Blagojevich outrageously advocates shielding pedophiles and rapists
Yesterday, Blagojevich’s spokeswoman Abby Ottenhoff defended his position against a parental notification law by outrageously advocating that victims be kept trapped and silenced from receiving legal help.
According to NBC5.com, "[Ottenhoff] said the governor does not support such a notification law because he believes minors who become pregnant after they were raped by a stepfather or other relative should not be forced to tell a parent or a judge."
Why not? Does the governor really mean to say he advocates eliminating the only hope a young girl may have to escape her sexual predator? Clearly and contemptibly, the answer is yes.
Blagojevich is so consumed with maintaining his cozy relationship with the abortion industry that he has lost all sense of reason and decency. He would rather protect unfettered access to abortion clinics than protect young girls from sexual animals.
Blagojevich has a Mac-Truck-wide blind spot when it comes to abortion. As recently as September he touted his launch of the Child Lures Prevention Program, which according to his press release was to:
... help prevent child… exploitation… [because] at least 1 in 5 girls and 1 in 10 boys will be sexually abused before they turn 18, according to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The Illinois Department of Children and Family Services estimates that more than 8,000 children are sexually abused every year in Illinois.
Yet Blagojevich wants to ignore the greatest evidence of sexual abuse: pregnancy. Offering abortion in Illinois without parental notification allows a sexual predator to victimize a young girl not once but over and over.
The man is sick.
Hat tip: Rich Miller
17 comments:
A bit of a stretch...
I'm all about victims' rights here. Yes, a young girl actually should have rights--imagine that. I think if a victim of such a violent crime as rape wants to abort the result of it, that should be her call, not the call of self-righteous politicians in suits and ties, or the "parent" who probably committed the crime.
Good for the guv (I don't say that very often) for fighting the sick bastards and sticking up for victims.
Roe v. Wade legalized abortion. That's it. End of story. There should be no exceptions at all to that rule. Stop kicking and screaming and move on to some other right-wing issue, like the "war on Christmas."
Oh, and happy holidays.
Jill, what makes me sick is you horribly stretching Blagojevich's position to say he advocates shielding rapists. That's the same as if someone said that you are against curing Alzheimer's and Parkinson's Disease because you oppose stem cell research. Don't give us that b.s.
Look, we all know you oppose abortion and that's fine. The pro-Life side of the abortion debate has very a very compelling argument, namely, that fetuses are human beings, and like all other human beings, should be protected against murder unless they are a direct and immediate threat to someone's life (ie abortion is only justified when the mother's life is in danger as this is morally equivalent to self-defense). That is a logical argument and one that is strong enough to stand on its own. By talking about this garbage that Governor Blagojevich supports shielding pedophiles, you dilute your message and make Pro-Life people look like morons.
A number of comments were removed from this thread.
Any reason why?
Skeeter, all: Please keep your comments civil, on topic, and sans slurs. Otherwise, they will be deleted.
Skeeter, we cannot edit comments for insults and slurs. If one portion goes over the line, we can only delete. By your last (now deleted) post, it sounds like you know when you cross the line.
Moderator said...
Skeeter, all: Please keep your comments civil, on topic, and sans slurs. Otherwise, they will be deleted.
This blog post isn't civil, it's inflammatory and offensive, it's a flawed piece of reasoning, but it is a great example of a typical right-wing diatribe, that totally goes off the edge. Unfortunately, we see a lot of these on Illinoize, and I don't really believe that it honestly reflects on what reasonable people believe about the issue.
One of the strongest arguments against parental notification is that, unfortunately, some pregnancies in young women are caused by incest. This tragedy would then be compounded by a young victim having to perversely seek permission to end the pregnancy from the person who caused that pregnancy.
Nowhere in this post does the article address that reality, instead the logic is turned on its head to say that without a parental notification, these crimes are being hidden. It doesn't really say how with parental notification this would be addressed, it is just loosely implied that would happen. Tell me, Jill, in states with parental notification laws, are their more convictions of rape and incest? Are there less pregnancies from this type of abuse? Do you have any other facts that back up your argument, except for your absolute conviction that you are right?
No, or course not. Because this argument is ridiculous, and inflammatory, and really, I don't see how a comment calling this blog post what it is, totally freaking nuts, is out of line, it's the truth.
I have to say that I am amused by the contrasts here.
"Blagojevich allows a sexual predator to victimize a young girl not once but over and over."
Per the moderator: Not offensive.
"Blagojevich is protecting pedophiles is indisputable."
Per the moderator: Not offensive.
"The pro-life movement does not care about the victims of rape or incest"
Per the moderator: Offensive.
