Earlier this week a student in my history class approached
my desk after completing a reading assignment and told me they had a bad
headache. I sent them to the school nurse with a pass and was surprised when
they returned rather abruptly. I asked her if she got her Tylenol and she said,
“No, she can’t give me any.”
I had forgotten that schools are no longer allowed to
disperse even something as benign as Tylenol without written parental consent
and provision. Meanwhile, in the left-wing paradise of Massachusetts, NPR
Surely I don’t need to spend any time explaining to anyone
how much more invasive, consequential, and potentially dangerous an abortion
procedure is compared to a Tylenol. If we desire to protect children enough to
respect parental rights when it comes to curing a headache, how in a sane world
would we be unwilling to do the same when it comes to abortion?
And let’s not ignore the most serious problem with this idea
– the young victims it would undoubtedly create. Any pedophile, rapist, or
sexual abuser would enjoy the ability to cloak their crimes by surreptitiously
sneaking their victim away for an abortion. Not to mention this kind of
legislation is a sex trafficker’s dream.
And lest anyone believe that abortion facilities would do their due diligence, Live Action’s investigation proved years ago that Planned Parenthood was gallingly complicit in helping sexual abusers cover up their crimes.
So if the known consequence is the negligent endangering of children, what is the argument in favor? What good possibly comes from this move? And why is it that the abortion movement always seems to favor laws that restrict information and deprive those involved of knowledge?