This ban is an attack on the morality of women and they are only looking for a way to continue to control women’s reproductive lives.

But p.s., they’re not okay with it. Several anti-choice groups are opposing Measure 11, because it allows those exceptions. And anti-choice leaders at least morally oppose these exceptions entirely across the board.

This law actually does help women and kids. It also puts the burden squarely where it belongs…on the general public to complain and police to solve the problem.

Mandated reporting laws aren’t nearly as good of things as a lot of people seem to think. In my personal experience they have lead to problems like DCFS in Illinois unofficially only taking cases of life threatening physical abuse or ongoing sexual abuse because there are simply too many reports of child abuse in a given day to manage. They also lead to health care providers and social workers putting their own liability above the welfare of patients and clients (ie. reporting in questionable cases out of fear of losing their license). On top of those problems I myself have run into situations where an abuse report lead to more and more serious abuse as well as situations where the knowledge that abuse would have to be reported lead to clients failing to disclose information that needed to be disclosed.

Beyond the purely pragmatic problems with mandated reporting laws, there is a serious issue of autonomy and confidentiality here. While they might be marginally defensible when talking about children, depending on when you feel constitutional rights ought to kick in, they still present a very serious problem. Mandated reporting laws substitute the judgment of the state for the will of the individual or of a licensed professional. These kinds of laws disempower victims in very real ways because they take away the power to deal with the abuse they faced on their terms or in their own time. Essentially they say “we don’t care if you want help, if help will make it worse, or if you’re willing to face your abuse yet.” These laws breach the Doctor/Patient privilege and disregard the patient’s agency for patient’s “own good,” a precedent which ought to give pause (if not terrify) anyone paying attention.

And I don’t see your logic regarding the victim not having to do anything. If the police ignore the suspected abuse, then maybe no, the victim doesn’t have to do anything. If the police follow up, and especially if they make an arrest, they’re going to want to question the victim, and if it goes to trial they’d also have to testify.

Medical personnel, down to data entry clerks, are already required to report suspected child abuse and domestic violence to the police.

The law doesn’t apply to stranger rapes…hmm now I think about it I can’t even remember if it cover domestic violence, but it does cover child abuse which would include rape or incest of a minor.

This law actually does help women and kids. It also puts the burden squarely where it belongs…on the general public to complain and police to solve the problem.

P.S. The medical people don’t take the police report. They just report suspected abuse to the police who persue it. The victim doesn’t have to do anything.

Those who “concede” objections for rape, health, or any other reason they deem worthy are de facto admitting that their true principle is to control the bodies of women they disapprove of.

I’ve always wondered why this point doesn’t get more mainstream traction. All laws are, ultimately, about control. You don’t have to be a deconstructionist to recognize that laws are what govern behavior between individuals, bringing coercive force into effect to reduce the instance of certain socially unacceptable behaviors. You can pose it as a tension between competing interests if you like, but the pro-life still comes down to prohibiting a certain behavior (having an abortion) except in some instances where society may permit it (for instance, when the pregnancy was the result of the taboo behavior of another instead of being the result of the woman transgressing). Why dance around the point? Seems to reek of shame to me…

Wrong, but they at least appear to believe the principle they claim. Those who “concede” objections for rape, health, or any other reason they deem worthy are de facto admitting that their true principle is to control the bodies of women they disapprove of. And any other women they decide to, since refusing them amounts to disapproved behaviour.

I think its important to note here that the same ethical and legal theory that makes rape a crime are being violated here by the law itself in order to protect something that is not, as yet, legally considered a person.

Very well put.