Home About Chat Users Issues Party Candidates Polling Firms Media News Polls Calendar Key Races United States President Senate House Governors International

New User Account
"A collaborative political resource." 
Email: Password:

  No Consent: Your child can now be sterilized in Oregon for free
NEWS DETAILS
Parent(s) Issue 
Contributorkal 
Last Editedkal  Aug 13, 2012 03:15pm
Logged 0
CategoryNews
News DateMonday, August 13, 2012 11:00:00 PM UTC0:0
DescriptionThere is a shocking development in the new Obamacare Contraception Mandate that went into effect in Oregon on August 1. Your 15-year-old (as young as 12 in some cases) child can be sterilized for free, without your consent. Sterilized, not reversible but a permanent end to your child's ability to reproduce. Do you feel a 15-year-old is mature enough to make that decision? They can't legally drive to a clinic to have it done, or even legally engage in sex but they can make a decision affecting their lifelong ability to procreate.

Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 436.205 to 436.335 states: ‘Informed consent’ means consent given by an individual 15 years of age or older for sterilization that is: (a) Based upon a full understanding of the nature and consequences of sterilization pursuant to information requirements set forth in ORS 436.225(1); (b) Given by an individual competent to make such a decision; and (c) Wholly voluntary and free from coercion, express or implied.” Oregon defines “sterilization” as “any medical procedure, treatment or operation for the purpose of rendering an individual permanently incapable of procreating.”

Share
ArticleRead Article

NEWS
Date Category Headline Article Contributor

DISCUSSION
[View All
31
Previous Messages]
 
R:549kal ( -57.2262 points)
Tue, August 14, 2012 03:48:50 PM UTC0:00
dfs
Do you believe a 14 year old is capable of making an informed decsion to get sterilized?
no 10 (83.33%)
yes 2 (16.66%)
12 Votes Cast
View User Votes
Polls Close August 21, 2012 12:00am

 
D:6086Jason ( 7718.4429 points)
Tue, August 14, 2012 04:16:28 PM UTC0:00
Not likely, but I don't care about that.

A 14-year old who chooses sterilization is incapable of burdening society with children. That's a benefit for civilization, and comes with no disadvantages.

It's possible that 14-year old might grow up to regret the decision later, but hey, tough ****.

 
R:549kal ( -57.2262 points)
Tue, August 14, 2012 06:30:31 PM UTC0:00
Who said they were going to be burdening society with children at the age of 14?

 
D:479Brandon ( 1558.3782 points)
x3
Tue, August 14, 2012 06:42:12 PM UTC0:00
FWIW, I don't think a 14 year old should be allowed to consent to an abortion without parental involvement either, barring special circumstances (e.g. an abusive household, etc).

 
D:1RP ( 3311.3784 points)
Tue, August 14, 2012 08:35:11 PM UTC0:00
Reading the law, a court hearing is required to determine if the individual can give informed consent, and it requires notification of the hearing to the spouse, parent or legal guardian if applicable or anyone with an interest.

The whole law seems designed to protect people from getting sterilized without their consent.

 
LBT:8827Smart ( 1017.9734 points)
Tue, August 14, 2012 10:48:14 PM UTC0:00
Brandon: FWIW, I don't think a 14 year old should be allowed to consent to an abortion without parental involvement either, barring special circumstances (e.g. an abusive household, etc).
That's where I disagree strongly. Only that woman is getting the abortion - not her parents. If she consented to sex, she can also consent to an abortion. Parental notification and consent are nothing more than attacks on women's rights, especially the right to privacy.

 
D:479Brandon ( 1558.3782 points)
Tue, August 14, 2012 10:57:12 PM UTC0:00
First of all, in a lot of places, a 14 year old can't legally consent to sex.

Second, sex is sex.

An abortion, on the other hand, is a medical procedure, and an invasive one at that. Minors can't consent to medical procedures for themselves absent some kind of extenuating circumstance. Why should that be any less true of an abortion?

 
D:6086Jason ( 7718.4429 points)
Wed, August 15, 2012 12:38:24 AM UTC0:00
Brandon: Minors can't consent to medical procedures for themselves absent some kind of extenuating circumstance. Why should that be any less true of an abortion?

Getting knocked up is an extenuating circumstance.

 
D:479Brandon ( 1558.3782 points)
Wed, August 15, 2012 12:43:27 AM UTC0:00
Because it's likely to lead to life-changing circumstances unless a particular course of action is taken? I'm still missing what separates that from any number of other medical situations in which a minor is not customarily allowed to consent to treatment or a particular course of action on her own. I'm happy to listen to a logical and concrete distinction if anyone can offer one.

 
D:6086Jason ( 7718.4429 points)
Wed, August 15, 2012 12:47:36 AM UTC0:00
You qualified your position by making an exception for extenuating circumstances. Now you're saying extenuating circumstances do not matter because those extenuating circumstances don't apply to other medical procedures.

Your position is stupid.

 
D:479Brandon ( 1558.3782 points)
Wed, August 15, 2012 12:54:16 AM UTC0:00
LOL. Getting knocked up is not an "extenuating circumstance." It's the medical/physical condition itself.

If the very fact of a pregnancy itself is an "extenuating circumstance," then so, for example, is having some other physical condition/injury/whatever that can be addressed in a variety of ways, which the minor doesn't get to pick on their own.

With all due respect, mine isn't the position that's stupid here.

