Should parents have a right to know if their minor is having an abortion?

[ringmastery]

It's going to be on the ballot in Florida this Fall.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/8443586.htm

TALLAHASSEE - Florida lawmakers, frustrated that the state Supreme Court threw out their 1999 law forcing underage girls seeking an abortion to inform their parents, are poised to ask voters to enshrine the measure in the state Constitution in November.

The state Senate agreed Wednesday to put the measure on the same ballot in which Floridians will vote for president, creating a polarizing issue that could draw one-issue voters to the polls.

The House approved a similar proposal last month, but because the resolutions are slightly different, both chambers will need to agree on a compromise.

Under both resolutions, voters will be asked to give parents the constitutional right to be notified before their underage daughters seek an abortion.

[SarahB]

1. No

It would be nice if your child trusted their parents enough to share that, but this is deeply personal and life-affecting. It must be their choice. Too often, parents let their own views on the subject cloud the decision process that the young woman must make.

[alittlelark]

26. Quite agree...If your daughter does not trust you enough

to tell you that she is pregnant - you are a bad parent. You have not fostered the open lines of communication and trust nessesary for a healthy parent/child relationship. Your daughter should not be forced to deal with your dysfunctional realationship when she is deciding on her future.

[Muddleoftheroad]

36. That's silly

Who knows how their kids will react under the stress of this event. Perhaps the boyfriend will push for a private decision because he doesn't want the hassle or legalties of family involvement.

Yes, parents should have this information except in extreme situations (sexual abuse, for instance.)

[SarahB]

53. So, she has to go to court now?

She has to have a case opened and file charges legally proving sexual abuse before she can get an abortion? Or can she just say she was abused? How would you work that out?

[KittyWampus]

56. So, If She's Been Sexually Abused An Abortion Will Fix Everything?

let young lady get an abortion and slate gets magically wiped clean?

Sorry, but if child doesn't want to tell parents because it's daddy who is the father... then the child needs to be protected by the state and the state needs to prosecute the daddy.

[SarahB]

59. Of course she needs protection

What if she won't tell? What if it's too hard? She shouldn't be allowed what is still her legal right?
Thankfully, I've never been in that situation, but I have known people who were victims of incest and sexual abuse. It's extremely hard for them to open up about it. A pregnancy wouldn't necessarily make it any easier and with pregnancy, there's a time factor involved. You have a relatively narrow window to make this decision.

[Muddleoftheroad]

60. By ignoring the problem

You put her right back into the home and the abuse continues. With judicial oversight, a case is opened and both the abortion question and the abuse are addressed.

[SarahB]

78. In an ideal situation, yes SIR.

In the meantime, she's still pregnant when she doesn't want to be.

[Muddleoftheroad]

81. And that is a time when parents NEED to be involved

[SarahB]

85. Parents need to be involved when she needs protection from them?

:wtf:

[Muddleoftheroad]

88. Your post wasn't clear

Sorry. In cases where the parents are at issue, there would be judicial oversight.

[cclark401]

249. YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

Good parents are there to help their child regardless of what is going on! As a parent I would be devastated at an unwanted pregnancy, however it is my right to know. And as a parent I would do all I could to help my child arrive at the best decision!

[RhodaGrits]

255. If you are that good parent a parent, she'll tell you.

If you need a government mandated notification because your daughter is terrified to confide in you - what does that say about your relationship? These girls should get counselling and support and be encouraged to involve their parents - but make it mandatory? No.

[Muddleoftheroad]

256. Perhaps the daddy is the bad influence

You know, he might not want to bother with a child, he might be legally too old for her, etc. Why assume it's the parents?

[RhodaGrits]

343. I'm not assuming the parents are a bad influence -

I just think that in a matter of whether she is to become a mother or not, involving her parents should be her decision not Jeb Bush's.

[Muddleoftheroad]

344. It certainly shouldn't be Jeb Bush's

But it should be done in consultation with her parents, not just a doctor. Imagine a little girl age 11 or 12 or 13 left to deal with this all her own. Perhaps she is encouraged to do so by her friends or a teacher at school. Or maybe the boyfriend is a scumbag and is too old and doesn't want to go to jail for rape.

It is wrong to exclude the parents except in extreme circumstances.

[kiahzero]

352. You're neglecting important points, I think.

What if parents tell their "little girl, age 11 or 12 or 13," that if she has an abortion, she'll go to a firey Hell where she'll burn for all eternity and Satan will poke her with a trident?

That kind of coercion shouldn't be forced upon a pregnant minor, who is apparently emancipated (if the poster below is corret), by the state.

[Muddleoftheroad]

353. Many believe that

Many believe that all life is sacred. Gosh.

But no child should fear her parents. And this kind of thread shows how society teaches mistrust of parents and tries to put trust in some amorphous institution to do better for kids than their own mom and dad.

That's nuts.

If a child has a genuine reason to challenge the notification in court, there should be a quick process to do so. But fearing lectures by her parents is NOT a good reason. Heck, kids get lectured if they don't take out the damn trash. Do you wish to have government intervene there as well?

[kiahzero]

354. It's not nuts... teaching the doctrine of Hell to young children is nuts.

If a child has a genuine reason to challenge the notification in court, there should be a quick process to do so. But fearing lectures by her parents is NOT a good reason. Heck, kids get lectured if they don't take out the damn trash. Do you wish to have government intervene there as well?

If parents are attempting to brainwash their children for not doing their bidding, yes. As I said in the other thread, telling young children that they will be subject to infinite punishment for an action is emotionally abusive. Before you even say it, this is not directed at moderate Christians, it is directed at fundamentalists of all stripes.

[alittlelark]

187. Sounds just PEACHY KEEN...but guess what......

judges make mistakes - a lot of them. We are all just human after all.

Those 'mistakes can result in murder and suicide. A pregnant female is NOT the most stable of beings (believe me, I've had two kids and was never more emotional).

I CHOSE to have my kids.

[LeahMira]

241. The state fails far more often than it succeeds...

You put her right back into the home and the abuse continues. With judicial oversight, a case is opened and both the abortion question and the abuse are addressed.

There's no reason to imagine that the abuse will be addressed at all. I'm sure we've all heard the horror stories of children returned to abusive homes time and time again... by judges and social workers and such. Will the fact that a pregnancy is a factor in the situation make it any different? I doubt it.

Meanwhile, the minor must return to a home where her abuse will escalate because she told, and allies that she might have had if it were not known that daddy or uncle is the other person involved are now not available to her. There are young girls on the streets whose mothers chose daddy and some imagined security over their daughter.

Anyone who imagines that the judges and the social workers can fix these situations must see the world through very rose-colored glasses, I'm afraid.

[alittlelark]

188. Mature adults can handle court cases

can kids? How *ucked up is it to tell kids that they can have all the sex they want via- MTV, VHI,HBO,all the other PLAYERS. Men w2ant little girls to have sex with them.

BOTTOM LINE>

The Music and Movie industry LOVE IT - It sells to the gross old guys that still think their 'cool'. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$N Baby - plus some free viagra to boot!~!~! Yeah Baybe!!



Guess what. Older males have deformed sperm that should not be allowed to create new life (just the opinion of 100's of researchers and me, because.....eeeeeewwwwww.

If you are a young and interested female........get interested in someone that can get an erection w/o med's

[Occulus]

189. he does this ALL the time

do what I did- ignore him

[alittlelark]

185. Didn't know my pre-BBQ post would be of such interest

But, Muddle - I've been checking out your entrances for awhile. So timely.

Just how are 'we' to know that sexual abuse (or verbal, or physical, or mental, or religious) is occurring in the home?

How are 'we' to know?

[SemperEadem]

296. What about the boys' parents?

and the males who get them pregnant--what's to be done?

do they get to skate away, denying paternity and responsibility? Seems they need to have their parents brought into the mix, too, not just the girls.

[TahitiNut]

143. They presumably didn't know she was having intercourse.

Case closed.

If the daughter has emancipated herself in this regard, then she's taken custody of her own reproductive rights. Too many parents think they have some sort of 'right' to make decision for their children rather than a duty. The rights are inalienable and belong to the child. Parenting is a service and a duty and the authority granted is only granted to the degree absolutely necessary to meet that duty.

Pretty soon, the totalitarian parents will bring back chastity belts, huh?

The question I usually ask is: "Do parents have the authority to insist on an abortion?" (That usually pisses off the totalitarians.)

[DANDI]

2. Absolutely.

I wouldn't want my daughter having any type of medical procedure without my knowledge. Unless it was an emergency.

[sweetheart]

8. Maybe you work that out with your daughter

but this is about a law for "ALL" daughters.. not yours particularly.

The question is rather of the law, not your fancy. There are some
terrible and oppressive parents out there who put a tremendous burden
on their kids, a burden that can make such critical choices hard
given *FREE WILL* and the whole future for women in American culture.

A teenager who does not abort is much less likely to achieve the
american dream. How sad, that in a culture claiming to support
womens rights, the reality is the erosion of feminism under the
guise of parental "caring".

[DANDI]

25. Right, the keyword here is ALL.

I'm not prepared to abrogate my responsibility for the health and well-being of my child. A child by definition is immature. At what age do we draw the line? Critical choices are always "hard" and "a burden". Generally speaking, a child needs the guidance of their parents to make those decisions. What else are parents for? Just to provide food and shelter? What if the child has an underlying medical condition that may make surgery risky or even life-threatening? And why just abortion? If we're so concerned with "free will", why don't we make ALL medical procedures open to minors without the parents' consent?

[sweetheart]

34. Your responsibility

If your child does not tell you about being pregnant, perhaps there
is a good reason. Perhaps it is none of your business what the
child does with their body, especially given that the choice to have
a kid will weigh long on the child after you've seen your "immature"
kid out of the house.

If you have a loving close relationship with your child, this law
will not affect you, as surely you will be in the loop. It is for
people who are NOT involved parents... that they and their children
have the right to disagree.

The fact is, that the whole argument is really just an attempt to
further undermine a woman's choice over her own body. Just speak
plainly that you don't support abortion... and be frank about it.
This veiled pretending to care about children makes me ill. It is
not about kids at all... rather controlling abortion.

It is very republican, this... indeed. The parents have not
to live with the choice... sorta like bush does not live with the
reality of his choice to invade iraq.... a whole generation of
lawmakers is making laws about someone else, when they themselves
do not bear the responsibility..

[Muddleoftheroad]

38. Until she is emancipated

What she does with her body IS my business. And, if we talking an underage CHILD here, there is very real possibility a crime has occurred as well.

A doctor who does a non-emergency medical procedure on my child without my permission does so at his own risk.

Alas, this is not about a woman's right to choose. It is about CHILDREN.

[Solon]

48. What about abusive parents, and other senarios?

Not everybody benefits from happy homes, should the teenager in question have to go to court to prevent her parents for making the decision for her? That could take months and she would have bore the child already. This has nothing to do about protecting minors, not even about a woman's right to choose, it has to do with whether these teenagers are the parent's property or not.

[Muddleoftheroad]

52. Judicial oversight

Yes, there are no absolutes. So there should be some judicial oversight to go around the parents in EXTREME cases.

Teens aren't property, but they aren't adults either. Hell, we don't even give them driver's licenses at many of the ages we are discussing here. Why do you think that is?

[Solon]

58. First off driving is a privilege, many adults can't get them either.

Don't compare the ability to drive a vehicle with what you can or can't do with your body. Yes they are adults, simply depends on what they did, we as a nation are hypocrites to insist they can't make decisions in one instance yet too immature to make them on another decision.

[Muddleoftheroad]

64. However, there are lower limits for ALL drivers

Based on maturity and responsibility. Go figure.

And the decision this CHILD makes impacts others and herself. If she decides to have the child, the parents bear the responsibility. What about the issue of statutory rape? A quiet abortion eliminates that as well.

No, a CHILD who has sex does not suddenly become an adult.

[Solon]

120. An Abortion does not eliminate statutory rape

thats ridiculous. The crime is not negated due to whether a child is born or not. Other ways can be used to determine if a crime is commited or not. Also comparing driving to the right to choose is like comparing apples and oranges. The Government has a compelling interest in regulating driving on public roads, its a safety concern. If maturity determines whether someone can drive or not, 90% of current drivers would have their licenses revoked. Why can't a child be an adult, its not consistent with the law anyways. Also where to draw the line, all legal minors or only those on the low end? You said yourself that the age of consent is 16 in many states, so if they become pregnant should they submit to the will of their parents?

[Muddleoftheroad]

122. Do you deny the fetus is evidence?

That is difficult to refute?

The state also has a compelling interest in ensuring CHILDREN get appropriate care and that the state or random doctors don't assume parent responsibility.

I'm willing to draw the line at age of consent. If a child can consent legally to sex, then she can determine the results as well.

[Solon]

Yes it can be evidence

However their are other ways to gather evidence of a crime. Yes the state has a compelling interest in the approapriate care of children, all this will do is increase coathanger abortions and the deaths of teenagers. This is why I oppose it.

[Samurai_Writer]

261. incorrect...

when you said:

"No, a CHILD who has sex does not suddenly become an adult."

Actually, in the eyes of the law, if that 'child' becomes pregnant from that sex, they do. Any pregnant minor is considered temporarily emancipated, and legally able to make decisions about her pregnancy and her child after birth. That is why adoptions do not require the signature of a minor birthmother's parents.

If a 'child' (who is most likely a mid to older teen, and not a 'child') can make life-altering decisions for the baby, then why can't she do so for herself?

[kiahzero]

347. Well, that decided it for me.

If the pregnant minor is emancipated, then the parents have no special right to be notified if she decides to have an abortion.

[kiahzero]

110. My question is:

Does she get to abandon the baby with you once she turns 18, if you forced her to carry the pregnancy?

[Muddleoftheroad]

125. She can place it up for adoption

Like any other legal adult. Or the parents might wish to raise the baby on their own.

[slinkerwink]

157. Big Fat FUCKING whoop---put your life on hold for nine months to

push a fetus out of your twat for your parents to raise it with their fundamentalist views.

