Parental Notification Of Minor's Abortion

[rob.sfo]

[Mod's note: Was split from

another thread (link).

]

Since parents are the custodians of their child's welfare, and presumeably are providing the medical insurance which pays for the abortion, I think it's entirely proper that the parent knows what is going on.

Thanks for the additional insight into 73 Dave. I think I still might have to vote No on it though. While the idea and/or intent is debatable and I see reasons why it could be good for parents to be informed, I do not believe that it's the governments place to force the issue one way or the other. Voting this in only serves to further the fallacy that the government has a say in this issue at all.

On the one that you say "unsure", I think its an unimportant issue.

I agree -- that's why I put "unsure" and dropped it instead of investigating the issue further.

*EDIT* Dave...do you have a specific reason for voting "Yes" on 77?

Thanks for the feedback.

Edited October 21, 2005 by softwareNerd

[softwareNerd]

Abortion is not just any other medical procedure. If it was, then why would minors not tell their parent's about it?

If you vote "yes" for parental notification, would you also vote yes for parental decision? Or, should the law should insist parents be notified and then leave the final decision up to the minor?

[dondigitalia]

If you vote "yes" for parental notification, would you also vote yes for parental decision? Or, should the law should insist parents be notified and then leave the final decision up to the minor?

I would vote "no" for parental decision.

[softwareNerd]

If you'd vote "no" to parental decision, I suggest you re-think the practical consequences of a "yes" to parental-notification.

The way the prop defines it, the doctor cannot perform an abortion on a minor [i assume this includes 17 year olds] without telling the parents and then waiting at least 48 hours. The writers of the prop understand that parents have certain control over their children. They added this: "Permits judicial relief if minor's consent coerced." Why is only the child's consent open to review, why not withdrawal of former consent?

Another question is this: let's assume that you were to be writing such a Prop, with the intent on ensuring that parent's get to advise their children, how would you frame it? what safeguards would you adopt? does the prop, as written, come close to what you would want to see?

[Groovenstein]

[i assume this includes 17 year olds]

It does. The proposed Art. I, Sec. 32(a)(5) defines "unemancipated minor" as a female under the age of 18 years who [stuff].

I'm interested in the waiver provisions. 32(f) waives the notice requirement for a medical emergency. 32(g) waives the requirement "if waived pursuant to this subdivision and subdivision (h), (i), or (j)." Subdivision (g) itself is just some procedural stuff. I may look at these more another time, but initially I find (h)(1) particularly interesting. It requires the judge to authorize a waiver of notice if he finds, "by clear and convincing evidence, that the unemancipated minor is sufficiently mature and well-informed to decide whether to have an abortion."

{Edited to add second paragraph.]

Edited October 18, 2005 by Groovenstein

[dondigitalia]

I'm interested in the waiver provisions. 32(f) waives the notice requirement for a medical emergency. 32(g) waives the requirement "if waived pursuant to this subdivision and subdivision (h), (i), or (j)." Subdivision (g) itself is just some procedural stuff. I may look at these more another time, but initially I find (h)(1) particularly interesting. It requires the judge to authorize a waiver of notice if he finds, "by clear and convincing evidence, that the unemancipated minor is sufficiently mature and well-informed to decide whether to have an abortion."

{Edited to add second paragraph.]

Without the waiver provisions, I probably wouldn't support this proposition.

If the girl is 16 or 17 years old, how much control do you really think the parents have over whether or not she goes and has the abortion against their consent? I know exactly how much control my parents ultimately had over my actions at that age when I decided I was going to do something, and I'll tell you, it wasn't much.

The fact that parents financially support their children, which includes providing the medical insurance which is most likely paying for the abortion, is key context. Parents have a right to know what they are supporting. They have a right to know what actions their child is taking, so they can adjust their support accordingly. While I wouldn't look favorably upon a parent who withdrew support from their daughter for having an abortion, I recognize their right not to pay for the support of actions they disagree with.

[softwareNerd]

If the Prop had a clause saying that parental notification was required even if the procedure was already paid for up-front or payment already underwritten/guaranteed by some entity, would you still support it?

[dondigitalia]

If the Prop had a clause saying that parental notification was required even if the procedure was already paid for up-front or payment already underwritten/guaranteed by some entity, would you still support it?

Probably. While parental financial support is essential context, it isn't the only essential context. For one thing, the relevant financial support extends farther than just paying for the actual abortion. Being financially supported by someone else means that they have right to a certain amount of control over the supported party's actions. (Ironically, this is the same principal that lends itself to a mother's right to have an abortion, except in that case, the support is biological). The other essential context is that a parent is the designated caretaker of their child. In the case of a true "child," rather than an adult who happens to be underage (and I would argue that there are some 20-year-olds who should be considered children), then the parent absolutely must be notified--not just of an impending abortion, but of any major event in their child's life. In the case of an underage adult... well, there's already a waiver for that one.