Apparently, the moderator is Jill Stanek herself.
This was a nice idea for a forum -- to put people togehter from various sides to trade views. Too bad it looks like it has become just another site for the voice of the far right. No dissent allowed.
I usually stay out of these posts, but let's get back to the topic at hand, shall we? There is way too much gratuitous bashing of Stanek here. If she chooses to delete the worst of them, she has my full support.
Jill, it's sad to see that you've deleted my second post. I guess you have to resort to censorship as your only response to well-reasoned criticism. What's sad is that I am also pro-Life and believe that abortion should only be legal in cases of rape, incest, and a danger to the mother's life (as I believe that the fetus's right to life trumps the mother's right to control her body if the fetus came to be in the mother as a result of her voluntary actions). However, I have been sickened by the radicals wackos in the pro-Life movement who turn people away by saying stupid things like Blagojevich wants to shield pedophiles. You know that that is not his intention and saying so makes you look nuts and in turn casts a bad light on us reasonable pro-Lifers.
Rational people know that Pro-Choicers don't oppose parental notification because they want to protect child rapists. They believe that young girls should be able to have control over their bodies. There is of course a logical counterargument to that, namely that this is a serious decision to make and a serious invasive procedure and as such minors should consult their parents in doing this, just as they should for other similar things.
So Jill, remember that there are people in the pro-Life movement who aren't sensationalists who reach for the lowest common denominator to discredit pro-Choice politicians. You;ve probably turned off twice as many people to the pro-Life message with these tactics than you have brought into it, and frankly, most of what you write just preaches to the radical elements of the crowd. And as someone who truly does care about the protection of the lives of the unborn, I find that to truly be a tragedy.
Have a Merry Christmas.
And to add, don't give me that garbage about "let's not call people names". Your entire post is basically calling Rod Blagojevich an enabler of child-rapists, and that is a pretty bad name to call someone. So if you can't live by that standard when you criticize pro-choice politicians (I've read columns where you call them monsters and butchers), don't try to moralize and criticize me when I hold your same standard to yourself.
Jill
Don't most of the mid-western states have notification laws. Who are they and why is it ok for those states to require it and not ok for Illinois?
Also, isn't the parental notification requirement already a law in Illinois but the courts just won't enforce it?
Jill,
You deleted my comment, but you chose to quote part of it.
The gist of what I had to say was, do you have any evidence whatsoever to suggest that in States where these laws exsists, their are any more convictions for child sexual abuse that in states that don't?
To Abe Linocln, I say, Jill is deleting comments that make her argument look dumb.
-Alex
rich miller: I usually stay out of these posts, but let's get back to the topic at hand, shall we? There is way too much gratuitous bashing of Stanek here. If she chooses to delete the worst of them, she has my full support.
That's impossible and even absurb to ask for a post titled "Blagojevich outrageously advocates shielding pedophiles and rapists".
This is so way out of the mainstream that it's difficult to come up with anything that might be moderate in tone.
But let me give it a try. The notion that any governor "advocates shielding pedophiles and rapists" is outrageous and disgraceful from the get-go. It really reflects badly on just what kind of Blog this is supposed to be. It's really language more appropriate to the wall of a bathroom than anywhere here.
But then, perhaps I mistake the intent of this blog. That's always a possibility.
According to Jill Stanek:
"Blagojevich agrees with denying pregnant minor incest and rape victims the only legal recourse - escape - they may have to report their molester to authorities."
Ms. Stanek: That statement is not true, and you know it.
He never BARRED them from any legal recourse. He just said that it should not be necessary in order to obtain an abortion.
Jill -
Welcome to America, where we don't withhold medical services from people in order to compel them to testify.
By your logic, NO rape victim, domestic violence victim, or crime victim should receive medical services unless they are willing to swear out a warrant.
On a related note, you still haven't answered my question as to why, if you are so gosh darn pro-life and pro-adoption, you haven't adopted any children yourself?
Have a Hypocritical Day!
YDD
Ms. Stanek: Is there is a difference between:
"Not required to report to police before receiving medical care"
and
"Barred from reporting"?
Why do you insist they are the same?
On a related issue, if a woman is beaten, are in favor of requiring her to report the conduct to the police before a doctor can provide treatment?
Ms. Stanek,
Your post was interesting, in that it claimed to be addressed to me, but it did not address the issue.
Is there is a difference between
"Not required to report to police before receiving medical care"
and
"Barred from reporting"?
Would you admit that there is nothing being done by our gov. to prevent a woman from reporting the identity of her attacker after she recieves medical care?
Post a Comment