[Muddleoftheroad]

162. So are you deliberately trying to be offensive?

I mean, after all the talk about "bitch" and worse, to use words that offend others seems out of character.

[LeahMira]

245. Legal age???

She can place it up for adoption...
Like any other legal adult. Or the parents might wish to raise the baby on their own.

Oh, so she's old enough to decide to place her child for adoption, but not old enough to decide to abort her pregnancy. I see.

Only a very few people could imagine that a decision to place a child for adoption is somehow less life-altering than the decision to abort a pregnancy. An abortion is over in a few minutes and out of mind shortly after. An adoption is something that haunts a women for the rest of her life. It's not easy on the men involved either.

[Muddleoftheroad]

259. No you don't see

The question referred to her dumping the child on her parents once she became of legal age.

[LeahMira]

264. Still...

The question referred to her dumping the child on her parents once she became of legal age.

So, if she's of legal age, she decides what to do with this child... dump it or place it for adoption. Before that age, her parents decide what she should do?

You really think parents should decide to place an infant for adoption on behalf of their minor daughter? Hmmm... the adoption laws require that the birthmother sign the relinquishment papers, not the parents of the birthmother. There is no "legal age" stipulated when it comes to relinquishing.

Somehow, this seems a bit schizophrenic... all this "legal age" stuff. No one is stepping forward to protect a minor from making a decision that she will live with for the rest of her life when she chooses relinquishment, but everyone wants to protect her when she chooses abortion. Apparently her medical safety is more important than her emotional safety?

[Muddleoftheroad]

266. Actually, while you try to put words in my mouth

I think the adult parents should be involved in both decisions.

[JVS]

235. Where does it say that the parents would be able to force a decision?

This law would require that parents be notified, not that they be asked for permission.

[hyphenate]

35. As I say below

in my post, there are some parents who can't be trusted. Incest, physical or mental abuse, control freaks, drug addicts, alcoholics--there are so many parents that are less caring, less involved with their children than with themselves, or perhaps TOO involved to make choices that are in favor of their children. Not all children are able to have a great relations with their parents, and as a result, they can't be the ones to help out with such a critical decision in that child's life.

[alcuno]

17. I agree with you DANDI and Welcome to DU.

There must be compromise on this issue because there are a whole lot of people in the middle who abhor abortion but still believe it should be legal.

However, being legal is different from parental notification. Unless cause can be shown to a court, underage girls should not be given an abortion without their parent's consent.

[sweetheart]

30. So say your're an underage teenage pregnant girl...

And your parents are nazi-christians who have paranoid fears about
abortion.... so you have basically 2 choices given your legislation,
to run away from the parents to get an abortion, or to tell them
already knowing that they would imprison her to being a birth-cow
and giving up all futures of being successful in her future.

This law is to impose the parents views of sickness on the children
who may not agree, and you are a willing prison guard in your
support.

Consider the worst case, and as many of us know too well, many
parents are really in no position whatsoever to dictate their will
to a minor with a life-long serious choice on their hands.

I seriously hope DANDI is not just here to put forward antifeminist
republican views, and if Dandi is, then welcome dandi.

[Muddleoftheroad]

40. Parental views

Even those you disagree with, impact every aspect of a child's upbringing -- what she wears, what she eats, where she lives, where she goes to school AND what medical procedures she gets.

[Solon]

54. That's not true Muddle

Parents have no right to prevent their children from getting potentially lifesaving procedures from hospitals when terminally ill. Parent's Rights are NOT absolute, for good reason, they do not always have the the best interests of thier children at heart.

[Muddleoftheroad]

57. There are medical complications on both sides of this issue

Abortion is not a flawless procedure. Medical complications result. And if you don't think an abortion or birth at age 13 will impact the girl's mental health, then you are being overly optimistic.

I am not calling for absolute rights. I am calling for standard parental rights along with judicial oversight.

As an aside, where do you stand on statutory rape? Since the pregnancy of an underage girl ALWAYS raises that question, parents and potentially police might have to get involved.

[Solon]

63. Depends, if a 13 year old gets pregnant from an 18+ year old,

then the 18+ year old gets thrown in jail. However if a 17 year old whether male or female has sex with an 18+ year old then that is a different senario. I had a girlfriend who went to college when I was a high school junior, she was 19 and I was 17, should she have been sent to jail?

[Muddleoftheroad]

66. Most states use 16 as age of consent

So no.

And yes, at the borderline ages there will always be bad examples. That's what courts are for. However, an 18-year-old committing statutory RAPE with a 13-year-old should go to jail.

[Solon]

74. We agree there, though in my state it is NOW 17 but back in my...

day it was 18 as age of consent, courts aren't the problem there, usually its parents, though mine were cool with it. :)

[Solon]

72. All medical procedures carry risk, but think about this.

It is my understanding that if a 13 year old or younger gets pregnant then that is classified as a "High Risk" pregnancy. That carries risk as well, what if she is fearful of her own health and the parents override the decision because they are "Pro-Life"? Given the worse case senario and she dies due to carrying to term, should the parents be charged with a crime?

[Muddleoftheroad]

73. Of course not

If they are presented with two options, they chose one. Parenting isn't an exact science.

[Solon]

127. So you are saying on one hand that parents have certain responsibilities

to thier kids, however that they shouldn't be punished for the consequences of their actions. What no personal responsibility for the parents? I guess kids are just property of the parents to you, aren't they?

[Muddleoftheroad]

129. Again, parenting isn't an exact science

Sometimes the easy choices don't work out and the hard ones do. The state can't go around arresting folks for parenting. Not and stay a free country anyway.

[Solon]

133. That's not parenting its abuse.

Besides the state does go around arresting parents for bad parenting, think of all the Christian Scientist parents that are in jail for restricting their children's access to medical care, leading to their deaths.

[noiretextatique]

254. a real nightmare possibility: pregnancy as a result of incest

with the father having a 'contitutional right.' of course those in favor of this will say it won't happen, but i see the potential for abuse.

[Muddleoftheroad]

258. That's why you have judicial oversight

[noiretextatique]

265. what if it's a judge?

judicial oversight doesn't guarantee anything. that's why some folks have been fighting bush's judicial appointment tooth and nail. this type of law virtually guarantees abuse.

[Muddleoftheroad]

270. So does the current situation

Where doctors do the equivalent of a drive-by shooting.

[noiretextatique]

293. that makes no sense

not even for you. over-statement is one thing, but hysteria is quite another.

[Muddleoftheroad]

298. Doctors

They show up and perform an intrusive medical procedure without enough information.

They don't know the medical history of the girl. Even if they are given some records, there is no guarantee the GIRL will recall all of her own medical issues.

They don't know the psychiatric stability of the girl. Again, it might be something she hides.

Heck she might hide other medical info as well.

Kids do stuff like that.

[noiretextatique]

306. ahh....i see, greedy doctors bilking insurance companies

that's hardly the case for abortion. the more realistic scenario...the kid won't be able to find an abortion provider.
this is an attempt to legislate something parents should already have with their kids: communication.
and what about the psychiatric stability of the parents?

[Deb-Ter]

285. Solon,

If a child was given an abortion without parental consent and she dies can the doctor and nurses be charged with a crime?

This can work both ways.

[Pithlet]

364. Exactly. Children aren't chattel.

They are not our property to do with as we see fit. But, more to the point, I think such legislation will have horrible, unintended consequences. Too many girls would rather die than have their parents find out they got pregnant. That's not always an indication of parental ability, either. Girls bear the physical consequences of underage sex, and the brunt of the shame and humiliation as well, and not just from the parents. Laws like these will end up with mutilated and dead girls who could not face being forced to tell their parents, their friends, their social circle, that they were pregnant.

Funny how most of the proponents of such laws aren't mentioning the boys. Why shouldn't THEIR parents be notified as well. I think this goes way beyond indignancy that medical procedures on their children. It is a way to keep tabs on promiscuous girls. After all, this is about notification not permission. Not all parents want to guide their daughters through such a difficult time.

[smirkymonkey]

76. Not entirely true....

A legal perspective...

"In the U.S., state legislation requiring parental consent for medical treatment reflects the conception that minors (those under the age of 18) are incapable of understanding and making decisions about medical treatment (Melton, 1983). The state recognizes that the legal age of majority (age 18) is arbitrary and that there are minors who are competent and others, of legal age, who are not (AMA, 1992); however, legislation is designed to protect minors from the consequences of poor decisions. Minors are viewed as incompetent decision makers with three exceptions: emancipated minors, those seeking medical treatment for certain health problems, and mature minors (Broome & Stieglitz, 1992; Weir & Peter, 1997)."

Continue reading for expanded definitions of the three exceptions. Very subjective and often judged on a case by case basis...

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m2248/150_38/109027885/p1/article.jhtml

[sweetheart]

204. interesting the definition of "emancipated minor" is "parenthood"

By the definition of parenthood, a pregnant teenager is deemed
emancipated if they have the child, and capable of making their
own medical decisions... ironic.

Indeed, it is so subjective as life itself. Thank you for posting
that insightful peice. It pretty much staples a layer of wisdom
on the ranting.. :-)

[alcuno]

46. Parents are absolutely in a position to dictate their will to a minor.

If they want the child to be born and given up for adoption, so be it. It's not a matter of being a birth-cow, but a family decision about the consequences of ones actions.

I do believe that minors with cause should be able to quickly go before a court and negate the parental notification.

[TahitiNut]

165. Well, that sure works. She had intercourse. She became pregnant.

:eyes: They sure did "dictate their will."

[alcuno]

218. I was responding to the post that said parents had no right to

dictate their will. Of course they do. They do it all the time. You're right; they can't necessarily stop the girl from getting pregnant in the first place. But these are children we're talking about. They rarely think beyond the next day. Parents have a lot of control over things they know about.

[lolly]

3. As a mother of 2 teenaged girls . . .

I say no.

Certainly, girls should be encouraged and counseled to work with their parents on this decision. Every opportunity to work with parents should be given to the girl.

But the decision should be hers, and if notifying the parents interferes with that decision--or perhaps even puts the girl in danger--then she should have the right to privacy here.

I'm gonna catch a lot of s**t for this, I know, so I'll duck for a while . . .

[schultzee]

5. I would want a daughter to tell her parents, but she should not be

forced to do that.

[hyphenate]

43. Not at all

I totally agree, reasons for which are in my posts.

[CalebHayes]

146. as I minor, I agree.

[Sunny_Sunshine]

314. My daughter is 21 so no longer a concern

But yes, hopefully, a young women would work with her parents. Many feel they cannot but it is not true. The vast majority of parents want to do what's best for their child.

I would hope for some adult helping her out. Truly explaining the options and being an advocate for the young women (if she can get pregnant, she is not a "girl"). Encouraging her to speak to her parents. I remember being a teenager and thinking "My parents are going to kill me." No, they are not. Frequently, teenagers don't have the perspective to make a good decision and I would hope someone was there on her side.

[sweetheart]

4. It is her sovereign right

to make her own choices (teenager choices) without parental
interference.

[ringmastery]

7. who says a minor is emotionally ready to make that choice?

Minors can't enter into legal contracts and are restricted from doing any number of other things such as drive, drink, etc.

[sweetheart]

11. Minor shminor

The fact is that the person ultimately must bear the responsibility
for their own actions and choices. Likely, if the daughter is
not informing parents, it is because they were destructive assholes
like my parents.

I hear you about the legal crap, but the reality remains that the
daughter is the one who will ultimately have to take care of kids
and their reproduction... not the parents.

In a healthy parent relationship, surely your daughter would confide
in you... rather this law is for draconian evil parents who have
no rights, IMO... to usurp power over something that is not
their business.

[shockingelk]

23. healthy relationship

I believe that in a healthy parent-child relationship, the parent should have veto power.

Like, I recall I wanted to try to move out of the house when I was a sophomore in HS. I would think having a child or not is at least as important decision as moving out at 16. I believe the parents should at the least be informed of the decision their child is making. I believe giving the child a choice of which parent to inform is reasonable enough.

[sweetheart]

39. How about an agent of the court

I have seen more disfunctional families than you describe and there
are circumstances where the child can't come to either parent...

As long as, when the parents are informed, they can't veto, but
rather can apply their influence. If the kid has informed parents
and still disagrees, then i see it the childs right to be sovereign,
like in the constitution. Children grow up faster and faster in
our new media culture. Pretty soon, they'll be telling me you can't
take LSD without telling your parents... but the fact is,
that kids do lotsa things without telling their parents... big
important life-affecting things.

I agree, if informing is not to attain consent... that if the parents
disagree, the child can go ahead anyways. Rather you've put forward
a trojan horse for the abortion nazi's.

[Solon]

51. Kicking them out of the home,

THAT teach them kids! Is that the type of influence you are talking about?

[sweetheart]

61. Theres that interesting fine line

One one hand, the child is the charge of the adult until they can
be independent in society themselves. Some states still allow a
14 years old to emancipate and get married "elope", and to be an
emancipated minor. This would suggest a precedent in the law for
14 years olds and older to be making life-affecting decisions over
their own bodies.

Then theres the child who's pregnant with their father's kid, and
who is dreadfully afraid of informing the mother for fear of what
it could mean... and such a child might chose to have an abortion of
their own free will. Perhaps were the mother informed, there
would be an abortion as well, with further reprocussions in the
family and criminal courts... and its all a bit much to lay on a
teenagers shoulders don't ya think?

Certainly teenagers, if anything, are very very good at thinking
about themselves. :-) Likely with the proper counselling before
and after, such a young woman would be better for transcending her
parents rather than pretending they are the foundation of her life.

*WE* all live with the consequences of our choices. It is the
rule of life, if there is one. Maybe it is as well that parents
are not able to provide for the kid after a certain age. It all
sounds rather reasonable the way common law has evolved to date.

Rather this is a trojan horse of the anti-abortion lobby... veiled
in child "caring" and a bunch of crap.

[LeahMira]

272. More than most imagine

I have seen more disfunctional families than you describe and there are circumstances where the child can't come to either parent...

