Mothers Rally to Protect Daughters in Abortion Decision
In response to a recent address by Illinoiss governor expressing his pro-choice support, women in Chicago are rallying to protect daughters in their choice of abortion.
As pro-lifers mark the 33rd anniversary of "Roe v. Wade" with a march on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., beginning at noon today, women in Chicago are holding their own rally to protect daughters in their choice of abortion.
In response to Governor Rod R. Blagojevich's 2006 State of the State address in which he expressed his pro-choice support, women are rallying against the governor's opposition to a minor girl's parents being notified in the case of an abortion.
"If you are telling us its a women's right to choice, we will respect that because clearly it is the law of the land. Whether we agree with it or not is not the issue; the issue is that we are now qualifying such women as 9-14 year olds," said Yvonne Florczak Seeman, Illinois director of Time to Speak, in a released statement. "Whether or not my daughter has to undergo a surgical procedure is not any ones right but the mothers/parents of that child not choice. Parents want laws to protect their children, not drive a wedge between them."
Minor girls aged 9-14 years are allowed to have a "surgical procedure" without the consent of the parents which often indicates a case of sexual abuse.
"As mothers, now more than ever, we need to stand in the gap and protect the daughters with whom God has entrusted us," said Florczak. "Whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, doesnt matter, 'choice' is taking away our most sacred responsibility to protect our daughters against sexual predators."
The rally, held by Time to Speak on behalf of the mothers of Illinois, was scheduled to begin at 10:00 a.m. CST at The Thompson Center.
Last week, the Supreme Court sent back a ruling to the lower court that declared a New Hampshire law unconstitutional. The law requires parental notification before a minor has an abortion but has no exception for medical emergencies. While previous laws required such an exception, the justices said the federal appeals court went too far in permanently blocking the law.