[dondigitalia]

I want to rephrase something, because I think it's unclear. When I say that supporting another person means one has the right to a certain amount of control over the other person's actions, I don't mean to indicate that it means the supporting party has a right to absolute control over the supported's life. In this context, it just means they have a right to know what is going on--a right to know what they are, ultimately, supporting.

The question comes to mind of whether or not being the provider of medical insurance which pays for an abortion gives a parent the right to prohibit the abortion. I'm not sure about the answer on this one, and I think it's an interesting question to ponder, but that's the subject of another thread. I don't want to stray too far from the propositions in this one.

[softwareNerd]

When I say that supporting another person means one has the right to a certain amount of control over the other person's actions, I don't mean to indicate that it means the supporting party has a right to absolute control over the supported's life.

Sure, that's clear enough from the fact that you support letting the child have the ultimate decision for an abortion.

Part of the problem I have with this proposition is that I cannot visualize a context where a minor would want to have an abortion and a rational parent would want her to have the child. However, that's only part of it. I'm not advocating legislating rationality. I fully understand that parents must decide various things for a kid. If a parent wants to keep a kid at home and not school them in anything at all, I would have the state stand aside.

However, I do not think the law should allow a parent to force a child to have a kid. (We agree about this.) I'd sooner have the law allow the parent to beat a child than saddle that child with another kid. Many states have parental-consent laws for tattoos. I'd easily support those, again coming down on the side of: if there's a decision that is difficult or impossible to change, give the benefit of doubt to the party who seeks to keep her options open and not to the party pushing for the irrevocable decision.

If there were good checks built in to ensure that parental notification was just that, and that the child then received some type of extraordinary protection of law for those next 48 hours, I may be more willing to say "yes".... (though it would take a lot of checks and balances to convince me).

[dondigitalia]

If there were good checks built in to ensure that parental notification was just that, and that the child then received some type of extraordinary protection of law for those next 48 hours, I may be more willing to say "yes".... (though it would take a lot of checks and balances to convince me).

Protection from what?

[softwareNerd]

Protection from parental coercion, which is what the advocate of the Proposition are banking on, aren't they?

[dondigitalia]

Protection from parental coercion, which is what the advocate of the Proposition are banking on, aren't they?

I'm sure some advocates are banking on just that, but I'm clearly advocating it, and I don't bank on that. What I bank on is a teenager's ability to make her own rational decision.

If you mean parents vehemently advising against the abortion, and doing everything in their power to convince the daughter not to have one, if that is what they think is best, I don't see a problem with that. Parents give their children bad advice all the time (I know mine sure did); the child still has the choice not to take the advice.

If you mean a parent saying something along the lines of: If you go through with this abortion, I am going to withdraw support from you as soon as I am legally allowed (which, in some states is 16 y.o.), or I am going to place a severe amount of restrictions on you, or I am going to stop loving you, that is well within the parents' rights. Again, I wouldn't look favorably on these parents, but that doesn't change their right to act on their own judgment, however flawed it is.

If you mean a parent doing something to physically restrain their daughter from having the abortion, I don't see how this is possible with a teenager, outside of actions which are rightfully classified as child abuse, which we already have laws to cover.

[softwareNerd]

No Dave, I know you don't bank on that. Indeed, as far as I can tell, we are agreed on the principles involved:

1. A parent must have a say in their minor child's decisions
   
2. In the case of an abortion, the minor child gets the final decision
   

So, all that's left is a question of how the law implements this. Maybe I'll write up an alternative proposition that we can discuss. Watch this space.

[dondigitalia]

No Dave, I know you don't bank on that.

Yes I do. Remember, my advocacy of this proposition does not stem from wanting parents to talk their children out of having an abortion (indeed, I think almost all teenage morthers SHOULD be terminating their pregnancy). I've indicated several times that I would not look favorably on a parent who attempted to force their teenage daughter to follow through with a pregnancy. But, after all, they are the parents, and because of their parental obligations, are also endowed with certain rights.

Memory of my own teenage experience (granted, I'm a stubborn, headstrong guy and always have been), and observation of teenagers since then both tell me that teens generally have pretty good decision-making capabilities, and like adults, some choose to use them and some don't. My memory and observations also tell me that when it really comes down to it, teens tend to do whatever they want, with parental mandates having only advisory influence at best; smart parents recognize this, and will generally place themselves in the role of advisor, rather than alienating their children by acting as a dictator. I'm especially making these observations now, since I'm surrounded by 18-year-olds all day at school.

