House votes again to criminalize taking minor across state line for abortion
By JIM ABRAMS
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Accompanying a minor across a state line to obtain an abortion and avoid parental notification in the girl's home state would become a federal crime under a bill the House passed Tuesday.

Republican supporters said the 264-153 vote confirmed public sentiment that parental involvement superceded a minor's right to have an abortion. Democratic opponents foresaw the arrests of grandmothers and religious counselors trying to shield girls from abusive parents.

Chances are slim that the House and the Senate, which approved a more limited version of the bill in July, will devise a compromise they can send to the president before the end of this session of Congress.

But the House vote gives House conservatives something to showcase when they return home next week to campaign for the midterm elections. The interstate abortion bill, long a priority of anti-abortion groups, joined limits on stem cell research among the top items on conservative agendas this year.

The House on Tuesday passed another bill on that agenda, a measure aimed at discouraging lawsuits against local, state and federal governments over issues involving separation of church and state.

The abortion bill, and a similar measure passed by the Senate in July, make it a federal crime to take a pregnant girl across state lines for an abortion without her parent's knowledge.

"It protects minors from exploitation from the abortion industry, it promotes strong family ties and it helps foster respect for state laws," said the bill's sponsor, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla. Bill supporters argued that it made no sense that minors who need parental permission to get an aspirin at school or go on field trips can get an abortion without telling their parents.

The House bill also makes it a crime if the abortion provider in the second state fails to give one of the minor's parents, or a legal guardian, 24 hours notice before an abortion is performed.

The person transporting the minor across state lines, or the doctor who fails to provide notification, would be subject to a $100,000 fine or one year in jail or both. About half the states have some kind of parental involvement law.

"Not since the enactment of the Fugitive Slave Act in 1850 have we used the powers of the federal government to enforce the laws of one state on the territory of another," said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., a leading opponent.

The House has passed interstate abortion bills four times since 1998, and could have sent a bill to the president by approving the Senate-passed version. But House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., said the Senate bill "has loopholes wide enough to drive a 16-wheeler through."

He said the House was pressing its version again "in the hopes that the Senate will look at this modified bill in prayerful reflection and send it on to the president."

The House bill taken up Tuesday does contain Senate language preventing a parent who has committed incest from being able to sue and obtain money damages from someone who might transport a minor across state lines for an abortion. It also encompasses cases in which a minor is taken to a foreign nation or an Indian reservation for an abortion.

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said the bill "does nothing to protect young people or promote communication between teens and their parents."

She said that with only 13 percent of U.S. counties having an abortion provider, many young women must travel to neighboring states for an abortion. The bill also has no exception for teens who turn to another responsible adult because of violence at home, or situations of rape or incest, she said.

And this my friends, is why you should vote Libertarian.

surely the rights of the individual having the abortion should take precedence over the parent's right to know about it.

if those are your top priorities, then either it's all quiet on the western front (there's no war, terrorism, environmental issues in the world are there?) or there's something fucking wrong with you

And here without anger or resentment I bid you farewell. Sincerely wishing, that as men and christians, ye may always fully and uninterruptedly enjoy every civil and religious right; and be, in your turn, the means of securing it to others; but that the example which ye have unwisely set, of mingling religion with politics, may be disavowed and reprobated by every inhabitant of AMERICA. - Thomas Paine

it's a whole industry now and not a medical procedure?

give me a fucking break

wonderful.

once again, the states are really setting the trend as a world leader here.
:bangs head against brick wall:

the only part i would object to is the last clause, about finding another responsible if there is proof of abuse at home, but that would be tough to prove. a child can say the parents are mentally abusive cause they make her do her homework before going out, or having a job, a very slippery slope i think

but otherwise a parent has the right to know. is it ok for an adult to take a kid to bar in canada where they can drink legally? as a parent, i would be pissed beyond belief

My problem with this is that one state has parental notification and another doesn't, and the federal government is basically stepping in and telling every state that they have to have parental notification. All this to prevent how many abortions? How often does this scenario actually happen? Seems awfully heavy-handed.

I don't understand why this is needed and it sounds like a slap in the face in regards to state's rights.

If your kid is being escorted to a bar in Canada by an adult stranger then you are one horrible parent in the first place and thus deserving of said situation.

stranger yes, but what if its a teacher or someone else my kid knows well enough? ( i know highly unlikely [teacher], but still)

excellent post.

We're a nation of laws [to prevent rare and shocking exeptions to the rule].

Justices Make It Tougher to Sue Medical Device Makers

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/20/washi ... ref=slogin

In a case with huge implications for the health care-technology industry, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that the manufacturer of a federally approved medical device cannot be sued under state law if the device causes an injury.

The 8-to-1 ruling in favor of Medtronic, the Minneapolis-based maker of cardiovascular devices, made it much more difficult for patients and their families to sue makers of medical devices that have been granted federal approval.

