What happened in Cleveland, Texas, in the past five months might be considered the “Lucy Ricardo moment” for America’s so-called pro-choice supporters. As in, “they have some ‘splaining to do.” Last November, an 11-year-old Latina was gang-raped in the town about 40 miles northeast of Houston. At least one of the idiots who took part in this atrocity recorded the incident on a cell phone camera. Videos of the assault surfaced at the girl’s school. One of her classmates alerted the principal, who alerted police.
So far, 18 suspects have been arrested and charged. According to some news stories, all of them are black; according to others, the “overwhelming majority” are. No matter: Houston “activist” Quanell X has made the incident a race issue, basically wondering where all the white guys who had sex with the girl are, and why they haven’t been arrested.
None of that has to do with the so-called pro-choicers and their Lucy Ricardo moment. A New York Times story about the incident quoted Cleveland residents who expressed sympathy for the suspects and accused the girl of dressing older than her years. Those who say that none of that matters, and that the girl is only 11, are exactly right. No 11-year-old anywhere in the country can legally consent to have sex with anyone.
But imagine a different scenario, one where any 11-year-old girl has sex with an older boy or man. She gets pregnant, knows she’s in hot water, and doesn’t want her parents to find out. So she goes to an abortion clinic. In some states, she can have that abortion without her parents’ knowledge or consent.
And some of the same ones now saying “she’s just an 11-year-old girl” would steadfastly support the girl and her “right” to have an abortion without parental knowledge or consent.
Pro-choicers would love to have it both ways, but they can’t. If minors are indeed children who can’t legally consent to have sex with anyone, then they don’t suddenly become adults able to make adult decisions if the minor is a girl who wants to have an abortion without her parents’ consent or knowledge.
Planned Parenthood’s supporters have their panties in a wad these days because of attempts to prevent the organization from being given federal tax money. But Planned Parenthood is one of those organizations that opposes parental notification, this disclaimer on its Web site about Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains position notwithstanding:
“Planned Parenthood wholeheartedly encourages parental involvement when a young woman is faced with an unplanned pregnancy.”
That, loosely translated, means Planned Parenthood is for parental involvement except in those cases where the organization is against it. Those instances, Planned Parenthood claims — again, the information comes from its Web site — include minors “who come from homes where physical violence and emotional abuse are prevalent or because their pregnancies are the result of incest.”
Having taken the exceptional cases where state officials would intervene and remove parents from the decision-making process, Planned Parenthood then reveals the minors they really want to help:
“In other cases, young women may not realize how supportive their parents may be.” That may sound good, even logical, sitting out there on Planned Parenthood’s Web site. But in the real world it translates into this:
Planned Parenthood supports any minor who wants an abortion without parental notification for any reason that minor chooses, be it sound or silly.
If that unfortunate girl in Cleveland, Texas, ends up pregnant and decides she wants an abortion without consulting her parents, I’d be dying to hear Planned Parenthood’s position on that.
Examiner Columnist Gregory Kane is a Pulitzer-nominated news and opinion journalist who has covered people and politics from Baltimore to the Sudan.