Sadly, too true. :-(


I agree, if informing is not to attain consent... that if the parents disagree, the child can go ahead anyways. Rather you've put forward a trojan horse for the abortion nazi's.

But if the parents do disagree, they can make life even more of a living hell than it already is. Sometimes children have to protect themselves in order to avoid being destroyed by their parents. That means some secrets.

You are right, though. The anti-choice crowd will latch on to any issue that they think will raise a question in the public mind. The majority of girls do tell a parent, or if they feel that that would not be wise they tell a teacher, a guidance counselor, a social worker, or some trusted adult... even an older sister. The state has no business making either criminals or victims of those few girls who feel they must carry their burdens alone.

[Muddleoftheroad]

273. The girls wouldn't be criminals

The doctors on the other hand would be if they performed an invasive medical procedure but kept parents out of the loop.

[Muddleoftheroad]

42. So a 13-year-old girl is ready for that?

Who knows what a CHILD will do in a panic situation or what her boyfriend will pressure her to do.

[noiretextatique]

253. if she had sex, then she's ready to deal with the consequences

unless of course you want a constitutional right to know when kids are having sex.

[Muddleoftheroad]

299. How do you know?

Many CHILDREN at that age have sex with adults and that is statutory rape.

[Heddi]

13. WAIT--you're saying

that a minor isn't necessarily "emotionally ready to make that choice" when it comes to Abortion...

BUT

She *IS* emotionally ready to make that choice when it comes to giving birth to a child? To decide whether to put that child up for adoption????

I just don't understand---how can she be some dumb little doe in the woods, unable to make the "heavy" decision about abortion----but she is able to make the oh-no-big-deal decisions regarding raising a child?????

I don't think so---either she's mentally compitent in both cases, or in neither case.

And if a girl, who according to you, may not be 'emotionally ready to make that choice' regarding abortion, I sure as fuck do not want that girl to be the parent of a child for god's sake!!!!

So which is it when it comes to pregnant teenage girls? Are they automatically dumb, and if so, why are we then allowing them to give birth to and raise children? Isn't that a far heavier, and more long-lasting 'bad decision' to make over having an abortion that one may (or may not) later regret?

[alcuno]

20. "Sovereign right?"

What on earth are you talking about? No wonder the right thinks we're nuts when people use terms like "parental interference." I believe you're thinking of parenting.

[sweetheart]

47. Sovereign rights

sorry for using libertarian ideas on a very socialist BBS. Each
individual person is, in my view, a sovereign individual. There
are no nation states, as rather they are but lies and tomfoolery, but
instead solid REAL individuals. These individuals, even at a young
age, like my own teenage daughter, have the right to choose in life
for themselves.

This right is absolute, and i would re-interpret the constitution,
were i a supreme court judge, to disavow all laws that do not
respect sovereign choice. This would end the drugs war over night,
and pretty much all wars, where soldiers do not want to be in
iraq fighting... as it is their soverign right to bugger off.

I realize this is a minority view on DU, and that poeple genuinely
believe that people are incapable of making intelligent decisions
on their own legs, and that their children are equally incapable,
and that we need a body of law to CONTROL people as otherwise they
might make real decisions for themselves.

The law is not for healthy parent-child releaitonships, as they would
already be informed... it is for sick nonfunctional ones, and i have
seen enough of those to vote NO on such an ignorant law.

[cally]

6. No

This from a mother who got incensed at a dentist for removing a baby tooth without my consent. I absolutely believe parents have rights over most medical decisions. This one is different. Noone should be forced to bear a child against their will. It ensures that women are less than and beholden to their ability to give birth. I absolutely hope that teens discuss this with their parents, but not require it.

[Yupster]

83. It's not a parental consent law

It's parental notification.

To me that's the difference.

If a doctor is wanting to do an emergency surgery on a minor and the parent says she's a religious zealot and tells the doctor not to do it, I say &*^$ the parent and do the surgery to save the girl's life.

On the other hand, I think the parent should be told that the surgery is going to be done.

Doing the surgery without telling the parent seems a gross violation of the parent's right to know what's happening to her children to me.

Same thing with doing an abortion, or any other medical procedure to a minor without telling the parent. It seems like the parent has a right to know what's being done to her minor children. That just seems like common sense to me.

[southerngirlwriter]

150. Here's why you're wrong.

If a girl is too scared to notify the parents herself, and so must be compelled by law to do so, she is almost certainly too scared to exercise her right to choose against their wishes.

I was raised by Christian nazis. I never ended up pregnant, thank God, but I can assure you that if I had, I would have been kidnapped and locked up to prevent the abortion. You cannot fathom what parents of a certain RW bent (not all Christian, and not even all Republican, parents, but a sizable minority) would do in this circumstance unless you've been there.

In a case like mine would have been requiring notification IS requiring consent. Anecdotal? Sure. Ask yourself this -- are girls who are only notifying because the law requires them to do so more likely to have reasonable parents or parents like mine?

[Yupster]

179. You would have been a candidate

for the judicial bypass then.

I don't even want my kid going to a museum as part of a school trip without my knowledge much less get operated on.

[southerngirlwriter]

182. That's the point -- I wouldn't have.

The kid wouldn't have been my dad's, and I have yet to see anyone advocate judicial bypass "because my parents are conservative assholes who will probably kidnap me."

That's not a crime until they do it, at which point it's too late.

And if the parents aren't dangerous, there's no need for the law. She'll have told them.

I had girlfriends get pregnant in high school. The ones whose parents were going to yell, scream, cry, throw something at the wall, get despondent, be heartbroken, etc. -- those are the ones who got told.

The ones who didn't get told were the ones who would have been so embarrassed by a pregnant child that they would just beat her and hopefully induce a miscarriage.

Or worse.

If being a conservative asshole who thinks they own their daughter's body was a crime, large percentages of Americans would be behind bars. It's not.

Judicial bypass would NOT have applied to me. That's my point.

[Deb-Ter]

288. southerngirlwriter,

"The ones who didn't get told were the ones who would have been so embarrassed by a pregnant child that they would just beat her and hopefully induce a miscarriage."

You know this how? Did it ever happen to anyone you know?

[southerngirlwriter]

342. I know someone who alleges that it happened to her.

It was a bit of a news story in my area, so I want to throw in that word, "allegedly," as it never went to trial.

I don't know; I wasn't there.

However, I have no problem believing it. My Christian Nazi parents beat me (when I was a teenager) for much less than getting pregnant. Happens all the time -- every single day -- in this country.

Edited for clarity.

[Solon]

183. If you only had two choices

Assuming your child has lack of trust in you in knowing about a pregnancy. Would you prefer they are operated on by a Licensed professional or a guy with a coathanger? Even without your consent or knowledge?

[aquart]

9. NO!

If your daughter is too scared of you to tell you the truth, how will it help her if someone else tells?

Have you sat your daughter down and told her, understand this, no matter how I feel, if you get into any kind of trouble including an unwanted pregnancy, COME TO ME FIRST. I WILL ALWAYS HELP YOU.

Any parent can say that. If you haven't, why should the law make you privy to what you haven't involved yourself in?

[Blasphemer]

10. NO...

Some parents are more dangerous to their children than strangers so the rights of the minor child must come first. It's probably not an issue with most, rational parents but most likely, these parents are the ones that will be told by their children anyway. There exist the type of lunatics who would harm their child after finding out about a planned abortion.

[sweetheart]

15. Yes precisely

It is the evil parents who want this law; the ones who want to
play command and control with a life that is shortly not theirs
to screw around with.

Were such a situation my own, i surely would not have confided in
my parents. Just because you have a child does not give you
abortion planning rights over the child's reproduction. A child
is not a cow after all.

If you want to control the reproduction of your animals, get some
sheep, a cow or a goat.

I agree. A child should be protected from their parents, absolutely.

[Muddleoftheroad]

44. Parents should be protected from doctors who think they are God

Or at least the parents. They aren't. They don't know the child's medical history. They don't know the child's mental health. They are the medical equivalent of a drive-by shooting and then leave the family to pick up the pieces without even the knowledge of what occurred.

[sweetheart]

75. Individual choices

You know muddle, i have always, even in my youth, been making my
own decisions. I am God in my life. I make the choices that have
made this life successful and screwed up. I learned from them.
My parents are long gone, and their involvement in the cases
we're discussing is for a few years, and leaving the teenage girl
to care for the kid after she's a legal adult... so its a scam
that the parents really have a right... only for a few years at
best.

When i was a teenager, i would have asked several adults about the
possibilities, none of them my parents, as i was already deeply
familiar with their destructive advise and would already know what it
was.

My own teenage daughter could ring me tomorrow, and i'd say, that i
would trust her decision on such a life-important matter, and that
were she to want to discuss it, i would point to the statistics
showing that women who bear children as teenagers are much more likely to be poor, disenfranchised, and to lead broken lives in
american poverty... and that by not having children at young ages
by contraception, women have radically changed their station in
life from birth cows, to mens equals in career and other arenas.

Lets be frank. The real issue is the parents wanting to stop said
daughter from having an abortion because they don't believe in it
even if the child does. Only this circumstance is the one the law
will inflict damage to the child, as they will have no rights once
such a law is passed.

People have too much sense of propriety about their bloody semen and
eggs. The kids are biological, not spiritual, and there is no
family after the kids mature. All this stinks of the republican
smell of the "family" and all that crap... when the reality is that
parents dump the kids as fast as they can get them out of the house.

[Muddleoftheroad]

80. Perhaps in your family

But in most, only God is God. And the parents make the decisions.

You mention about the family being gone after the kids mature. But that's the point, they are kids and they aren't mature.

[sweetheart]

96. so say a kid of 14 is pregnant

and if she carries the thing to term, she'll be 15 when it is born.
Then she is your "minor" for 3 more years until she fucks off and
never sees you again, BUT IS BURDENED with the result of the choice
for decades after you've washed your hands. It hardly smells of
deep parental concern, and rather meddling in another adult's life.

In truth, i see each case in this regard as unique, and that no law
should prevent a child from getting proper care for their family
planning needs. There are so many sub-issues about the age of the
"impregnator", and whether that be a family relation, and whether
the parents are involved with the child, or whether we're only talking
about the legal guardian... so much complexity.

In that all, i would hope that the girl with a future who gets
knocked up by her high school boy friend at 15, has a choice beyond
the rigid views of her slave-master parents.

Given your concerns about slavery, i think it is important to view
it on those terms. There were masters of olde who were absolute
in thier views that all slave women should inform their owners before
undertaking medical prodedures and their arguments run pretty
similar to yours. It begs the critical focus on making sure
we're not creating a new kind of enslavement, with unnecessary
legislation when the human race has done pretty OK without this
fuzzy stuff for all this time.

[Muddleoftheroad]

103. There is much you leave out

Much a parent would know or need to.

* Physical health of the girl.
* Mental health of the girl.
* Family ability to handle the responsibility of a new child.
* The girl's general opinion about children.
* External pressures -- daddy.
* Possibility of statutory rape.

By the way, your choice of wording: "and if she carries the thing to term" says a lot.

Or three years later, she will be glad to have her child. Or the child will be put up for adoption.

Yes, each case is unique, but except in extreme cases, the parents need to be part of the decision.

Calling parents "slave masters" is ridiculous and shows some hatred of traditional family on your part.

[Solon]

145. Its a moot point Muddle

If this passes or not, the teenagers that have unwanted pregnancies, and do not want parents to find out, will find a way to have abortions, either by going to another state, or using coathangers. The consequences of that are what I am concerned with, for the mortality rate of THAT type of abortion is horrendious, I would prefer that they had access to actual medical professionals and not sharlatans that are willing to perform back alley abortions, and believe me, they will be a growing business. So which is it gonna be?

[Muddleoftheroad]

151. Medical pros who perform procedures without knowing

Physical and mental health are indeed charlatans. However, only parents typically have all that information.

I am all for creating a well-publicized system that allows for judicial overview. But anyone, in state or out of it, who performs an abortion on a minor without parental involvement should be jailed. And if they did it to a daughter of mine, they would be lucky to get jail.

[Solon]

160. They could contact the family doctor, and may require it.

He or She most likely know more about the health of the teenager more than even the parents. As I said, either a medical professional does it, or a stranger with a coathanger, those are the choices.

[Muddleoftheroad]

164. The family doctor

That's a laugh. I've had four in the last six years. I don't think any of them know what the others do. I'm the only one who has a clue about what's gone on. People move, people change medical plans often, doctors leave the plan, etc.

[Solon]

178. Having an abortion is a major operation

I would say that most, if not all, doctors who perform them have the medical history of the patient on hand. Also they are LICENSED to perform these operations, I would trust them more than somebody who is looking to make a quick buck in a back alley. Also Judicial Overview would be a joke, just what a scared teenager needs, lawyers and judges making a decision for her. Like she would go to them for help. LOL, she WOULD trust somebody with a coathanger over them or her parents, I want to make sure that never happens, and this is not the way to do it.

[sweetheart]

190. The next-day pill is a major operation?

Methinks in the cases of early term pregnancies, that the procedures
are less invasive than portrayed, and that with proper medical
followup, an unwanted mistake could be sorted out rather quickly
with outpatient care.

It is only a more major procedure if good family planning medical
treatment is not available to the child early on.

I agree with your "coathanger" thesis, that this law is just like
all the abortion bullshit laws, that they disenfranchise young women
and will force them in to alternate channels of service, just like
the drugs war. Laws don't prevent behaviour, especially such root
behaviours as having sex and making mistakes.

I think muddle finds teenagers to be nincompoops and "his" property
to control in a very strong patriarchal family view, that might makes
right and a daugher can be put under control. Likely his daughter
is exactly the case we're dealing with. She gets pregnant at 15,
is afraid to tell her dad, as she knows he would want her to carry
the baby to term and be a mother when she had other plans.

Then she'd bugger off to find an abortion clinic somewhere where her
dad was not in attendence. I think muddle is focused on "functional"
families and as we've both pointed out, this law is not targeted at
functional families, as they will freely discuss without a law...
no, this law is for totally broken and disfunctional families,
teenage truants and single working-poor parents, as, truth be told,
poverty is the plight of 1 out of 3 american youth... and often
that poverty leads to a stress and breakdown of any sense of family.