In 1996, a balloon catheter burst and severely injured Charles R. Riegel while he was undergoing an angioplasty. Mr. Riegel and his wife, Donna, sued the company in federal court, contending that the catheter had been designed, labeled and manufactured in a way that violated New York state law, and that those defects had caused severe and permanent injuries to Mr. Riegel.

But a federal district court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in Manhattan, dismissed the Riegels’ suit on the ground that the catheter had been given premarket approval by the Food and Drug Administration, thus protecting the manufacturer from liability under state law. (The case of Riegel v. Medtronic was tried in federal court because the plaintiffs and defendant were based in different states.)

The Supreme Court upheld the lower federal courts on Wednesday, with Justice Antonin Scalia writing for the majority that Medtronic and other manufacturers were protected under the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, which in its section on pre-emption bars states from imposing on medical devices “any requirement which is different from, or in addition to, any requirement applicable under this chapter.”

But the justices’ ruling was hardly the last word on when F.D.A. approval bars patients from suing. They are already considering at least three cases involving drugs and drug-labeling.

Justice Scalia wrote that the F.D.A. spends an average of 1,200 hours reviewing each device application and grants premarket approval only if it finds there is a “reasonable assurance” of its “safety and effectiveness.”

“It may thus approve devices that present great risks if they nonetheless offer great benefits in light of available alternatives,” Justice Scalia wrote, noting that the F.D.A. approved a ventricular assist device for children with failing hearts “even though the survival rate of children using the device was less than 50 percent.”

Justice Scalia said jurors would probably not be in a position to weigh the benefits and dangers of medical devices as well as agency experts. A jury, he wrote, “sees only the cost of a more dangerous designed, and is not concerned with its benefits; the patient who reaped those benefits are not represented in court.”

The majority was apparently persuaded by Theodore B. Olson, the lawyer for Medtronic, who argued before the justices on Dec. 4 that the F.D.A. and not the courts was the right forum for imposing requirements on cutting-edge medical devices. Arguing that “nothing is perfectly safe,” Mr. Olson said it would harm patients and future patients to “discourage the marketing of products that might save our lives.”

Medtronic, which makes a wide variety of medical products and is one of the world’s largest manufacturers of cardiovascular devices, no longer makes the type of catheter used on Mr. Riegel, who died several years after the operation. As part of its defense, the company maintained that the doctor involved failed to heed a warning not to use the device on a patient who had calcified arteries, as Mr. Riegel did. Founded in 1949, Medtronic has more than 37,000 employees and had revenues of $12.3 billion in its last fiscal year, according to the company’s Web site.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was the lone dissenter on Wednesday, asserting that the majority had adopted an unnecessary “constriction of state authority.” Justice Ginsburg said she did not believe that Congress had intended to bring about “a radical curtailment of state common-law suits seeking compensation for injuries caused by defectively designed or labeled medical devices.”

In this case, the Bush administration had taken the side of the medical-device industry, arguing argued that there would be “serious undermining of F.D.A.’s approval authority and its balancing of the risks and benefits” if juries could second-guess the agency.

Allison M. Zieve, the lawyer for Donna Riegel, expressed her disappointment to Bloomberg News. “Pretty bad for patients, pretty good for industry profits,” she said.

Eh, I don't know how odd this is. From what my professor tells me, if an engineer makes something in accordance with the code, and that item fails under normal use, that engineer is not liable. This seems to be a similar situation, except that instead of an organization issuing codes, the federal government okays the design. I could be mistaken, however.

Not that I agree with this law in the slightest. . .

but isn't it illegal to take a minor across the state lines without parental permission for ANY reason???

the word we're looking at here is preemption. i was more surprised by the 8-1 vote.

Well, I hope not, since that would almost certainly be unconstitutional. That policy would be a disaster to enforce if it really exists. Could you imagine trying out that policy in Texarkana, TX or the Four Corners. If a group of 19 year olds with one 17 year old danced a conga line at the Four Corners the 19 year olds would be looking at hundreds of life sentences.

Yeah, I'm finding it difficult to take issue with this ruling. The FDA has taken upon itself to determine whether or no a product is fit for use in humans, and has in place rather onerous testing requirements. It seems terribly unfair to have companies jump through all these hoops to bring a product to market and then have full liability. If there are problems with the FDA, they can be addressed, but I see no benefit to scaring companies away from producing medical devices because of potential liability.

i'm not sure i'd call the fda testing requirements "onerous," because i'm quite unsure of where they stand considering the pro-business current administration.

Its safe to bet that a goodly number of products would be brought to the market months or years earlier if they didn't have to be approved by the FDA. Is the FDA testing exhaustive in all cases? Probably not, but it does take a long time and a lot of money.

that still doesn't get at whether they do a good job screening.

From what I can tell, this law has never been invalidated or repealed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mann_Act