How to Be Horrible at Government

A tipster directed me to the Facebook page for Assemblyman David DiPietro, to review this:


I realize that anti-toll activist, perennial candidate, and Paladino chauffeur/flunky Rus Thompson wrote the text shown above, ignoring as it does science and logic to suggest that first and second graders – 6 and 7 year olds – have some need for contraception, despite being half a decade out from puberty. But he gets other details wrong, too – it doesn’t allow under-17s to get the morning after pill over the counter.

When I took a look at the bill, I saw that it amended a current law to allow doctors, midwives, and nurse practitioners to prescribe Plan B – the “morning after pill” – to girls who are not their patients and are, in effect, victims of statutory rape and sexual abuse. In fact, if one’s aim is to reduce the number of abortions, this law would be ideal – because Plan B’s efficacy is dependent on the speed with which it is administered, girls under the age of consent who become pregnant through statutory rape and abuse need quick access to this high-dose contraceptive. Plan B is not an abortifacient, and the age of consent in New York is 17.

Why would Assemblyman DiPietro want to limit victims’ access to a drug that would avoid pregnancy and possible abortion?

Assemblyman David DiPietro (R,C-East Aurora) has come out against legislation, Assembly Bill 420, known as the Unintended Pregnancy Prevention Act. The legislation would allow minors, including those in elementary and middle school, to obtain morning after contraception in an effort to avoid pregnancy without consulting their parents or physicians. Instead, the assemblyman is pushing for adoption to be promoted instead of morning after contraceptives.

“A minor should not be making the life-altering decision of terminating the potential for human life, let alone be making that decision without parental or medical consultation. I find this piece of legislation to be without merit,” said DiPietro. “These children have to be made aware of their actions, their repercussions and the full spectrum of their options. Adoption is an underutilized service in New York State and the country in general.”

Statutory rape is a construct of the law, which deems that girls under a certain age are not capable of consent to sexual activity – just like you’re not capable of entering into a contract before the age of 18. If a girl under the age of consent gets pregnant due to a criminal act, discretion and compassion are of primary importance – worry about the 15 year-old child, not the possibly fertilized egg cell.

It’s never a good idea for middle-aged men to be legislating how girls and young women protect themselves from the physical and emotional after-effects of sex abuse.

He also opposes a law that would educate the children of “illegal immigrants” living in New York. Because, you know, ignorant and uneducated undocumented aliens are somehow better for the society than educated, productive ones.

If only “no” votes could be given catchy names, like the bills being voted on. DiPietro’s vote could be the “Statutory Rape and Sexual Abuse Pregnancy Protection Vote”.


  • Thats what happens when you elect the town “laundry man” to represent you…….

  • “These children have to be made aware of their actions…”

    What Republican war on women (and children)? /sarcasm

  • Why the GOP is an endangered species in NY.  The thoughtful Reps get forced into primaries with the nuts who may not win, but instead ensure a Democrat win. The Dem win pushes the state further to the left making the nuts angrier and prone to doing and saying more dumb things, further frightening moderate New Yorkers (which represent the vast majority.)  The angry nut vows revenge for this leftward tilt but can’t beat any Democrats so they target moderate Republicans and the cycle repeats itself. The only GOP legislators that will be left are the really nutty ones from certain pockets of the state….they’ll stomp their feet and accomplish nothing.

    • Except DiPietro was already elected – in a landslide. His constituents are thanking him on the street in East Aurora for his courage on guns, the abortion pill and taxpayer benefits for illegal aliens. That may not be urbane or cool enough for you city liberals, but we protect our guns, our kids and our money differently here. Drop by sometime. But be careful – you might like it.

      • Tony isn’t a liberal, and he doesn’t live in the city. That said, DiPietro in this case didn’t consider the added horror that an unwanted pregnancy would add to an already (a) bad decision; and/or (b) sex crime. 

        • I don’t know Tony. I was using “you big city liberals” like the collective “you durn kids.” I was even hoping the advanced comment reader might insert a helpful Southtowns twang. No offense intended. Some of my best friends are big city liberals.

      • John (not McCain)

        Nah.  No need for me to drop by.  I grew up in Alabama so I know what it’s like to be around violent, armed racists.

      • You also are the only school district in the state that protects your kindergarteners from a full day of schooling……..

      • Off topic, but a landslide?  By defintion: “An overwhelming majority of votes for one party in an election”.  I believe it was a 53%  to 47% tally when all was said and done, and in a district considered strongly Republican.

        Political rhetoric and distortion is unattractive and a disservice to all involved.