Muddle is presenting what he thinks are "moderate" views, when in
fact, he is arguing like a republican. This patriarchal, daddy knows
better than the person involved is anti feminist, and there seems
a clear divide in this thread between feminists who are pretty
universally concerned with reality, and the patriarchal types who
see it their right to Meddle in other people's business with a
commmand-and-control attitude.

This law is against feminism, and is just another front on the war
against women that the republicans and "moderate" democrats are
waging against reality.

[Muddleoftheroad]

194. Parents are responsible for the healthcare of their kids

You talk about, "proper medical followup," but don't want parents to know about the abortion so they can make sure such followup happens. That's nuts.

Teens are not property, however they aren't adults either.

It is not Republican to argue for parental rights. Since the nation is about evenly split politically, I'd say we represent about the equal number of parents.

And I am not saying "daddy" knows better, there are "mommies" involved here too.

Parents do meddle in their children's lives. That is their job. It's a job I daresay many here would rather see the state take over.

[Solon]

205. Let's be honest here, this law has little to nothing to do with

the welfare of the teenager in question. Besides the State does take over parental rights in a plethora of areas in regards to children's rights. Abuse, neglect, child endangerment, etc. Those are curcumstances that are for the protection of the child, yet this law would ENDANGER children in troubled homes. Even with judicial oversight, how many of these kids will ever go to a lawyer, or have the courage to face a judge in court. Very few would go through that for an abortion. So they will go to alternatives, and those are much more dangerous than going to a doctor. Safety is a consideration, damn parental rights.

[Muddleoftheroad]

206. "Damn parental rights"

Yeah, that seems the extremist conclusion. However, most Americans don't want the state to have uber supremacy over parents.

[Solon]

209. My question is, how many teenagers are going to be maimed

or killed due to this law, that is my primary concern. Not ever child has an understanding home, and if my daughter did not feel comfortable in telling me she was pregnant and went and got an abortion, I would prefer it to be conducted by a medical professional and not by a coathanger. That's the bottom line, because not all of these teenagers are going to be protected by the judicial system.

[Solon]

216. I agree with you, I was referring to the time in the 1st-2nd trimester

when the morning after pill is not effective. My concern is the health of the teenagers when they feel the system is against them, they will invariably go to those types of people who will "perform" these operations outside of the medical establishment or oversight.

[Yupster]

260. Hard for me to get a handle on the concept that

"abortion is a major operation, " and someone wants to perform it on my minor child without my knowledge. It just seems to my simple mind that doing that should be as illegal as can be.

[daveropeswing]

229. The 'judicial' system?

It seems that following the logical conclusion here that you would expect 'parents', should be notified in ALL court cases that their child is involved in.
In that case it would involve not only notification but also consent of the parents.

I completely understand YOUR feelings regarding YOUR child. I dont think you have a clear idea on the reality of this country and its disparate views regarding morality and ethics. Not EVERY child has good parents. Hell,.. my first g/f couldnt even tell her mother when we kissed the first time, let alone if we had ever had sex. My second g/f was raped by her father and ran away from home. I have no idea where she is now. I dont think her parents know either. She never came back as far as I know and that was 30 years ago!

You are painting all the barns red without considering that someone else may prefer green!


mq

[Bettie]

290. Sadly, sometimes parents....

...know very little about the mental health of their children.

The girls who would tell their parents about an unplanned pregnancy are the ones with parents who do know about their health, family ability to care for a child and the other things that you mention.

In a family where the daughter is afraid to tell her parents about a pregnancy, it is a pretty good bet that aside from the age of the girl (and thus the possibility of statutory rape) the parents haven't much of a clue about their daughter.

I don't see parents as slave masters, at least I don't see myself as one, but there are many bad parents out there and a judge with an agenda isn't going to care if a girl is going back to an abusive situation if he or she has decided that no abortions will happen on his or her watch.

[Solon]

130. Children should be protected for parents who think they are God. n/t

[cally]

12. More thoughts

Our culture postpones giving legitimacy to sex longer than most cultures. The cultural accepted norm is that women wait until they are married which occurs at 26 to 30 years old. Girls hit puberty at 12 or 13 and most become sexually active. It's absurd. Teens are caught in a warp where cultural values are changing. Let's work out the cultural norms in a more sane manner and not force each individual teen who is pregnant to fight this battle for us. Give them a choice.

[WildClarySage]

14. This is from the same state

that believes 12 year olds are capable of being treated as adults in murder cases. Suddenly these same teens are mere children who have no ability to make their own decisions when it comes to abortion?

With activist judges like Priscilla Owens refusing to permit minors who are endangered by pregnancy and parental notification laws to supercede the protections supposedly put in place for their benefit, then no, parental notification laws are too dangerous to children and do nothing to serve the public good, but are, instead, a sop to the right winger's hyperchristians.

[smirkymonkey]

116. Excellent point,

however the far right never seems to acknowledge their own hypocrisy on these issues, no matter how glaring.

[Fla_Democrat]

16. Well, c'mon

I know I trust voters in Florida to use their better judgment when deciding Constitutional amendments. Hell, just look at the pregnant pigs and bullet train examples. :eyes:

[Abe Linkman]

18. What's the purpose of "notfiying" parents?

What good purpose is that supposed to serve?

[WildClarySage]

19. It gives them a chance

to beat their child for daring to have sex, and it gives them the authority to stop the abortion from happening which is the right's goal- to reduce and eliminate abortions from happening entirely.

[alcuno]

22. Maybe it gives them the chance to make decisions as a family.

All sorts of traumatic events happen in families, I don't understand why this one has to be treated differently.

[WildClarySage]

24. In a healthy family, yes

but many many homes are not healthy ones, and the laws should protect the most vulnerable. The ones who can't tell because it turns out that daddy is, well, the DADDY.

[Muddleoftheroad]

45. In those cases, there should be a judicial review

But ONLY for extreme cases, not for cases where the child is simply embarrassed by the situation. If she is mature enough to make this decision, then she can face her parents.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

366. If this has to be mandated by law...

...it isn't a healthy family.

[shockingelk]

21. you wacked out fire-brand liberals!

Heh heh ... no really.

SarahBelle says abortion is a "deeply personal and life-affecting" decision. Of course it is. Would you allow a 5 year old autonomously make a "deeply personal and life-affecting" decision? How about a 11 year old? 14? 17? Can you present an argument for a specific age at which an individual is responsible enough to make such a decision?

Lolly says "girls should be encouraged and counseled to work with their parents on this decision". Although I didn't like it - or even acknowledge it at the time - my parents were (and at age 36 remain) my most important and trusted counselors. I think it's reasonable to codify that parents are the primary counselors for young persons for which they are legally responsible. If a pro-lifer got hold of a pregnant teen and provided counseling without the knowledge or consent of the parents, I would like to find a standing to sue. Parents are - well responsible for their non-adult children.

Sweetheart says teens should make "(teenager choices) without parental interference." The decision whether to have a child or not is not something I would define as a "teenager choice"!

I'm just wondering - it seems like I sense some teenage rebellion in this thread! I admit - my parents were right about almost everything I disagreed with them over as a minor.

[lolly]

27. Wow! I'm shocked.

Thought I'd get blasted for my answer, and had to wait this long to get a negative response!

If a pro-lifer OR a pro-choicer tried to influence my daughter's decision, yes, I would be pissed.

Teenaged rebellion? As I said, I have 2 teenaged daughters. I know some of their friends, and I honestly believe that some of their friends would be harmed more by this requirement than helped if they ever got pregnant.

For the record, my personal hope (well, first I hope they don't get pregnant any time soon) would be that they would keep the baby. I would help them and support them in every way possible. But the decision would have to be theirs. No parent has the right to require that a child have a baby, and this notification law, in many cases, would effectively give parents that right.

This isn't the same thing as getting another medical procedure. It is, as I said, forcing a pregnancy and birth on another person.

My understanding, anyway, is that the VAST majority of teenagers do tell their parents--where do you think they get the money for the precedure most of the time? I truly believe that the ones who don't want to tell often have very good reasons for not telling. And if they're that scared of their parents and are required to notify, I'm afraid many of them will go the way of the old back-alley or do-it-yourself coathanger abortions.

[alarimer]

28. maybe

"my parents were (and at age 36 remain) my most important and trusted counselors."

But that is by no means universal. For some girls it is extremely dangerous to tell their parents something like this. To have to go to court to get an exemption (which in Texas is by no means certain- just look a some of Owens decisions which were so bad even Albert Gonzales thought she was nuts) takes too long and is a demeaning process.

You cannot base a law (or constitutional amemdment) on the best case scenario. There are plenty of moster parents out there who would beat their kids or throw them out if they were pregnant.

[WildClarySage]

33. "You cannot base a law (or constitutional amemdment)

on the best case scenario. There are plenty of moster parents out there who would beat their kids or throw them out if they were pregnant."

Mine would have, no exaggeration. It wouldn't have taken anything as huge as my being pregnant, either. If I left the TV on, or something fairly trivial, I could expect to GET IT. I learned about family violence the hard way, and I can promise you that this law will not be protecting minors.

[shockingelk]

55. yes, it can be dangerous

I'm unfamiliar with this FL law, but I have a similar law (or rather, a state SC decision concerning it) - if it's in the child's "best interest" for the parents not to be informed, an exception is made. Here's a google search that will turn up articles about the case (where Pricilla Owen was the only justice who thought that it was in the not necessarily in the best interest of the kid to keep the fact she was pregnant from her abusive alcoholic father who she claimed would be upset): http://www.google.com/search?q=best+interest+owen+abortion

[Solon]

37. 5 year olds can't get pregnent, neither can most 11 year olds.

Unless they are early bloomers, or science was involved in the conception. Question is, does the teenager's right to privacy overrule the parent's rights over the teenager? Most teenages that get pregnant now are usually around sixteen or so, this is the fuzzy area between adulthood and childhood. I would have no problem with this law if the parents of the pregnant teenager MUST provide for that child for the rest of their natural lives if they are the ones overrulling an abortion. This holds too much potential for abuse especially of bad parents abusing their "responsibilities" to their children. Unless you feel that children are no more than property to the parents.

[shockingelk]

71. I see a difference

I see a difference between the constitutional right to privacy on which Roe v Wade is based and a supposed right to "privacy" in the sense of keeping a secret from parents - again, parents are ultimately responsible for the welfare of their non-adult children, and having a child or not certainly;y effects a teens welfare.

[Yupster]

89. "Overruling" an abortion?

If the parent can overrule the abortion, then I would hange my mind and be against it.

I thought the law was just to notify. Not overrule.

[Solon]

174. They may not be able to do it through legal means, however

Threatening punishment would be enough, like threatening to throw them out of the house. Or making thier lives a living hell. That is why this law is proposed, so that is what would happen.

[SarahB]

49. Consenting to sex is deeply personal and life-affecting

Granted, young girls don't always have the best judgment on when to do this and hopefully, they will be prepared, but no birth control is 100% effective either. Since we cannot legislate or regulate this, we can't regulate or decisions regarding contraception or abortion. Besides, 5 year olds can't get pregnant. I won't even get into all the poor girls wo got pregnant without consent.

I was a responsible 19 year old who found herself pregnant. My mom was strongly pro-life and my boyfriend was ready to marry me and delighted at my pregnancy. Do you think even at that age, it didn't affect my decision? I knew I wasn't ready, but I made the best of it all. I love my daughter deeply (she's now 12) and can't imagine life without her, but I felt pushed. It would have been nicer if I hadn't felt as backed into a corner in regard to the choice I made. I knew if I made the other, I'd be all alone in the world because of it. I was legally an adult too and it was still hard. I'm not trying to feel sorry for myself or anything because I'm luckier than many young girls were, I guess I'm just trying to say, I just understand what's it's like to have faced such a choice. Have you?

[shockingelk]

62. I've not faced such a choice

And I agree that at 19, it should solely be the woman's decision.

My anecdote is that my birth mother was date raped when she was 14 (and pre Roe v Wade) - that's where I came from. My Birth Mom didn't tell anyone until the fifth month. Had I been conceived 10 years later, I imaging a 14 year old woman in a similar situation may be afraid that her parents would be angry and reject her, whereas they may just as likely chide her for being irresponsible but nonetheless be willing and eager to help her raise the child.

It seems to me the interest in the child making a fully informed decision with the help and counseling of her parents outweighs the possibility that her parents might get angry. (+ see my post about the law needing an exception when parental notification may not be in the child's best interest).

[proud patriot]

29. Only if the minor trusts them enough to tell them

I believe it is up to the minor to tell her parents .
If said minor doesn't feel compelled to inform her
parents , it is none of the governments business as
to why she doesn't inform them.

[Muddleoftheroad]

50. Sorry, but minor indicates not the controlling authority

It is NOT up to a minor to make tons of choices in her life. This is one such choice.

[proud patriot]

92. I'm of the opinion that most kids go to their parents

those that don't, have a Damn good reason .

Said minor is the controlling authority in this
matter regardless of what the parents want IMHO.

Most kids do involve their parents because they
trust and love them .

I know I will not change your opinion which it
what your post is AN OPINION . I honor and repect
your opinion I just disagree with it as a Woman
and as a Parent .

[Muddleoftheroad]

95. Got any stats?

[proud patriot]

234. only my own experience

no stats to cite .

[hyphenate]

31. The decision is

not that easy to make, and there are so many different scenarios that it would be difficult to create a decision to blanket all of them.

1) Incest: what if the father is the father in the pregnancy? Going to the parents would certainly not work in such a case--more often than not, if incest is an ongoing thing, the mother knows full well what is going on.

2) Some 15 year olds are more worldly than others who are 18. Their level of maturity might not have been enough to keep them from getting pregnant, but it might certainly be enough to let them make this very emotional, personal choice.

3) Abuse: What if the parents are abusers? Some kids will be too scared to go to them in any emotional crisis such as this. That means from AY age group, but mostly from those who are still living at home, despite the physical terror.

