The title of Dr. Mike’s latest Townhall piece strenuously hints that he’s about to go all Swiftian on our asses, and while I suspect there’s going to be more Premium Ham and less Jonathan in the presentation, I don’t want to prejudice the jury. So let’s all sit back and enjoy the flint-edged satire, shall we?
In recent years, I’ve been forced to re-evaluate my positions on a number of subjects.“For instance, I used to think that merely hearing the word ‘vagina’ would make my mighty manroot fold over like the Uncle Sam air dancer at a car dealership when you shut the fan off. But now I realize that I also go limp when I hear the words cooter, distaff, and pants-peach.”
Last week, it happened again when New Hampshire Governor John Lynch signed legislation making New Hampshire the first state to repeal a law requiring that parents be notified before a child decides to kill its unborn baby. This legislation has now helped me get over my antiquated moral objections to statutory rapeGiven that Dr. Professor Mike wooed and wed one of his own students, I have a feeling his objections to sex between older and younger partners is less a matter of moral principle and more a matter of degree.
Governor Lynch said he believes parents should be involved in the minor’s decision to abort but that “unfortunately” such input is “not possible” in all cases. If that is true of the decision to abort, how much more true is it concerning the decision to have sex? It would be nice if a parent were around to help a ten-year old decide whether twenty one-year olds’ sexual advances are best rejected, but such supervision is, after all, rarely a realistic possibility.Mike, Mike, it’s only the second paragraph, and you’ve already turned into the overexcited dweeb who blows his load before the other guys in the circle jerk even get their pants off. Pace yourself, dude.
Currently, all but six states have laws requiring parental notification or consent for a minor seeking an abortion. But eight others (excluding New Hampshire’s) have been deemed unenforceable according to NARAL Pro-Choice America.Just for the record, Mike’s cribbing this statement from the Associated Press (“Forty-four states have laws requiring parental notification or consent for a minor seeking an abortion. Nine laws, including New Hampshire’s, were unenforceable, according to NARAL Pro-Choice America”) but he did have the decency to make some minor word changes, much like the waitress who good-naturedly allows you replace the home fries with a pear slice and cottage cheese, even though the menu says No Substitutions. Unfortunately, it leaves the impression that NARAL Pro-Choice America has assumed unto itself the power to declare state laws unenforceable, when it fact it was the governor who noted a constitutional flaw in the statue: “Lynch cited the law’s lack of a provision regarding the pregnant minor’s health, agreeing with the judge who ruled the law unconstitutional in 2003.”
I’ll soon be contacting NARAL to ask them for support in my efforts to have far less easily enforced statutory rape laws abolished in all fifty states across the nation.Apparently Mike feels that laws regarding the age of consent are unenforceable unless they include a provision to protect the health of the minor, since everyone knows that intercourse prevents your balls from exploding, and makes your face clear up without the potentially dangerous side effects of laser blackhead removal.
Recently, Republican Party Chairman Fergus Cullen said that a person can be pro-choice and simultaneously take the view that parents have a right to know whether their children become pregnant.Why yes, he did say this recently. Quite recently. In fact, he said it in the very same article that Dr. Mike stole the rest of his column from. It’s a small world after all.
But what Cullen should have said is that it is not possible to believe that a child has a right to consent to abortion while simultaneously taking the view that she may not consent to sex. In fact, the sex is pretty much a prerequisite to the condition of pregnancy.Of course, sometimes sex to which a child did not consent causes a pregnancy, and denying her the right to choose an abortion is sort of like getting two rapes in one. But the repealed law involved parental notification, not consent, and most teens who can tell their parents, do. In the relatively few cases where they can’t, preserving the health of the minor doesn’t always refer to the risks of pregnancy, sometimes it just means avoiding a beating.
Planned Parenthood offices around the nation have long concealed sex between children and adults in cases where the child has already been impregnated by the adult.How exactly does Planned Parenthood conceal sex between children and adults? I suspect it’s either through a cunning use of decorative shrubberies, or perhaps when the May-December intercourse commences, a Planned Parenthood counselor points excitedly in the opposite direction and shouts, “Ah! Gamera!”