 
D:479Brandon ( 1558.3782 points)
Wed, August 15, 2012 12:58:56 AM UTC0:00
Again, I'm willing to consider what the distinction should be between a pregnancy and other health conditions with regard to why a minor should be allowed on her own to consent to a medical procedure in the former but not the latter, but suggesting that an implanted ovum itself is the "extenuating circumstance" whereas a cancerous tumor wouldn't be, is quite frankly laughable.

 
D:1RP ( 3311.3784 points)
Wed, August 15, 2012 01:08:40 AM UTC0:00
And if the parents of the child with the tumor are Scientologists and don't believe in medical treatment?

 
D:479Brandon ( 1558.3782 points)
Wed, August 15, 2012 01:20:36 AM UTC0:00
RP: And if the parents of the child with the tumor are Scientologists and don't believe in medical treatment?

Then a court gets involved and orders treatment despite the parents' non-consent, which has been done in several cases.

Similarly, if the treating phyisician(s) are convinced that there is a significant threat to a minor's life or health if an abortion is not performed, and the minor wants the abortion because of that, but parental consent cannot be obtained, THAT is the sort of "extenuating circumstance" I'm talking about in which other actors become involved in the decision-making process.

In no event, however, is there (or should there be) a blanket rule that says a minor can simply make the call in any potentially dire medical situation, without more details such as those in your hypothetical.

 
LBT:8827Smart ( 1017.9734 points)
Wed, August 15, 2012 01:21:32 AM UTC0:00
Brandon: First of all, in a lot of places, a 14 year old can't legally consent to sex.

Second, sex is sex.

An abortion, on the other hand, is a medical procedure, and an invasive one at that. Minors can't consent to medical procedures for themselves absent some kind of extenuating circumstance. Why should that be any less true of an abortion?
Minors should be able to consent to certain medical procedures, including abortions, using the same logic as Jason is using. It appears Jason and I are on the same side here.

 
D:6086Jason ( 7718.4429 points)
Wed, August 15, 2012 01:22:34 AM UTC0:00
Brandon: Again, I'm willing to consider what the distinction should be between a pregnancy and other health conditions with regard to why a minor should be allowed on her own to consent to a medical procedure in the former but not the latter, but suggesting that an implanted ovum itself is the "extenuating circumstance" whereas a cancerous tumor wouldn't be, is quite frankly laughable.

For what it's worth, I don't consider a cancerous tumor to not be an extenuating circumstance, nor was that argued anywhere. You are moving the goalposts again.

The legality of the issue claims otherwise, but the precedent of idiocy does not justify further idiocy. Abortion isn't some trivial procedure like breast augmentation or anal bleaching to prepare little Missy for her porn career.

 
D:479Brandon ( 1558.3782 points)
Wed, August 15, 2012 01:30:48 AM UTC0:00
I haven't moved the goal posts a single iota. My original statement was that minors can't consent to medical procedures absent some kind of extenuating circumstance. That is a factually true statement. There are several different medical contexts, including an abortion, in which I can easily envision such circumstances arising, as in the examples Randy and I discussed above. The existence of the condition in and of itself isn't one, however.

As for anal bleaching and breast augmentation, those are straw men, as I never in any way implied that my same reasoning doesn't apply to far more serious medical conditions across the board.

 
R:549kal ( -57.2262 points)
Wed, August 15, 2012 01:33:31 AM UTC0:00
I stand with Brandon 100%.

Minors should not be able to make these types of medical decisions independenly.


"Free" sterilization is covered under the HCRA. My question is, are minors able to make that decision independently?

Is the age of consent for sterilization/abortion etc determined at the state level?

 
D:6086Jason ( 7718.4429 points)
Wed, August 15, 2012 01:36:10 AM UTC0:00
Brandon: I haven't moves the goal posts a single iota. My original statement was that minors can't consent to medical procedures absent some kind of extenuating circumstance. That is a factually true statement. There are several different medical contexts, including an abortion, in which I can easily envision such circumstances arising, as in the exampled Randy and I discussed above. The existence of the condition in and of itself isn't one, however.

As for anal bleaching and breast augmentation, those are straw men, as I never in any way implied that my same reasoning doesn't apply to far more serious medical conditions across the board.

So your position is that because the law says so, it's right.

Well damn, it would have been a lot easier if you'd just come out and say that from the beginning instead of dragging it out with Kal-esque bull**** about tumors and general Kettle logic.

 
D:1RP ( 3311.3784 points)
Wed, August 15, 2012 01:44:11 AM UTC0:00
kal: Is the age of consent for sterilization/abortion etc determined at the state level?

Yep.

 
D:479Brandon ( 1558.3782 points)
Wed, August 15, 2012 01:51:41 AM UTC0:00
No, that is not my position. In general, to the extent that various laws do say what I've set out above, I think those laws are correct. That isn't me saying I think my stance is right "because" the law says so. Again, you're constructing straw men.

My point with the tumor remains, and is germane to the point MY argument included. Whether or not you said anything one way or another about tumors, etc., is irrelevant to why I said it to illustrate my own position. Perhaps if I'd known that your position is (apparently) that minors should have the definitive say on ANY serious medical issue they're faced with, I could have tailored my own response to better address that, but that was in no way clear from anything you posted. Elaborating on your own stance might have been more productive, then, than just calling my position stupid.

 
R:549kal ( -57.2262 points)
Wed, August 15, 2012 01:57:48 AM UTC0:00
RP: <Q 549>Is the age of consent for sterilization/abortion etc determined at the state level?
Yep.

So there are some states where a minor can get a sterilization without parental consent?