4) Control freaks: Goes hand in hand with abusive parents. I know one girl whose father actually dragged his daughter to an abortion clinic. Whether she wanted to have an abortion or not was not left to her. She ended up (a couple of years later) marrying the guy anyhow. By that time, the father was dead, and had no control over her life. BTW, the BF/husband was a guy from the middle-east, and the father hated him for his identity.

I don't think a 15, 13, 17 year old should have to make that kind of decision alone, though. There needs to be someone they can turn to, even if it's not a parent. That's why I get so pissed off at "pro-lifers" simply because they spread the propaganda that places like Planned Parenthood are "all for" abortion and no other alternatives. I know a fundie whose father is a doctor who counsels women NOT to have abortions regardless of their situation. I think that's completely wrong. I hated her for that--she counseled women herself, and made such a huge deal of her own pregnancy and virginity when she got married--her situation, one of some comfort and stability, is in no way comparable to any woman of any other class, education level (oh yes, she was a bible college graduate herself), or situation. How dare anyone like that presume to know what someone else has gone through or should have to go through!! I think that PP has the best interests of any woman they counsel at heart, and as many of them are licensed social workers, they have far more experience at knowing about hellish situations than a doctor and his daughter in puritanical, fundamental parts of Pennsylvania.

[booley]

32. when you consider things like Incest

..I would say no.

And then you have fundies who seem to care more about protecting a clump of cells then the welfare of actual human beings.

I hate to sound like this but if a girl thinks she can't tell her parents, there may be other problems involved.

[neverborn]

41. NO.

[smirkymonkey]

65. No. Case in Point: Becky Bell

From ACLU/Reproductive Rights

http://www.aclu-wa.org/issues/reproductive/repropamphlet.html

"In Indiana in 1989, Becky Bell died after having a back alley abortion to avoid the shame of telling her parents she was pregnant. As Mrs. Bell discovered, the law requiring daughters to inform parents before having an abortion resulted in the death of her daughter."



"In the best of circumstances a young woman would be able to talk to her parents about an abortion decision. For some young women, however, doing so would expose them to abuse from parents angered by the fact they have become sexually active. Unfortunately, some families are simply not loving and understanding. We cannot know the circumstances every young woman faces regarding an unwanted pregnancy, and thus, we cannot legislate what she should do."

The government seems to think that it can control the sexual behavior of women with laws. It can't. These laws only serve to punish those who have been sexually active and unfortunate enough to find themselves pregnant and desperate. This law would be not only counterproductive, but immoral in it's potential for tragic consequences.

[Muddleoftheroad]

70. This is not about women

This is about children. When they become women, they can make any choices they wish.

[SarahB]

77. So we're going to put chastity belts on them until they're 18?

They're making a choice to have sex and take that risk. How would you stop this choice?
edit: spelling

[sweetheart]

86. I bet with modern fabrics, chastity belts could come back..

in vogue. With some kevlar and a padlock or two, it would be
possible to create a quite wearable pair of panties (knickers) that
are impenetrable, yet would allow bodily functions.

Methinks the new chastity belt is the future in this republican
nazi antifeminism approach. It may be horrible sounding, but
compared to the republican choices, it is a lesser evil.

[Muddleoftheroad]

87. So a 13-year-old can make that choice?

Is she mature enough to decide on sex? Suppose she "decided" on sex with a 46-year-old guy. Are you OK with that?

You can't stop kids from having sex. And the age of consent is generally 16 not 18. However, CHILDREN who get pregnant need to deal with the situation as part of their family.

[SarahB]

155. Obviously statutory rape is a no-no

No, 13 year olds aren't mature enough to have sex IMHO, but if they are determined to do it, it's probably hard to stop. Therefore, the choice is ultimately theirs.

[Muddleoftheroad]

169. A "no-no?"

How about a felony. And one that, if you are lucky and don't commit it with a daughter of mine that you should go to jail for a very long time.

[SarahB]

177. So, you want to argue semantics with my linguistics?

How about:
YES, NO SHIT IT'S A FELONY AND I HOPE THOSE GUILTY ARE THERE FOR A LONG TIME. BETTER?

[Muddleoftheroad]

195. Yep

[slinkerwink]

79. sixteen year old girls are not children---they are sexually active

[Muddleoftheroad]

90. How about 12? 13? 14?

16 is generally the age of consent. 13 is not.

[slinkerwink]

111. I was sexually active at 13

:shrug:

[Muddleoftheroad]

114. And...

That is NOT the age of consent in the U.S. That doesn't mean parents can stop you, but you are still a dependent child at that point.

[slinkerwink]

123. no, but if I had been pregnant, I would have wanted to get an abortion

and my mother is very catholic. I would not want her to impose her views on me when it comes to abortion and my right to abort the fetus.

[Muddleoftheroad]

126. And at 13, that's just not your decision

No CHILD of 13 is old enough to assess the impact such a decision has. A CHILD of 13 has no such blanket right to make decisions for her own life.

[slinkerwink]

134. I'm sorry, but if my father had raped me, and I couldn't tell my mother

and I was forced to carry the baby as a result---that is unfair, and should not happen. That is why the minor has the right to abort a fetus.

[Muddleoftheroad]

No, in that case there is judicial review

Because just aborting the fetus doesn't stop the crime. It just continues the cycle of abuse.

[slinkerwink]

161. judicial review takes a long time and there's no guarantee

that the judge will side with you.

[Muddleoftheroad]

173. There's no guarantee the judge should side with you

That's why you have the judge. As for time, I agree such review should be speedy.

[slinkerwink]

181. that's precisely why pregnant girls end up having back alley

abortions because they're afraid that the judge won't agree with them.

[Muddleoftheroad]

196. So you expect a system that automatically agrees with the girl?

That's not a court, it's a kangaroo court.

[slinkerwink]

268. I want a court that gives precedence to a woman's reproductive

rights over that of her parents.

[Muddleoftheroad]

271. We aren't talking about a woman here

We are talking about a minor child. An no, what they want should not necessarily take precedence over the folks responsible for her health and well being.

[slinkerwink]

275. a girl that menstruates, fucks, and pushes a fetus out her twat IS

a woman.

[Muddleoftheroad]

277. So, an 11-year-old girl that does those things

Is a woman? Wow, interesting. And totally unsupported by anything other than extremist views.

BTW, even you used the term "girl."

[slinkerwink]

278. no....not if she's raped----there are different state limits that allows

minors to have sex, and the youngest is 14.

[Muddleoftheroad]

279. And in most it's 16

So anyone UNDER that age of consent is a minor child and needs to have her parents involved in medical situations.

[slinkerwink]

282. what about those states where age of consent is 14?

:shrug:

[Muddleoftheroad]

301. If the state mandates the age of consent

it should apply to both decisions.

I've said that a bunch at this point.

[kiahzero]

144. Courts have let children of younger ages make decisions on their own

Such as which parent to live with in custody cases.

Your statement just seems to me to reflect the "children as chattel" viewpoint that is so distressing to me.

[Muddleoftheroad]

147. Not chattel, responsibility

Parents are responsible for the health, well being, feeding, clothing, education, raising, caring, loving, etc. of their children. I oppose the state trying to supercede that role.

[kiahzero]

152. Right, as do I.

I just don't see the the failure of the state to force minors to notify their parents about an abortion as the state superceding that role.

[Muddleoftheroad]

153. States regulate doctors

If they allow doctors to perform major medical procedures on CHILDREN without parental involvement, then they are superceding that parental role.

[kiahzero]

158. Perhaps, perhaps not

Gah, I hate being indecisive. I keep getting hung up because children have rights too.

Would you mind commenting on my post "Right", number 137? I'm wondering if perhaps that's a valid compromise, and could use some input.

[dawn]

362. So her parents should force her to have the baby? or force her to abort?

Yeah, that's real family values! :puke:

[theboss]

212. This is not a judgment on you

But I feel that any child who is sexually active at 13 has already shown that he/she is not in a position to make wise decisions for themselves on their own.

[slinkerwink]

269. ha, who the fuck cares?

[KittyWampus]

102. Said 16 Year Old Girls Are Sexually Active CHILDREN

who may very well end up having a child if their parents are fundies and don't believe in abortion.

Who said Life is easy?

Take away a parent's right to be informed and make decisions about abortion and you may eventually find parent's rights abridged in many other ways as well.

[slinkerwink]

113. If I had fundie parents, and my birth control didn't work, and I ended

up pregnant as a result, I wouldn't want them to force the fucking pregnancy on me!

[alcuno]

99. Muddleoftheroad, I agree with you.

There are all sorts of things that we don't allow children to do and I don't understand those who want to build walls within families. Yes, there are some circumstances when parents should not be notified, but because you don't want to have to make a family decision should not be one of them.

[smirkymonkey]

107. Becky Bell was a minor and her parents

spoke out against the law that prevented her from seeking legitimate medical help after her death.

[kiahzero]

67. So very, very undecided

On the one hand, minors have the same rights as everyone else. On the other hand, parents have the right to raise their children.

This is one issue I honestly can't decide on - anybody care to help me figure it out?

[Muddleoftheroad]

68. Minors have the same rights?

They can vote? They can serve in the military? They can drive (depends on age)? They can sign contracts?

Nope, not the same rights.

[kiahzero]

84. Um, yes, minors have the same rights.

Right to free speech? Yes
Right to freedom of religion? Yes, even though some parents wish it otherwise.
Right to freedom of assembly? Yes.
Right to private property? Yes.
Right to be secure in their person, effects, papers, etc, from unreasonable searches and seizures? Yes.
Right to be tried by a jury of their peers? Yes.
Right of protection against cruel and unusual punishment? Yes.

Neither driving nor serving in the military are rights protected by the government, so the fact that they are denied to minors is not an indication of minors not having the rights of adults.

The only thing you've cited that is a right is voting, and perhaps being able to enter into a contract - whether or not that is a right is debatable.

Since the right to have an abortion is derived from the privacy guarantees of the First, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, and none of those Amendments stipulate an age requirement to be eligible for those rights being protected, it is entirely reasonable to assert that a minor has a right to have an abortion.

[Muddleoftheroad]

91. Nope

Right to free speech? Parents can overrule at any time.
Right to freedom of religion? Parents can still mandate church attendance or non-attendance.
Right to freedom of assembly? If their parents let them.
Right to private property? Unless their parents take it from them.
Right to be secure in their person, effects, papers, etc, from unreasonable searches and seizures? As long as you don't count parental search and seizure.
Right to be tried by a jury of their peers? Yes, they get this one.
Right of protection against cruel and unusual punishment? Ditto.

[kiahzero]

105. Getting a little off topic...

The parents are not the government. The government may not violate any one of the above rights. As far as I remember, however, parents may not seize the property of a child, if the property was purchased by the child with his / her own funds; this would be akin to parents seizing the paycheck of the child.

Anything you have to say about the matter directly at hand; the derivation of the right to an abortion, and its applicability to minors?

[Muddleoftheroad]

109. Parents overrule those rights

Why not this one?

Why exclude parents only from this medical procedure? Other than the PC nature of the choice I mean?

Parents can indeed seize property of the child for the good of the family. The child is a dependent, not an independent entity.

[kiahzero]

115. Because it has a lasting impact, past when they turn 18

You might have a case if it were legal or moral for the child to be abandoned when the minor in question turned 18, as I mentioned above. I don't think that parents should have the final veto on the decision at all; the thing I am up in the air about is whether or not the parents have the right to know.

[Muddleoftheroad]

117. If they don't know

How can they help her afterward? How can they deal with the emotional pain? How can they deal with the potential medical issues? How can they cope with the very real possibility that their daughter was raped or a victim of statutory rape?

[kiahzero]

124. And those are all good reasons

This is the problem... there are good arguments on both sides.

[Muddleoftheroad]

128. Then lacking any major reason to leave out parents

They need to be kept informed, as they would be in all other cases involving their children.

[kiahzero]

137. Right

But as others have said, there are problems with this scheme as well. Here's a thought, just brainstorming... maybe a three-teir process:

Teenager A finds out she's pregnant.
First, A meets with a councilor, B. If A decides she wants an abortion, she and B talk over whether or not she wants to tell her parents. If A wants to tell her parents, she does, and it ends here.
If A does not want to tell her parents, B sends a summary of the situation to a magistrate, who makes a ruling. If A is satisfied, it ends here. This could be handled relatively quickly, and probably eliminate most cases.
Final step: A makes her case in front of a judge, as in the current system.

What do people think of this general kind of a system?

[slinkerwink]

163. besides, the problem of getting legal counsel and facing judicial

review often prevents pregnant teenagers from having the chance to get an abortion.

[kiahzero]

166. Yes

That's why I figured an intermediary would be beneficial - the case would be resolved very rapidly in most instances.

[Muddleoftheroad]

167. Review would have to be speedy

I agree with that.

[Yupster]

98. I'm a stockbroker

Minors cannot sign an investment application because they can not be legally bound by the contracts they sign.

[Yupster]

97. This is a case for a compromise kiahzero

The parent should be informed, but there should be some legal bypass where a girl who thinks she has a legitimate reason not to tell her parent can go before a judge, justice of the peace or some other legal authority. That legal body can make the decision on whether the girl has legitimate cause for concern, or is just a scared little girl who doesn't want to tell her mom she broke a vase.

[KittyWampus]

69. Yes, Unless There's Allegation Of Incest & State Must Intervene

Even if it means a child of a fundamentalist may be forced to bear a child.

Family's aren't perfect. And Life may not always seem fair to an individual at certain times.

But until a child comes of age, the parent has a right to know.

There are consequences to our actions.

Getting pregnant as a child provides one with a steep learning curve.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[alcuno]

93. I'm a woman and I guess I agree with the men who believe that it

is their responsibility to be a parent and not a friend.

[Muddleoftheroad]

94. Maybe they just understand

Parental responsibility and obligation.

[Yupster]

100. You don't like hearing from men?

LOL.

[SarahB]

142. I love men

Precisely why I wouldn't want to legislate their nads.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Muddleoftheroad]

112. People who aren't parents

Should fucking shut up on this one more like.

