yourself with our foes:
    THE PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT
    James A. Watkins
    “The Progressive Movement began late in the 19th Century. Its Central Tenets are Statism, Income Redistribution, Unionism, Government Management of the Economy, womb to tomb provision for its citizens, and a Libertine Social Policy. To accomplish these aims, The Progressive Movement believes in State Ownership of Businesses—instead of Entrepreneurial Free Enterprise; Central Planning by the Government of the supply of goods and services, including fixing prices of wages, and of goods and services—instead of Free Market Capitalism; That all Citizens should have equal wealth except for the Elite Rulers; And that Sovereignty does not belong to Individual Citizens—but that the People only exist for the benefit of the National State. Various large parts of this Ideology are identical to Socialism and Fascism, including the ideas that the use of courts, bureaucracies—even the police and military—should be used to accomplish goals that would never be approved by a Democracy or a Republic (such as The United States of America under its current Constitution).”

    “FATHER” OF THE PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT, H.G. WELLS, noted science fiction author … a devotee of Darwinism … part of his mission was to reassign human beings from the spiritual to the natural world. The best way to get to know the Father of the Progressive Movement is to read his own quotes:
    “The State that most resolutely picks over, educates, sterilizes or poisons its People of the Abyss will be most successful.” “Death would merely end the bitterness of their failure.” “It should be their lot to die out and disappear . . . since they are born of unrestrained lusts . . . and multiplying through sheer incontinence and stupidity.” “Idiots, drunkards, criminals, lunatics, invalids, and the diseased would spoil the world for others.” He believed we should prevent people below a certain intelligence and income from reproducing. At the least they should isolated for their failures on a island. “Remove the unfit so we have no need for jails or prisons.” Abolish democracy because the “common uneducated man is a violent fool in social and political affairs.” What was required was a “great central organization that would dictate what would be done here, there and everywhere … imposing its will upon a recalcitrant race.” He called his own political philosophy “Liberal Fascism.” Wells said of Joseph Stalin “I have never met a man more candid, fair and honest.” Wells was a big booster of eugenics, which is based solidly on Darwinism, of course—that unfortunately found its full flower in Nazi Germany with mass extermination.”
    http://james-a-watkins.hubpages.com/hub/The-Progressive-Movement

    God Bless You and Yours!
    Onward Christian Soldiers!


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X