[softwareNerd]

... smart parents recognize this, and will generally place themselves in the role of advisor,...

Sure. However, this law is specifically designed to allow irrational parents a chance to convince their daughters not to do something rational. To the extent that the state must not legislate what is rational, that's fine.

Let me ask you this though: you'd agree that minors can interact for various services without the law requiring parental notification. A runaway can hail down a cab and get a ride. A kid can go get his hair dyed pink. In some places, he can get a tatto. A muslim girl can order a pork sandwich. So, what is it about abortion that places an onus on the other party, making them verify the kids age and insist on parental notification. Is it the risk? Or, is it the presumption of possible parental objection?

[dondigitalia]

Let me ask you this though: you'd agree that minors can interact for various services without the law requiring parental notification. A runaway can hail down a cab and get a ride. A kid can go get his hair dyed pink. In some places, he can get a tatto. A muslim girl can order a pork sandwich. So, what is it about abortion that places an onus on the other party, making them verify the kids age and insist on parental notification. Is it the risk? Or, is it the presumption of possible parental objection?

Hailing down a cab, dying hair, and eating a pork sandwich are events of almost no significance in the contex of one's entire life.

In the US, in order for a minor to get a tattoo, he has to go somewhere willing to step outside the law (unless there is some state which allows minors to get tattoos, which I am unaware of). But, even getting a tattoo isn't really that big a deal. It's just (semi-)permanent.

In the case of abortion, either decision is life-changing. The fact that the girl is pregnant is a clue that she may be acting irrationally--not by having sex, but by not taking the necessary precautions. Have you ever been close with someone who's had an abortion? It's a huge deal, emotionally and physically, and parents need to be aware of what's going on with their child so they can do their job.

[softwareNerd]

Hailing down a cab, dying hair, and eating a pork sandwich are events of almost no significance in the context of one's entire life....

In the case of abortion, either decision is life-changing. ... Have you ever been close with someone who's had an abortion? It's a huge deal, emotionally and physically, and parents need to be aware of what's going on with their child so they can do their job.

The primary reason an abortion is so traumatic is the guilt that is typically felt. I don't buy into that guilt. Physically, an abortion is an out patient procedure. Though done under anesthesia, the patent can walk out after some hours. They cannot drive, but that is because of the anesthesia. I'm not suggesting that it is the same as a dental filling, but it is quite a routine procedure regardless. And yes, I've known someone close who had an abortion.

As for being life-changing, an abortion is not life changing. A pregnancy is. As for stopping the kid from irrational behavior, I'd be all for a post-abortion notification. Indeed, I am for pre-abortion notification, if the right safeguards are in place. To my mind, trying to convince a minor to have a baby is very close to abuse.

The entire proposition relies on the evaluation that is is legitimate for religious people to want to stop their kids having an abortion. As I said before, if the proposition were framed so that it was clear that the reason for it was to allow rational parents to react (e.g. to tell the doc that their kid was allergic to something), that would be quite different.

[rob.sfo]

The entire proposition relies on the evaluation that is is legitimate for religious people to want to stop their kids having an abortion.

That's an important point. It's not enough to look at this from the point of view of rational individuals. For such people, this proposition doesn't affect them because they've raised their children in such a manner that their children will want to talk to them about being pregnant & having an abortion.

Instead, you have to look at this in the context of the the purpose & aim of this proposition. Evaluating it in that proper context reveals how wrong it is. Take a look at the wording of this point in the actual prop:

Defines abortion as causing "death of the unborn child, a child conceived but not yet born."

Are you kidding me? Who would have worded it that way? This screams Anti-Life -- err...excuse me...so-called "Pro-Life" -- at it's core. Knowing that, what do you think the aim of this prop is?

It's the Pro-Life movement chipping away...a small step towards the complete ban on all abortions.

As I said earlier, this simply sets the precedence for such laws (not a legal precedence, but a precedence for the voting public), demonstrating that it is the government's place to step in and tell us how to live our lives.

[dondigitalia]

The primary reason an abortion is so traumatic is the guilt that is typically felt.

I disagree with this evaluation. While that may be the case in some women, it is not in either of the two that I knew.

Physically, an abortion is an out patient procedure. Though done under anesthesia, the patent can walk out after some hours. They cannot drive, but that is because of the anesthesia. I'm not suggesting that it is the same as a dental filling, but it is quite a routine procedure regardless.

There are lots of outpatient, routine procedures that are physically draining.

As for being life-changing, an abortion is not life changing. A pregnancy is.