[slinkerwink]

118. yep----especially fundie parents

[Muddleoftheroad]

121. All parents are equal

Until their actions change that.

[slinkerwink]

138. Parents make bad choices too---parents are not infallible

[Muddleoftheroad]

140. Yes, they do make mistakes

But they are more informed and more mature than a 13-year-old girl (or boy for that matter).

[kiahzero]

149. Assuming that, the following changes should be made:

Minors should not be allowed, let alone forced or coerced, to undergo religious commitment ceremonies, since they are not mature enough to make the decision for themselves.

Minors should not be charged as adults for any crimes, since they are not mature enough to have made a rational decision.

Courts should not allow minors to decide who they are going to live with in custody cases, since they are not mature enough to make the decision for themselves.

Minors should not be allowed to work, since they are not mature enough to make decisions for themselves.

All of these (except perhaps the last, which is admittedly a stretch) logically follow from that position.

[SarahB]

148. I'm a parent

I'm a darn good one too. My husband would probably agree that it would be better for him to be a minimalist if we were in such a situation with our daughter though and let me be there for her more because as a woman, I could understand more easily. I would help her no matter what she decided- providing hands on assistance if she had the baby as well. I hope not to be faced with that for awhile though.

However, all women have a say in this. Parents or not. It's about our bodies.

[Vladimir]

199. Are we allowed to

agree with you? Please? :P

V

[smirkymonkey]

131. Thank you...I am getting really

tired of pro-life men weighing in on a decision that they will NEVER be presented with and will NEVER have to make.

The ultimate say in this issue should always reside with women.

[Muddleoftheroad]

132. The only WOMEN in this scenario

Are the mothers. There are GIRLS who are not legal adults however.

[slinkerwink]

136. girls can be mothers------after all, they can push out a baby out of

their fucking twat.

[Muddleoftheroad]

139. Yes, but they aren't mothers yet

So THEIR mothers are the only women in this scenario.

[slinkerwink]

154. I've heard of sixteen year old girls and fifteen year old girls

raising children on their own. So, yeah, they can be mothers.

[slinkerwink]

135. and after all, we are the ones who have to carry the fetus

and we have the right to abort that fetus.

[Muddleoftheroad]

141. Adult women do, yes

And I am all for it. Children are not the same.

[slinkerwink]

156. A sixteen year old girl is different from a child in this instance

[Muddleoftheroad]

159. As I said elsewhere in the thread

I'd be OK with using the age of consent as the age to make this decision. And 16 is the typical age of consent.

[slinkerwink]

168. what about 15?

[Muddleoftheroad]

171. Nope

Nor 14, 13, 12, etc.

[Solon]

180. Be consistant please.

You said if there is legal age of consent, well different states have different standards. AL has it as low as 14, while others at 18 yet you settle on 16, not one day younger I presume.

[Muddleoftheroad]

197. I am using the general age

Rather than sticking to specific states. Whatever that state chooses as its age of consent should be the age for abortion choice as well.

Is that simpler for ya?

[Solon]

202. yes quite...

OK now I just you to answer a simple question, that you failed to answer before. Do you believe that the child's best interest is served when they are forced, from a practical standpoint, to go to a coathanger abortionist over a licensed professional?

[Muddleoftheroad]

223. I am not for coathanger abortionists

Which is why I say this needs judicial review and publicity for how the process works.

[Solon]

225. Excuse my sarcasm, but what are the chances

that teenagers would trust courts with their decisions? Publicity is even worse, if you can't figure that out, its hopeless.

[Muddleoftheroad]

231. Kids don't trust courts

Let's abandon the whole legal system. After all, everything is up to them isn't it?

[Solon]

237. Of course they are distrustful.

I doubt the effectiveness of the judicial system in this case, because the kids can be very good at keeping secrets from their parents and the legal system. So what would be their alternatives, if they can find a way they will do it, so why not allow them access to a safe enviroment outside of the home, so as to not suffer retaliation? Why put a roadblock (in the kids mind) to having a SAFE abortion? Would you prefer that they did it themselves? You seem to have forgotten what it was like as a kid or teenager.

[Bettie]

295. The legal system

Can and often is co-opted by judges with an agenda.

A judge could (and this isn't too far outside the realm of the possible these days) decide that NO teen will have an abortion on his or her watch.

So, when "Susie" doesn't want her parents to know about her plan to have an abortion, she goes to see the judge.

The judge gets lots of money and favors from fundamentalist groups or is a fundamentalist him/herself. So, even if Susie explains her situation, the decision has been made. Susie's not getting her legal, safe abortion.

So, the parents are notified. They let Susie know what a disappointment she is to them, heap invective on her and tell her that she's worthless. Maybe they even kick her out of the house.

Having no other real option, Susie tries to perform her own abortion.

You may think that this is not a probable scenario, but it isn't too far off.

Respectfully,

Bettie

[Muddleoftheroad]

302. So doctors don't have agendas?

You make it sound like everything is flawless as it is.

It isn't.

[Bettie]

331. I didn't say the system is perfect as it is....

...but forcing communication is also not necessarily in the best interest of a young woman (or girl if you prefer) caught in an already difficult situation.

The fact is that the parents who have good, solid relationships with their children will ALREADY know what's going on.

Plus, we're talking about a very small segment of young women/girls here. If they aren't telling their parents, they probably have good reason.

If you had ever been abused by your parents, you might have a better understanding of why sometimes girls/young women don't want their parents told things. Its not a matter of being embarrassed, its a matter of trying to preserve your sanity and well-being in the midst of people who are trying their level best to strip you of your humanity and your dignity. But, I digress.

If ALL parents were good parents, there would be no need for a rule on this because children tell good parents whats going on in their lives.

By the way, please don't put words into my mouth. I never did say things were perfect as they are.

In a perfect world, there would be no abortions and every child would be loved and wanted, but sadly, we do not live in a perfect world.

[Solon]

338. What is this with the distrust of doctors?

They aren't perfect either, however I would trust them in medical decisions over any layperson any day, what are you a Christian Scientist?

[Muddleoftheroad]

346. I don't automatically trust anyone

With the life and health of my child without knowing what is going on. Nope, not a Christian Scientist. Just a Christian.

But I see tons of distrust of parents and yet so many here seem to think doctors are infallible.

[Mattforclark]

101. I thought parental notification was decided by judges???

for example, parental notification would be made unless there was reason to believe that the parents would literally kill/torture/etc the child that wants to have an abortion.

That makes sense to me.

[Blasphemer]

176. Judges like Scalia?

No thanks. I don't think going before a judge for an exception is an adequate solution. A woman of any age could have a good reason for not wanting to discuss her personal crisis with the courts and I think this is especially the case with young women. Many rape and incest victims would not discuss the situation with ANYONE and that is their right. You can't force someone to be ready to deal with that kind of trauma by legislating the necessity to go before a judge.

[leesa]

104. Yes. It's a medical procedure and parents will be paying if there

are complications. Things can go wrong occasionally.

[MrPrax]

108. No...

Obviously a teenage girl who wants an abortiion BUT doesn't want to tell her parents is reasonably assured that the parents would disagree with the decision and ergo she should have that right...

Child raising goes far beyond the limits of the age of guardianship and is a lifetime committment...so why should parents be allowed involvement over such a dramatic decision, when in most cases, in a mere two years..the parents would be out of the loop anyhow...

[TrueD]

119. Yes, any medical procedure or prescription drug.

Should require parental notification and also consent if it's possible. There were a couple deaths last year to do infections related to RU-486 and it was because the parents (and their family doctor) didn't know the child was pregnant. Only part of the fetuses were expelled and the girls died. I'm sure there are many more that are permanently injured.

Also, girls at that age really need to see their parents support them (whatever decision they make). Hiding these choices from parents generally serve no purpose except the vanity of the girl who doesn't want her parents to know she is having sex.

In the rare case where the girl actually fears her parents response, she has the court option.

[Mattforclark]

170. Aye

"In the rare case where the girl actually fears her parents response, she has the court option."

That's good enough for me.

If one is going to say that abortion is a medical procedure, it seems to me that one should be consistent - don't parents get informed of other medical procedures?

And if it's dangerous to do so, then notification doesn't have to be given.

[mopinko]

172. if men could get pregnant

abortion would be a sacrament.

[Muddleoftheroad]

175. Thanks for that bit of marketing

But we aren't talking about men or women here. We're talking about girls. If BOYS could get pregnant, my position would be the same.

[Van Helsing]

184. Yes, the parents have a right to know.

If I had teenage daughters under the age of 18, and she had an abortion, I would want to know.

[DBoon]

186. Should parents know..

If their child has sought mental health counseling?

Treatment for a sexually transmitted disease?

Treatment for any disease?

Treatment for drug addiction?

Treatment for a drug overdose (or suspected overdose)?

What will happen if teenagers are afraid to seek treatment for the above because their parents will be notified?

If this is a problem, why isn't it a problem for a teenager seeking an abortion?

If a parent's consent is required for abortions, then is it also required for contraceptives? Including over-the-counter contraceptives?

Are parents required to know if their daughter is seeking an abortion but not if their daughter is pregnant and seeking a live birth (e.g., is seeking pre-natal care)?

If it is wrong for a teenager to have an abortion without her parent's consent, is it then right for parents to force their daughter to become a mother against her will?

[REP]

191. Does She Need Their Permission to Give Birth?

If minor children are required to get parental permission for an abortion, they should be required to get parental permission to give birth, since giving birth is far more dangerous than an abortion (source: CDC).

[Violet_Crumble]

192. You beat me to it, REP!

I was just about to point that one out. Interesting thing is that of the many folk I've encountered online who insist that minors should be required to get parental permission to have an abortion, not one yet has stuck consistantly to their stance that a parent should be allowed to make decisions for their daughters, because whenever it's suggested that they also shouldn't have a problem if the parents decide their daughter should have an abortion, even if their daughter wants to give birth, suddenly they turn all huge on women (suddenly they're not girls anymore) being able to decide what's best for themselves. Fucking hypocrites, the bunch of them...

Violet...

[Samurai_Writer]

193. Funny how a teenager can't decide to have an abortion...

People want teens to get permission before having an abortion, but that same teen is considered a temporarily emancipated minor the moment she gets pregnant, and under law has all the rights and responsibilities of an adult in regards to her pregnancy. If she decides to give birth and place the child for adoption, she doesn't need her parent's permission. She is the only one who signs the parental termination papers. If she decides to keep the baby, she doesn't need her parent's permission (of course, she might need their /help/, but that's a different story).

Why is it that the only decision of the three that gets people up in arms is the abortion decision? Why aren't people up in arms about 14 year old girls being coerced and lied to by adoption agencies to get their babies? Why aren't people concerned about how a 16 year old girl is going to provide for her child?

Also, the VAST majority of pregnant teens DO tell their parents, and DO have their parents' support for their decision -- whatever that decision might be. Why make a global law that is only going to affect perhaps 5% of the people it's planned to 'protect'... and of that 5%, probably half or more have a damned good reason for not telling their parents.

I know I will be voting a big fat NO on this one.

[Vladimir]

198. The bollocks should they

If an underage girl wants to tell her parents, then that's one thing. But to force her... I don't care when the 'law' deems someone an adult, if a girl gets pregnant, its her body, her decision, and no-one else's business whatsoever.

V

[RhodaGrits]

200. No. The girl should be counseled to tell her parents

as part of the discussion of her pregnancy and her options. Most girls will involve at least one parent and those that don't - have very very good reason for not telling them. This is a decision that will have huge impact on the course of the girl's entire life and if she is part of a family dynamic that is toxic - telling her parents is the last thing she needs to be facing. Parents don't own their children. If she is sexually active, she's already making adult choices. If she is already at a place where she cannot trust her parents to be a part of her decision making process, a law forcing her to tell them is not going to help at all. It's her body, her life and her choice. I would hope that every girl could come from a family unit where she could openly discuss such hugely important matters, but the fact is - some can't. Yes, some girls are going to make bad choices. But it would be her choice and she'll live with the consequences, not the consequences of a bad choice forced by a bad parent.

[cap]

201. No... there are a fair number of dysfunctional families

There are a lot of cases involving incest. With incest, a lot of dysfunctional parents will force their daughter to carry that pregnancy to term with all of its health risks and future ramifications of bringing up that new child.

[theboss]

203. It's a medical procedure

I've never understood how parents could be denied information on this. If a child went to the hospital for a sprained ankle, the parents would have to be informed.

Now do I think there should be some parameters in place to protect the girl? Of course. I don't believe in parental consent clauses. And I think there should always be some sort of caseworker assigned.

But there is something horrifying about a 13-year-old girl being able to get this procedure - and face all the psychological trauma that goes with it - without an adult knowing.

And my main reason is that if malpractice is committed, the child does not have standing to sue; only her parents would.

[Solon]

207. What's to prevent the parents from punishing the teenager

after the fact, have a caseworker check up on them for the remaining years they are in the home, that could be 5+ years.

[theboss]

210. Um, teenagers are punished

That's what happens to them.

They can't be abused however. And if that happens, they have the same rights as any other teenager who is being abused by his/her parents have.

There seems to be a paranoia here that every teenage girl who gets an abortion is going to be beaten with a belt by her insane Christian redneck father.

First of all, I don't think that happens as regularly as most here. Secondly, I don't see why that fear trumps my rights as a parent.

[Solon]

213. Exactly, it would be the fear of punishment

that will drive the teenagers to have back-alley abortions performed so the parents do not find out. The health of the teenager trumps the rights of the parents.

[theboss]

215. No proof that would happen

I'm pro-choice, but I think the "back-alley abortion" argument is intellectually lazy. It's nothing but fear-mongering.

[Solon]

219. It HAS happened, what is to stop it from happening again?

Refer to post 65, Becky Bell, 16 years old, died because she feared the consequences from her parents. Why encourage it in another state?

[theboss]

222. A few bad examples should not set precedent

Again, why should I (as a parent) be kept out of the decision-making process for my child, because of another bad parent.

How do these kids pay for abortions if the parents aren't involved?