  • Opposing this law only protects statutory rape because parents are removed from the equation.  An 18 year old male could impregnate a 15 year old female without the act rising to the level of statutory rape due to the affirmative defense of being less than 4 years older.  I would certainly think, under these circumstances, that parents have a right to know what is happening.  Perhaps the law could have been proposed with a provision requiring the filing of a statutory rape complaint with the police if the parents are to be precluded from parenting.

    Since statutory rape wasn’t the sole domain of this proposed legislation, it is equally important for parents to be aware of “voluntary” sexual activity by their child under the age of 17.

    • Once again, the libertarian philosophy seems to champion the freedom from the tyranny of government intrusion in your life….unless you have a uterus.

      •  I must conclude from your non-response to specific points I made that you believe it is the government’s job to raise children, not parents.  Yes, in case you didn’t notice, I did make specific points hoping for a thoughtful, intelligent response.

        • No, it’s not the government’s job to raise children. It is also not the government’s role to play nanny and force young women to jump through hoops to access the medical care they need following a sexual assault.

          Would you force the 12 year old girl raped and impregnated by her father to involve her rapist in her medical treatment? 

          •  If a 12 year old is raped by her father, without a doubt the mother or police should be notified.  Anything less can compound the psychological trauma, making things even worse for the girl.

          • The law isn’t about parental notification – it’s about the girl getting the prescription from the first doctor or NP with whom she comes into contact, rather than having to wait for an appointment with her own family physician.  

          • Except it IS about the parents, too, and allowing them to care for their child as they see fit – instead of complete strangers empowering a child to make decisions for which she has the lack of capacity to make without a parent. The parent is the gatekeeper here, not the government.

          • The law merely broadens the net of providers who are permitted to prescribe a legal medication to girls under 17.  Except for reaffirming the status quo about parental notification, it doesn’t affect it at all. 

          •  You couch that in phrases that are designed to make an emotional appeal to further your case.  It doesn’t “merely broaden the net of providers”, it strips the parents of their right to be involved in a major life decision for their minor child.  That is not something to be done in such a cavalier manner.  Frankly, I find it quite troublesome that someone can be that easily dismissive about parental rights.

    • There is no such thing as voluntary sexual activity by a child under 17. It is de jure rape due to lack of capacity to consent. 

      •  What about two 15-year-olds dating in high school and the girl gets pregnant.  Would the girl be able to have access to the medication at that point without any involvement of her parents?

        •  No.  Of course it is a reality that some 15 year olds are having sex.  Hopefully, they have had conversations with their parents about the subject.  If a pregnancy occurs, it is important for parents to know to mitigate further damage.  I understand that in some cases, that might not be a good idea.  But legislating for worst case scenarios, and applying those standards to everyone, can result in far more problems.

          It is not possible to write laws that are always perfect, that is when the government needs to step away and consider all possible outcomes from proposed legislation.  Or, tailor laws to narrowly defined circumstances.

      •  What about the affirmative defense, spelled out in NY Penal Law, for an 18 year old having sex with a 15 year old?  If it is voluntary, lack of force, he/she will not be convicted in a NY Court of law.

        N.Y. PEN. LAW § 130.30 :
        A person is guilty of rape in the second degree when:
        1. being eighteen years old or more, he or she engages in sexual
        intercourse with another person less than fifteen years old; or
        2. he or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person who is
        incapable of consent by reason of being mentally disabled or mentally
        It shall be an affirmative defense to the crime of rape in the second
        degree as defined in subdivision one of this section that the defendant
        was less than four years older than the victim at the time of the act.15 might get you 20, unless your 18, 17, 16 or 15.

        • Then they’ve committed the crime of sexual misconduct. 

          In any event, it doesn’t matter because the law isn’t about parental notification. It’s about getting Plan B to a young girl ASAP. 

          •  No it isn’t sexual misconduct, the circumstances discussed involved voluntary sex.  Misconduct requires the absence of consent.

            § 130.20 Sexual misconduct.
            A person is guilty of sexual misconduct when:
            1. He or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person without
            such person’s consent; or
            2. He or she engages in oral sexual conduct or anal sexual conduct
            with another person without such person’s consent; or
            3. He or she engages in sexual conduct with an animal or a dead human
            Sexual misconduct is a class A misdemeanor.I understand the need for Plan B to be administered quickly. I also understand that unless some kind of parameters are involved, the unintended consequences could be worse.

  • He would probably be opposed to it due to the potential harm to a woman and her child.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.