I think both of them are. Granted, having a child is much more life-changing. There may be some women who come through having an abortion completely unchanged, but I'm a little wary of them. At the very least, getting pregnant in the first place should cause a woman to reevaluate her actions and make the necessary life-changes to ensure an unwanted pregnancy does not occur again.

The entire proposition relies on the evaluation that is is legitimate for religious people to want to stop their kids having an abortion. As I said before, if the proposition were framed so that it was clear that the reason for it was to allow rational parents to react (e.g. to tell the doc that their kid was allergic to something), that would be quite different.

It is legitimate for religious people to attempt to stop their daughter's abortion, if it's what they think is best. To ask them to do otherwise is asking them to act against their own judgment. The actions of both rational and irrational parents are protected under this proposition, as are the actions of both rational and irrational girls.

I don't see anything in the proposition that indicates it favors either decision over the other. The intent of those who wrote the Prop. may very well be to favor the Pro-Life movement (and I'm not making a judgment one way or the other on that one), but the fact is that the final decision is left in the hands of the pregnant minor. A teenage girl has all the equipment she needs to make her own decision; she can choose to take her parents' advice or not to, using her own evaluation of her situation and the advice as a guide.

The fact is that it is the parent's responsibility (and right) do advise their child based on their own judgment--even when that judgment is wrong. By the time they reach their teens, children are more than adequately equipped to dismiss advice out of hand, and make their own decisions. They do it all the time... a lot of times when the advice is good.

[softwareNerd]

You say guilt is not the reason an abortion is traumatic for some women. Why is it then? I do not know women who have been traumatized by the decision. One relative to whom I was close was perfectly normal about it. Indeed, it was never a moral issue in the first place. I'm afraid it is only in the U.S. that the religionists who are starting to set the agenda have elevated the issue of abortion to such an extent.

As for parents having the right to advise kids. Of course they do. That is exactly why this prop will likely pass with a good margin. It relies on rational people (esp. rational parents) thinking abstractly like that: yes, in principle I would like to know and advise my kid. The framers are hoping that these parents will rational parents will not realize that the final outcome for the kids of rational parents will be unchanged with or without the proposition.

In my evaluation, we will have to simply conclude that we disagree.

[dondigitalia]

You say guilt is not the reason an abortion is traumatic for some women. Why is it then?

A lot of times, it is because women sincerely want to carry through with the pregnancy and have a baby, but they recognize that under the current circumstances it would be good for neither them nor the baby. In both of the cases I am familiar with, the women were greatly saddened by the choice they had to make; since it was the right choice, the sadness eventually passed, but I doubt it would have been as easy for them without the support of family and friends.

In my evaluation, we will have to simply conclude that we disagree.

I'm fine with that. God knows I've disagreed with people before.

[softwareNerd]

No, I'm not back

Merely wanted to correct what I said about the U.S. in a post above. At best, it was inaccurate. There are other countries where the political situation w.r.t. abortion is far worse than in the U.S. In the western world, the Catholic countries (e.g. Ireland). Some muslim ones too. In most of the rest of the developing world abortions are legal and most of the shame associated with them comes from the shame of admitting one has had sex (often pre-marital). However, the trend in most of the world is away from the religious anti-abortionist politics. Even in the blackhole of Iran, the mullahs are rationalizing that the soul has not entered the fetus until 4 months after conception. The way in which the U.S. is different is that the religious crusade is on the ascendency.

[softwareNerd]

Now, the Feds appear to be on the verge of enacting a law to help states with parental-notification laws.

The details are here.

I'd assume that it is easy enough to help a minor make it across a state-line without being accused of transporting them across a state line. However, the second provision appears to say that doctors have to verify the minor's state of domicile and (more or less) respect laws that are close to those of the state of domicile.

[DarkWaters]

I read about this on CNN here:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/25/int...n.ap/index.html

Specifically I found the following interesting:

"Bowing to public support for parental notification and the GOP's 55-44-1 majority, Democrats spent the day trying to carve out an exemption for confidants to whom a girl with abusive parents might turn for help. It was rejected in floor negotiations."

Is there any good argument against such an amendment, assuming that it is carefully worded? Perhaps this particular amendment was loosely worded or are the theocrats in the senate trying to prevent an abortion in every possible situation that they can. I suspect the latter.

I also find the following quote a bit disconcerting:

Abstinence is the best way to prevent teenage pregnancy, responded Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma.

"How many people really think it's in the best interest of young people to be sexually active outside of marriage? Does anything positive ever come from that?" Coburn asked.

I think the above quote elucidates the true motive of several Senate Republicans (i.e. John Thune, Jim DeMint, Rick Santorum, Sam Brownback, Tom Coburn, etc.). That is, to do what they can to minimize extramarital sex.