[Solon]

224. Can't make an omelete without breaking a few eggs, eh?

Damn it all, I can't debate with someone who places no value on human life outside of the womb.

[theboss]

228. What are you talking about?

First of all, jagoff, I'm pro-choice.

But this is a complicated legal question and should not be decided on the emotion of one death. (If you've noticed one death has completely flipped Italy's position on the war in Iraq. Emotional decisions are bad decisions).

There are two sets of rights at play here: The pregnant child's right to obtain a legal medical procedure. And the parent's right to be able to raise their child as they see and make healthy decisions for them.

So, the first question is, Why is this medical procedure different from any other? It's non life-threatening so there is generally no urgency. Is it different from a tonsilectomy? Appendicitis? A nose job? I'm not being flip, but we need to determine why it is different first. Because we would not bar the parent from any of those decisions.

It's apparently different because it's controversial. Which I accept.

But is controversy enough to bar the parent completely from this decision? Since your admitting that it is emotionally devastating, wouldn't that require some adult supervision?

What if she starts hemorraghing that night? I'm sure I can find examples of this too. There are ugly stories on both sides.

My argument is that we as a society do not trust minors to make certain decisions for themselves. I think you need to show a compelling state interest to bar the parent from this decision. And a hypothetical tragedy is not enough because I can produce a hypothetical tragedy that results from not telling parents.

[Solon]

232. My problem is this...

Whether the parent is a good parent or not is not the point. I am concerned about the teenagers reactions and the consequences of their actions. Only one example is presented in this thread, I could come up with others if you like.

Put yourself in a teenagers shoes for a minute: You find out you are pregnant, your scared, aren't ready to be a mother, your confused as to what to do. So who do you talk to, you know your parents will be pissed, they never will understand. Going to a lawyer would probably never enter your mind. So she goes to the nearest Planned Parenthood clinic, and the doctors there say "Let us call your parents first, its the law." You yell, "NO! Never mind, I'll go tell them myself."

So you leave, not to tell your parents, but to talk to your friends, one of them suggest this one guy can "fix" it for you. After all she used him and she's fine. So you go and he uses various devices in the apartment of his to perform the abortion. 2 days later you start bleeding uncontrollably, and your parents send you to the hospital. You can never be pregnant again, too much damage, and you barely survived.

Now the question is, whose fault was it that she is now effectively steril, and nearly died. Her own or a law that is put forward by pro-lifers and insecure parents?

BTW: if you ask about the guy, yes he deserves jail, but unless she decides to give up the name, conviction is unlikely.

[theboss]

236. That's not a good situation

But neither is this.

You are a parent of a 13-year-old. You are a good parent. You and your daughter get along. But she meets some good-looking 18 year-old and gets pregnant.

She is afraid and embarrassed and goes to Planned Parenthood with money she got from her friend. She has an abortion. Something goes wrong and she is unable to have children again.

Shouldn't you have the right to know about a major surgery on your daughter?

And would you have the right to sue if you never consented to this?

[Solon]

240. All medical procedures carry risk

In the best of all possible worlds, I would agree with you, but this is not the best of all possible worlds. Yes, medical complications do happen, even with the best doctors and equipment, however I would prefer using tried and true methods of licensed professionals over the cranks in the "Back Alley". This is not fearmongering, this is an assesment of what could happen, the only difference between you senario and mine is how often these types of complication occur. A teenager having a LEGAL abortion is at less risk than one carrying a fetus to term, or being injected with penicillin. Compare THAT to my senario, where mortality and health risks are MUCH greater.

[theboss]

242. That's the point; there is a risk

And a young teenager simply does not have the capacity to assess the risk on her own.

[Solon]

243. I would agree, however the risk can be spelled out to them by a

counselor, not neccessarily their parents, and ultimately the decision is their own to make, whether the parents are informed or not. The point is to encourage the teenagers to talk to responsible adults, if they feel uncomfortable to talk to their parents, then it is in the interest of the state that they have a counselor assigned that can talk to them about it. All this law would do is force the teenager's hand in the decision making process, to a greater risk to her than it would be otherwise.

[put out]

358. Major surgery? It isn't, it isn't. Who has been telling you this?

What if your imaginary teenager thinks she dearly loves this boy she has been having intercourse with, and he is the father of your grandchild?

And you know, it will tear her up in a dozen ways to have a baby? Physically, emotionally, mentally, financially? Maybe she might have a future if she stops "motherhood". Maybe she functions pretty low, maybe so does he. Maybe you just can't, for the sake of other family members, reconcile yourself to starting out again with an infant; you know deep down these two kids just are not going to be able to do it. And, of course, you can't make her adopt this baby out. But she can certainly leave it with you when it gets to be a little much.

Here is the deal: if you can decide that she can't have an abortion, then it follows logically that you can decide that she must have an abortion. Take her to the hospital, the clinic, strap her down, drug her to the gills.

My opinion, it is simply a decision you can't make. I can't make that decision for anyone else. Neither can you, unless you are willing to bear every possible consequence.

[Butterflies]

208. No. It's the pregnant minor's choice whether to tell

If the relationship is good with the parents, then she'll tell them anyway. If the relationship is bad, the news of the pregnancy certainly won't make it better. It's her business.

Anyone who had a terrible relationship with their parents can see this immediately (I sure did.)

[w4rma]

211. No. Government should stay out of this. (nt)

[DemLikr]

214. Can't believe these fuckers think this is top priority...

...assholes.

I have two minor age daughters. If I have to find out through the legal system that they've had an abortion, then something is WAY fucked up in the relationship already, and some REpublican religiofascists in the Florida legislature aren't going to fix it with their bullshit intrusive lawmaking.

Not that fixing anything is their intent, of course. They're licking the bungholes of their "christian" conservative base.

[joe_sixpack]

217. Distrust of parents

It sounds from a lot of the replies to this, that a lot of those here may have had bad parents and that may have influenced their decision on this. Do we want to enact laws based on the small minority of incompetent parents out there and have the majority of good, caring parents affected as a result?

[Solon]

226. Not bad parents, that is an issue, however how many teenagers

trust their own parents? Be honest now, also the swipe against those of us who believe the teenagers have some rights to themselves is low. Hell my younger sister and her fiance live together in my parents home, and she has been on the pill 3 years now, she just turned 19. Plus my mother was pissed at Asscroft for pulling this shit in Missouri. Believe me, my family is very understanding.

[theboss]

246. Dude......

I'm 30 and still wouldn't share a bed with a girlfriend in my parents house.

[Solon]

250. My parents have a liberal attitude about it.

Basically, since they know about teenagers, that it is better to teach my sister about responsibility in sex and relationships than to forbid it outright. They prefer a rational relationship with their kids in the hope that we will tell them anything. It worked, we do tell them anything, and actually I feel the same way as you, I wouldn't like to be sleeping with a woman when her father is in the same house, talk about awkward! I would encourage all parent to have open and trusting relationships with their kids, and not to have to rely on the state for that communication.

[joe_sixpack]

332. It's natural for teens to have a little distrust of parents

And it's natural for kids to be reluctant to tell parents about something as sensitive as sexual activity. A major part of the job of a parent is to stop kids from doing things that will hurt them. To curtail and regulate things that kids might not agree need controlling. This doesn't garner a lot of popularity, at least until their old enough to appreciate the concern. Saying that kids from good parents would inform them if they were pregnant anyway is not very realistic, especially if they're given an easy way out of it. I just want my kids to be able to enjoy the magical world of being a child for as long as they can. There's too much pressure for them to act like adults too soon. There's way too much information overload out there forcing confusing choices. I have daughters. They have the rest of their lives to face the shit we've created for the adult world. I would like them to develope their sexuality in their own natural healthy way and not as defined by hip hop, MTV, Playboy or any other marketing aspect of Pop culture. And, as I believe that I'm a decent understanding parent, I resent anyone taking that responsibility from me. Perhaps long ago in a different world, 13 or 14 may have been mature enough to understand and function in a sexual way. But definitely not today. Especially with more and more people out there ready to exploit or take advantage of a child's innocence.

[RhodaGrits]

227. Yes. It is our responsibility to protect the minority from abuse.

The good parents will know and be able to influence the girl. If she can't talk to them about this, governmental notification is not going to change that. And yes, many ARE writing from personal experience.

[Vladimir]

252. Laws are there

to protect the minority. The majority will not be affected because their kids will turn to them anyway...

V

[randr]

220. Parents have the RESPONSIBILITY

to know what their minor children are doing. Taking this responsibility and educating our children about relationships and sex is the job of all adults who choose the obligations of parenting.
Once again we see that people who refuse to take personal responsibility for their lives want the state to do their jobs.

[Seldona]

221. Absolutely.

Parents should be involved.

Of course in a case of abuse, then the state and the courts take over that role.

But we are talking about children, and I cannot believe anyone would be against involving the most important relationship (idealy) in a child's life in a decision of this magnitude.

If the parents are uninvolved anyway, then they simply will do nothing.

In the case of emancipation, then that child is considered an adult and most likely the parents would not care anyway.

Flame away, but we do not let children make allot of decisions for one reason and one reason alone.

They lack the life experience and judgment to make a decision of that magnitude alone.

Nor should they.

[GumboYaYa]

230. As a parent I would want to know if my daughter is having an abortion,

just like I would want to know any other durgs she might take or medical procedures she might undergo. The vast majority of parents would want to know their child is having an abortion to be able to help the child.

Most responsible physicians would counsel the child to tell her parents, but there are a lot of irresponsible physicians in teh world. If it takes a law to ensure that parents are informed about the medical care my child receives, then so be it. I would support that law.

Of course that is a separate issue from requiring parental consent to obtain an abortion. Ultimately, the decision of whether to have a baby must rest with the person who has to live with that decision.

[Daedalus]

233. Wow...

If a child or adolescent had a tumor in her stomach...

She would have to have a parents permission to do a surgery...

If a child wanted to bring Aspirin to school...aspirin...she would have to have parental consent...even up to the age of 18...

If a child wanted to have a wart remove...or have a nose job...parents would need to consent...

Yet a medically invasive procedure like abortion...there needs be no consent...

To me this debate has been so politicized and polarized that simple rational decisions are skewed...

[Yupster]

263. The end result is that Congress

will eventually vote on this. It will pass overwhelmingly with most Democratic members voting with the Republicans, and many on this board will (unreasonably in my opinion) yell that they were sold out again.

[Samurai_Writer]

238. Correction: Abortion is not 'major' surgery!

Throughout this thread, I've seen people saying "I would want to know if my daughter had major, invasive surgery."

The definition of major surgery is being put under general anesthetic and having to be incised to correct whatever the problem is. Abortion does not use either general anesthetic or incision. In 95% of abortions, it is a very safe, 3 minute procedure using an aspiration vacuum.

Also, all this talk about 'children'. OK, some 10 year olds get pregnant, very rarely. But the majority of pregnant 'children' are teenagers, and most are over 15. Arizona's age of consent is 13, and most are 16. So are you telling me it's legal to consent to have sex, but it shouldn't be legal for that person to decide what should happen from the consequences of that legal sex? Ridiculous.

[LeahMira]

239. Once again...

... the state is interfering in an area that should be private.

In the best of worlds, a minor who is pregnant would seek her parents' guidance and insight immediately. In fact, most of them do just that. They may tell their male partner or a trusted girlfriend first, but in short order they do take their parents into confidence about the situation.

However, if a minor chooses not to involve her parents in her decision to abort her pregnancy there's usually a very good reason for her decision. The clinic or the doctor she chooses will advise her on ways to prevent pregnancy and answer any questions or concerns she may have.

The state has no "compelling state interest" in this matter whatsoever. This effort is merely an attempt to pander to some parents who seem to think that the state should be their babysitter when the kids are small and their personal snitch when the kids get older. That is not the proper function of the state.

[Bettie]

244. Not necessarily......kids should tell them.

I have not posted here before, but I have read through this thread and found that both sides have good points and both sides have some points that I don't agree with.

I have had many experiences in my life that lead to my belief that young women need to be able to make this decision without parental interference. In a good parent/child relationship, the daughter will tell her parents anyway and they will help her make a decision. I know that the word interference will cause some to become angry, but imposing your will upon another in a decision that will affect her for the rest of her life is interference. Giving that young woman (or girl if you prefer) guidance and support is not interference.

No child should be forced to bear a child because her parents think she should, whatever their reasons.

The same people who demand parental notification in all cases would likely support (demand) notification being waived if the parents would force the child to have an abortion.

I am a parent. I am not infallible, in fact, I'm certain that I will make many mistakes in raising my children. However, I have a good relationship with them and would hope that they could come to me with a problem. The one thing that I am certain that my children know is that I love them unconditionally and will continue to do so no matter what they do.

I am also the child of a teenage mother. I would not wish my childhood on anyone. My mother was 14 when she became pregnant, 15 when I was born. She was not in any way ready to become a mother and was abusive in many ways.

My father molested me from the time I was three years old until I was 18 and able to leave home for college. If I had become pregnant from this, I would have done ANYTHING to have an abortion. Luckily, I did not have to deal with that situation and was able to escape the situation by leaving home.

Teen and pre-teen pregnancy is a problem, it is very dangerous for an immature girl to carry a child to term, however, having had a D&C (for a miscarriage), I know that abortion procedures are no picnic either. I would hope that any girl or woman facing either situation would have someone with her who would support her, but all too often, that person is not her parent.

So, since this is becoming very lengthy, I would say that even though parents should know if their child is going to have a medical procedure, it is sometimes not in the best interest of the individual to have them notified.

If notification is mandated, we will have unwanted children or worse, dead teenage girls from botched abortions.

As a child, knowing that you were unwanted is not easy. Knowing that you ruined your mother's life simply by being born is not easy.

In a perfect world this would not even be an issue. The vast majority of girls tell their parents that they are pregnant, those that do not, generally have a good reason not to.

I am not particularly eloquent, sorry if this seems less than clear.

Bettie

[RhodaGrits]

247. Thank you for a thoughtful and wise post. n/t

edit for typo

[Solon]

248. You articulate it better than I.

LOVE your post!

