Abortions And Gardasil For 12 Year Old Girls

By | October 11, 2011

WARNING:  THIS POST MAY BE OFFENSIVE TO SOME AND MAY NOT BE SAFE FOR WORK

WARNING:  THIS POST MAY BE OFFENSIVE TO SOME AND MAY NOT BE SAFE FOR WORK

On Sunday, California Governor Jerry Brown announced that he had signed AB499 into law.  This bill is basically what’s known as the law that let’s young girls (as young as 12) decide to get preventative treatments against HPV (like Gardasil) without consulting their parents.  They can go wherever this service is being offered and get a $500 series of vaccinations without so much as telling their parents they’ve chosen to do so.  An interesting point that crosses my mind is that any parent who has a 12 year old daughter that can “disappear” long enough to get Gardasil administered to her without her parents noticing is probably the same parent that would have a sexually active 12 year old in the first place.  The monster feeds itself on this one.  (please note that this is conjecture on my part, and it’s somewhat tasteless conjecture at that)

While studying this story, I also came to a realization that is so shocking that I had to double check it and then check it five more times before I was willing to believe it.  In California, there is no parental involvement when it comes to getting abortions regardless of how young the girl is.  The same 12 year old girl that can get these HPV vaccinations can presumably get an abortion too.  Chew on that for a second.  Abortions can be performed on minors without the parents’ consent and without notifying the parents either.  That is astounding.

So, basically, a sixth grade girl can decide to get the HPV treatments, have sex with an adult for all we know, get pregnant, and have an abortion all without her parents ever finding out.  If you ever wanted to know why California is in such bad shape, I think this scenario would be a good place to start looking.  AGAIN, THIS PIECE IS STRICTLY MY OPINION AND POSSIBLY OFFENSIVE TO SOME.  But I don’t see how any good can come from the foundation this state has set in place.

Jamie Oliver doesn’t think kids in L.A. are smart enough to pick what flavor milk they can drink.  Why does anyone think they can decide on what is prudent with their health or their sexual organs?  Why are minors allowed to decide to have an abortion?  At this point, I don’t even consider myself a prude; I just don’t think any good can come from children having this much control without any way that parents can intervene.  And that’s the irony, don’t you think?  Who gets in trouble when children break the law?  Who does that onus usually fall on?  The parents, right?  How many shades of grey do there really need to be in California?  I have a child, and I live in California.  What will this state let my offspring do behind my back by the time they are “old enough to make these decisions”?  That is an anxiety that no parent should have to feel, but I feel it.

I know that proponents of these laws say it’s because if these laws weren’t in place, then parents would let dreams of sexual abstinence cloud the reality of teenage intercourse or some crap like that.  And you know what, there is some truth to that.  A little bit…  But this is California.  I think most parents are pretty well aware that their kids might start screwing at younger age than what is desirable.  I also think those parents (myself included) would like to think they have some say-so when or if that happens.  In California, we don’t.

And then there is the truly frightening paradox.  On one hand, my child is so fragile, that they “need” to stay on my insurance until they are 26 years old.  But on the other hand, they can kill a baby when they are 16 (or even younger).  Please explain how this social and legal schizophrenia sounds rational to anyone.  Maybe in 1956, it was common for fathers to scare their daughters so badly that they resorted to a back-alley abortion, but in 2011, I just don’t think it happens that often.

But you know what?  I’m a reasonable man.  How about a compromise?  If a minor decides she wants vaccines or an abortion, why not have an advocate of some sort present in police stations.  Some officers come to the home and explain that the minor is pregnant and/or sexually active and scared.  She’s scared that her parents will hurt her if they find out, so these advocates come and explain it to the parents, while creating a safe atmosphere.  Now maybe my idea for advocates is crap.  I haven’t put enough thought into it to fight you over it, but I think it’s a lot better letting a 12 year old see doctors or kill babies behind my back.  There has to be some sort of middle ground, even in Progressive California.

These are my thoughts, and this is my rant.  This is in no way an objective piece of analysis.  These are just my thoughts. (and there were two warnings at the start of the piece, in case you didn’t notice them)

With that said, I’ll leave you with this video I made which mocks the policies in California.  Like this post, the video may be offensive to some.

Conservative Daily News allows a great deal of latitude in the topics contributors choose and their approaches to the content. We believe that citizens have a voice - one that should be heard above the mass media. Readers will likely not agree with every contributor or every post, but find reasons to think about the topic and respond with comments. We value differing opinions as well as those that agree. Opinions of contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of CDN, Anomalous Media or staff. Click here if you'd like to write for CDN.
Put This Story in your Circles and Share with your Friends