Or maybe Dr. Mike is just referring to Kansas Attorney General Phil Kline’s failed fishing expedition into the medical records of Planned Parenthood in an effort to publically shame girls and women who have had sought reproductive health services:
In a broad interpretation of Kansas’s mandatory reporting law related to child abuse and neglect, Kline has said that health care providers are required to report any sexual activity between teens under 16 as “abuse,” regardless of consent and the age difference between the partners. The definition of sexual interaction is so broad and vague as to possibly include teenage petting…But back to Dr. Professor Mike:
Then, on April 18, a federal judge ruled that Kansas law does not require health care workers to report the sexual activity of people under 16, invalidating Kline’s interpretation of the law. The judge also ruled that Kline’s interpretation, if allowed to stand, would violate the constitutional privacy rights of teens.
“The state has a strong interest in protecting minors and promoting public health,” wrote Judge J. Thomas Marten in his opinion. “But … the Attorney General’s Opinion goes beyond the scope of the reporting statute, potentially criminalizing the decisions health care providers make in utmost good faith, and solely with the physical and emotional health of their patients in mind. The Attorney General’s over-expansive interpretation of the reporting statute not only fails to serve the public interest, it actually serves to undermine it by causing minors to avoid seeking medical services and potentially overburdening SRS [the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services].”
…Kline’s true motive in these recent actions was not lost on Dahlia Lithwick, senior editor of Slate.com. “Why … doesn’t he subpoena all hospital records for evidence of all teen births?” she wrote in February. “Is it possible that he is less interested in pursuing the real crime of teen sex than the non-crime of abortion? … This [reporting] law — along with Kline’s attempts to subpoena state abortion records … is part of the attorney general’s single-minded use of his vast authority in the sole interest of hassling Kansas’ abortion providers.”
Understandably, they do not want to let the legal “complications” surrounding child rape to interfere with a child’s willingness to seek an abortion. But no reasonable person could disagree with the assertion that statutory rape laws exert a far greater deterrent to a child’s right to control her own body.It kind of seems that – oh, I don’t know – getting pushed down the stairs by an angry, Lone Star-sodden stepfather you were legally obliged to notify of your pregnancy, or being forced to carry said pregnancy to term, would actually present “a far greater deterrent to a child’s right to control her own body.” But no one’s ever accused me of being reasonable.
I would suggest that concerned citizens everywhere take a page out of the Planned Parenthood playbook and start to help children who wish to exercise the right to express themselves sexually.Pass out brochures and prophylactics? Mike, buddy, I’d like to help, but I’ve only got three Lifestyles Tuxedo Black Condoms With Extra Head Room left, and it’s the weekend, dude!
In fact, starting today I plan to open up my home to any child who needs a place to explore her sexuality with an adult. A ten-year old and her twenty-one year old boyfriend can use my extra bedroom anytime with as much confidentially as she would expect from the good people at Planned Parenthood.Again with the 10- and 20-year olds. What is Dr. Mike’s obsession with sex between people a decade apart in age? Could it have something to do with his being born in 1964, and marrying, in 2001, a woman who had just graduated from college (making him 37 and her, what? 22? 24?) Hm. Nah, nothing unsavory there. I’m sure they have lots in common (besides a love of threatening emails).
We already have an America in which it is difficult to buy little girls clothes that do not make them look sexual. And we are well on our way to allowing these children to kill their children just like adults have been doing for years. Progress and moral consistency both demand that we allow them to have sex with adults.Geez, Prof, you're going an awful long way just to get a date. Couldn't you just take out a personal ad in Highlights magazine, or something?
Posted by scott on Saturday, July 7th, 2007 at 7:24 pm.
38 Responses to “Dr. Mike S. Adams: NAMBLA’s Answer To Harriet Tubman”