The story of a pregnant 13-year-old in Idaho shows why Harris and the Democrats must win

The sadism of the anti-choice crusaders

There are far too many poster children for all the evil done to America by a few religious zealots, supported by a far greater number of MAGAs. One of them could be 13-year-old Aleah from Idaho. Her story should drive all but the most hardened bastard crazy as hell. Unfortunately, America has no shortage of hard-hearted bastards.

These are the people who remain indifferent to a ten-year-old rape victim which was banned affected by an abortion in her home state of Ohio. And had to go to Indiana to meet her medical needs. Or a 13-year-old rape victim in Mississippi, who had to give birth her rapist's child because the family could not afford to travel to Illinois, the closest state that offers treatment for her forced condition.

Let's remember the sex under the Age of consent it is always rape, with some legal exceptions similar to age (aka “Romeo and Juliet”). However, there are still those who blame the victim.

Aleah's story

Note: Details come from a Washington Post report. CLICK HERE – The paywall should be disabled. But the comment is mine.

The piece begins:

The patient was 36 weeks pregnant and had mild but frequent contractions. She had come to the emergency room in this small lake town because she was new to the area and didn't have a doctor. In most cases, doctor Caitlin Gustafson would have started with a pelvic exam to determine whether labor had begun. This time she called the hospital's lawyers.

The expectant mother Aleah was only 13 years old. And under a new law in Idaho that requires parental consent for health care for almost all minors, Gustafson could be sued for treating her because the girl was brought in by her great-aunt.

The fact that a girl can't be treated immediately because the doctor fears legal repercussions for doing what's best for the patient is crazy. But the madness is also in the small details.

WaPo doesn't mention – probably because Americans accept this as normal – that the first question Aleah was probably asked upon admission was “What insurance do you have?” a question that most Europeans would find crazy.

Regardless, the hospital would have treated her without insurance — except for the state's parental consent law. It's absurd. I am a parent. Be sure to let me know what's going on. But if my child may need emergency treatment, give it. Don't wait for my permission.

In Aleah's case, this parental consent was not easy. As WaPo further explains:

“What followed was more than two hectic hours of trying to contact Aleah's mother, who lived in a car, and her grandmother, the teenager's legal guardian. The grandmother finally verbally consented to the test – from the Boise-area prison, where she was incarcerated on drug charges.

Luckily, Aleah's contractions turned out to be a false alarm. However, when she returned a few days later for a follow-up examination, the detained grandmother had to give her consent again.

Finally, Anna Karren, Aleah's great aunt, who originally brought her in, received a power of attorney (POA) from the grandmother. And Aleah received the medical care she needed until she gave birth.

Note: Aleah was living with an aunt three hours south until the woman was threatened with eviction. Then Karren, a construction worker at a ski resort, received a panicked call. She hasn't had any contact with Aleah's grandmother – her sister – for some time.

The POA, which had given Karren the authority to make decisions for Aleah, also allowed her to consent to the newborn's treatment. However, in an Orwellian irony, this permission was unnecessary. Aleah, since the mother could not make medical decisions herself, but she could make them for her child.

By the way, in case you're wondering, the father is another teenager – who's in a juvenile detention center.

The big picture

Make no mistake, there are a lot of people in Idaho – including Doctors, therapists, youth advocates, school officials and some law enforcement agencies – who have called the law “misguided and dangerous.”

But religiously motivated, hypocritical lawmakers are insensitive to humanity, empathy and common sense. And these are the callous bastards who make these sociopathic laws

The paper continues:

Critics say the law — which also gives parents access to minors' health records and eliminates the confidentiality that providers and teen advocates say is crucial — ignores the reality that parents are not always present or trustworthy. Three months after its launch, they claim it makes it harder for teens to access counseling services, limits evidence collection in sexual assault cases and requires schools to seek parental permission to treat abrasions with ice packs and bandages.

I am not saying that parents should be prevented from influencing the medical care of their teenage children. But what happened to granting some leeway “in loco parentis” to school authorities and medical staff?

There are some things that teenagers need to “help” an adult they trust because some topics are difficult to talk to parents about. Imagine the stress of being an LGBTQ child with homophobic parents. You don't have to be religious fundamentalists. It's bad enough when Dad tells gay/lesbian jokes. Or the mother criticizes a child for being a “tomboy” or pushes another child to play sports even though he or she would rather sew.

Children can shy away from talking to the most open-minded parents – who may not be as open-minded as they think. “Don't worry. It's just a phase.”

Not all Republicans are thoughtless. STate Rep. Marco Erickson (R), a youth organizer, said in an email to WaPo:

“It was a terrible bill with terrible consequences for young people, particularly those who are victims of abuse at the hands of their parents. I have seen teens not want to participate in therapy for fear that their abuser will have access to what they are talking about. I tried to warn my fellow legislators… but I was a Republican voice in a group of people who don’t understand how things work on the ground.”

But Erickson's concern and compassion only went so far. This idiot still (reluctantly) voted for the bill.

The big picture

Do laws that give parents absolute rights over their children result in the best outcome for every child? Barely. Some parents are not good at raising children. And children raised by these parents—or by one of these parents, a grandparent or an aunt, or who lived in multiple foster homes separated from their six siblings (see Aleah) have a steeper climb to becoming good parents themselves.

Conservatives repeatedly claim that it is ideal for mothers and fathers to raise children together. But how will children know this – or that children raised by same-sex parents will achieve positive outcomes – if the same people continue to pass laws that prohibit educated adults from raising the children of poorly informed parents?

Comprehensive sexuality education should be mandatory in schools. And that should highlight the enormous burden that single parenthood and teenage pregnancy bring. Relationship counseling should be accompanied by free contraception. You don't have to sleep with someone to prove your love for them. However, if you want to sleep with them, here's how you can do it safely – with minimal long-term consequences in the form of a child or a sexually transmitted disease.

The legislature should pass laws that benefit all citizens, regardless of age. No laws promoting a personal religious agenda. Pregnant women trying to give birth die because doctors are too afraid to treat pregnancy complications. And girls who shouldn't be pregnant are because lawmakers sacrifice common sense for religious fundamentalism.

You can call it “Parental Rights.” But these goddamn people don't care about parents any more than they care about children. Or children giving birth to children.

Conservatives will never break this cycle of futility. Liberals have a chance. But only if they win elections – at the federal and state levels.