[noiretextatique]

251. ridiculous

unless of course they pass a law requiring parents to know when their children, MALE and female have sex :eyes:

[Th1onein]

257. It depends on the circumstances.

[rocktivity]

262. To know, yes. To stop her, no.

This law would be used as leverage for the parents to force their wishes upon the child. No one has the right to stop anyone from having--or not having--an abortion. And if you're not "mature" enough to have an abortion, you certainly can't be "mature" enough NOT to have one!

:headbang:
rocknation

[MISSDem]

267. It depends

on how old she is. Under 18 , of course they should know before she has an abortion. She is a child.

[Alpha Wolf]

274. Yes.

Parents must be notified for a school nurse to administer an aspirin to a minor. Abortion is a bit more serious than a headache.

[slinkerwink]

276. did you know that abortion is a lot safer than pregnancy?

and that the aspiration procedure itself takes three minutes?

[Alpha Wolf]

287. and taking an aspirin is a lot safer than that...

and a minor needs a parent's permission for an aspirin.

[put out]

361. Off thread. No person under the age 18 should ever take aspirin.

Don't give your child aspirin. No, the school won't give a student aspirin, even if the child's parents want that to happen. It is dangerous. Look into the ingredients of Pepto-Bismol.

Sometimes parents don't know best. Best intentions, yes, but all this talk about aspirin? Read about Reyes Syndrome.

Sometimes parents don't know best.

[Blue_Chill]

280. YES!

Minors are not adults and do not have the right to do anything without their parents knowing about it. If their parents are abusive there are many resources for them to turn to.

[slinkerwink]

283. what if the girl is 16, and the state allows her to have sex at that age?

then wouldn't she have the right to have an abortion if the state consent law lets her have sex at 16?

[Blue_Chill]

291. Right to have an abortion vs Right to not tell her parents

I don't consider the above issues to be the same. Parents must be informed as to what is done to their child and this includes medical procedures in my opinion. However the right to stop a child from having a medical procedure is up for debate especially if the childs health is at risk.

[slinkerwink]

294. abortion is hell a lot safer than pregancy---and pregnancy is a lot

more dangerous for a woman than abortion is.

[Blue_Chill]

357. and your point is......

How does that affect a parents right to be informed about what is done to their child? I don't see the connect.

I would understand if I was saying it must be a parents decision, but I'm not. I'm saying it's wrong to keep parents out of the information loop when their own children are concerned. This could help hide rapists, abusers, and all sorts of people that would very much love to force a women to have a abortion and not have her parents know. Withourt info a parent can't protect their child.

[Deb-Ter]

281. Absolutely,

This is a medical procedure, that could have dire consequences, it should require parental notification. I can't have a child treated at the local hospital without parental consent (unless life threatening) why should this be any different.

If it is a case of child abuse by the father, brother, etc., then the state or judge should make the decision with input from the child and her doctors.

[slinkerwink]

284. abortion actually is a lot safer than pregnancy, and the entire procedure

takes three minutes.

[ButterflyBlood]

286. no

same with tattoos and piercings.

note: if I had a daughter I would tell her if she ever got pregnent to just go get an abortion and I wouldn't give a fuck if she told me or not.

[redqueen]

289. IMO, yes. n/t

[Fescue4u]

292. Duh.. Of course they should.

I cannot imagine how anyone could believe otherwise.

Once my kids are adults they can do as they as please, but while they are children...MY CHILDREN, I fully intend, DEMAND, to be involved in their medical care.

[RhodaGrits]

300. Do you think you should be consulted as to whether she has

an episiotomy with that childbirth or not?

[Fescue4u]

304. Of course, what a silly question

No the doc doesnt need to run to the parent of every individual procedure...however and overall authorization to treat (as they see fit) is required.

As a parent, whenever I admit my child into the hospital (and I've done this way way to many times), I must authorize the hospital and the physician to proceed. Unless it is life threatening, they cannot unless I authorize it.

Even when it IS life threatening, they still ask for authorization.

[noiretextatique]

303. do you think you need a constitutional right, only for abortion?

because that's what this is about. and of course, you already have the right as a parent to make decisions about your child's healthcare. this is something else entirely.

[Fescue4u]

307. not different at all

Having an abortion is a medical procedure, i.e. Healthcare.

So is having a baby for that matter. However authorization is not required for life threatening situations, and having a child without proper treatment is certainly life threatening.

This is not about abortions rights imo, but parental rights.

If my daughter finds herself in this situation, I sure as hell want to be there for her. I've been with her for heart surgery, for 3 craniectomys, and assortment of other minor surgerys....I would be mad as hell if the state denied me that right for something as emotionally and physically impacting as an abortion.

[noiretextatique]

311. why would you need the state to force communication with your child?

for something so emotionally and physically impacting as an abortion? just curious...what would you do if you were notified your daughter wanted an abortion? would you try to stop her? would you support her decision? give her different options? WHAT? and what if, after you were notified, she didn't want any of the above from you...would you let her make the decision?
this is a not-so-thinly veiled attempt to stop young women from having abortions...mainly because the are vulnerable and lack political power. do you really think girls should be exploited for political purposes?

[Fescue4u]

315. Because they are children

Its not about forcing adults to communicate to children..you know that.

Its about forcing children to communicate to their parents.

What I would choose for my child is not at issue. What at issue is thats it my child and Im still responsible for her.

As for your other strawmen, they are to silly to respond to it. Your message is a wonder of straw men packed into a tight space.

This is NOT about politics or even abortion.

Its about parental rights.

[noiretextatique]

318. "forcing children to communicate to their parents"

your words, but it's not about politics or abortion :eyes: this is an election year, the issue is about abortion...not "parents rights." it's about a bunch of pro-lifers using "parents' rights" as an excuse to use girls as political footballs. if you don't think this is about politics and abortion...you're either really naive or...something.
and i see you believe it is your right for the state to force your child to communicate with you....good luck with that.
i don't know...maybe it's just me...but i don't think parent's have the right to force the state to make their children talk to them.
just for kicks...address the strawman, would ya?
what exactly would you do when the state grants you the right of forcing your children to communicate with you?

[Fescue4u]

322. No its about pro-choicers using kids

As politcal footballs.

THis is a medical procedure. ALL OTHER medical procedure require parental involvement. This one should be no different.

As for your question, I would comfort, console and help her make the right decision...and that might be an abortion.

I am pro-choice you see, but Im also pro-parenting.

[Solon]

336. Its not Pro-Choicers that are bringing this issue up.

It's Parent Absolutionists and Pro-Lifer's who think their rights supercede the right of their teenagers to have an abortion in a safe manner. All this law will do is force desparate teenage girls into performing back-alley abortions with serious health consequences. Not all teenage girls are going to do that, but quite a few will, so how many are going to die or be injured, what's your limit? 10, 100, 1,000, c'mon you can tell me, how many children will have to DIE to set your mind at ease.

[Alenne]

297. If your child is having sex and you don't know it

you should have no right to know if they have an abortion. Your right to know should end when your child starts making adult decisions because you aren't properly supervising them.

If they are not old enough to have an abortion without you knowing they are not old enough to be out of your supervision long enough to go have sex with someone.

[Muddleoftheroad]

305. What bullcrap

No parent can be around a child 24-7. And it can take only a few minutes for sex if she really wants to sneak around.

[noiretextatique]

309. exactly...which is why parents really need a constitutional

right to know when and if their kids are having sex, instead of using the state as a bully to find out after the fact. of course...that's absurd, but so is this law.

[Muddleoftheroad]

310. LOL

This law is to make sure that doctors don't go off half-cocked and perform invasive medical procedures on minors without parental involvement.

[noiretextatique]

312. This is political exploitation

of a vulnerable and powerless group...for the sole purpose of restricting abortion rights. the result of which will be:
1) more homemade botched abortions = more dead fetuses and dead girls.
2) less prenatal care for pregnant girls
3) more risky home deliveries
4) more babies in dumpsters

[Fescue4u]

316. Wow, talk about going off the deep end.

No, what you will have is more parental involvment is a very difficult decision.

Why do the opponents of parental involvement automatically assumes that all parents are anti-abortion?

[noiretextatique]

321. political exploitation...in an election year, no less

while the country is mired in a dreadful, seemingly unending war...a miserable economy...a rogue govenment...a complicit media.
and here's the burning issue: using the power of the state to snoop on pregnant girls :eyes: yeah...this is a really PRESSING issue :eyes:

[Muddleoftheroad]

324. Oh I see exploitation

I see radical pro-Choicers using kids for politics and trying to intrude into family relationships to make a point.

[RhodaGrits]

334. If you need government mandated communication to find out

if your daughter is seeking an abortion - you don't have enough of a relationship to deserve to know something that intimate and important.

[Muddleoftheroad]

345. Talk about gross exaggeration

There are many influences in a young girl's life. Some are friends, some are teachers, coaches and the boyfriend. Any one of them could hold temporary sway at a time of turmoil.

You shouldn't allow that to interfere in the rights and responsibilities of the parents.

[noiretextatique]

363. all depends on if you think kids have rights

that are independent of what their parents deign to concede to them.
i think most teenaged girls can make their own decisions, of course there are some exceptions, particularly for younger girls.
it's great if they have a good enough relationship with their parents to communicate with them, but as you well know, laws like this can easily be abused by parents, particularly those who are anti-abortion fanatics.

[Fescue4u]

325. Indeed

Hey,Im not saying that this is the #1 issue of the year..just one that I thought I would chime in on.

Seriously I do not see it as using the power of the state to snoop on pregnant girls. I see it as not allowing kids to escape proper parenting.

Lets face it, kids can do some crazy things. Sometimes their parents find out, sometimes they don't.

I did alot of stuff when I was a kid. Sometimes my parents found out, many times that did not. Thats just life.

What do oppose however, is granting children the right to hide something this life impacting from their parents.

[Pithlet]

365. "Allowing kids to escape proper parenting"

You're assuming that all kids have proper parenting. What about the boys? They get a free ride? Shouldn't they be forced to face their parents as well?

You're also ignoring that even the ones who do, many would go to extremes to prevent their parents from finding out. I think a lot of people here have forgotten what it is like to be that age.

[Alenne]

313. If they are not old enough to make this decision

they are not old enough to be out of your supervision. It is your job to make sure you know what your daughter is doing and who she is doing it with 24/7, not the governments.

[Muddleoftheroad]

328. Wow, that's silly

They go to school? Should parents attend with them? Should parents never let them out of the house?

[Alenne]

330. When they are in school you know where they are.

[Muddleoftheroad]

335. Wanna bet?

Ever hear of cutting class? Or sneaking out to smoke pot or fool around or drink?

[Alenne]

340. Easy to do if you don't have a relationship with your child's school

My mother did. If I missed a day of school my mother's job and our house was called to let her know that I was absent. If they didn't call the day of the absence they called if I didn't bring in a note from my mother explaining why I was absent. If parents want to be aware of what their kids are doing they can it just requires some work.

[Muddleoftheroad]

348. Missing a day?

It doesn't take a day to get pregnant.

[JVS]

355. It could be too late, she might be pregnant by the time you get the call

The obvious solution is to take some responsibility for supervising and imprison your daughter in the basement until she is 18 :eyes:

Muddle you are right on this supervision issue. Arguing that a child's ability to get themselves into trouble somehow makes them capable of dealing with the trouble is lunacy.

[Muddleoftheroad]

356. No their maturity level makes them incapable of dealing

Without parental involvement. Parents are involved in all other aspects of their lives, but the uberstatists want government to take control of kids.

Oh, those evil parents. How dare they be concerned about a medical procedure that could harm their child or mess her up emotionally...

[Alenne]

360. but it takes a couple of weeks to notice you are pregnant

and longer for most teenagers. A mother should at least know when her child has her period. If you are a parent who doesn't pay attention to your child you don't deserve to know.

[Fescue4u]

308. What a pantload

Just because a kid makes a mistake, doesnt make her no longer a kid in need of parenting.

I drank a beer at 13, i.e an adult decision, so I guess that my parents should have abandoned me then??

[Alenne]

317. You can parent her

but that doesn't mean you should have a right to know if she gets an abortion. If your daughter is sneaking to the abortion clinic your parenting skills are probably not the best.

[Fescue4u]

320. wrong.

If she my child, then I have the right to know what happens to her in a hospital.

Its that simple.

Of the MILLIONS of medical procedures available to a child, ALL OF THEM require parent authorization.

Its RIDICULOUS that only *ONE* out of the millions should exempted from parental involvment. Especially one with such an impact.

To hold abortion out seperately from all other medical procedures is simply using kids as political fodder in the pro-life/pro-choice debate.

And yes, I believe in a *womans* right to choose. I do not believe in a childs right to choose.

[Alenne]

323. A young woman should have the right to choose an abortion.

If your child gets pregnant and delivers a baby she does not have to inform you. She also does not have to ask for your permission to put the baby up for adoption or to keep it. Abortion should be no different.

[Fescue4u]

326. Yes, with her parents involvement she has the right.

"If your child gets pregnant and delivers a baby she does not have to inform you"

Thats a fact of nature. The kid is coming regardless, not much the law can do about it. The girl doesnt need parental invovlment to grow breasts either.

However taking active steps to circumvent the body, to destroy a biological process damn well needs parental involvment.

[Alenne]

327. no it doesn't

all it needs is $350 and a pregnant teenager. If your teenager trust you enough she will tell you but if she doesn't she shouldn't be forced to. This not something you need to know it is something you want to know.

[Muddleoftheroad]

329. It is a medical procedure

and ALL major medical procedures have risks, complications and after-effects.

[Alenne]

333. So does having sex

and birth control and medicines for STDs but the government does not force doctors to inform parents about those things.

If this is just about parents having the right to know so they can deal with the risk, complications and after-effects then inform them after the abortion has taken place.

[Muddleoftheroad]

337. After the fact?

Of course, because you always discuss potential complications after a medical procedure.

[Alenne]

341. You don't need to know of any potential complications

The person getting the abortion does. Is this about you being informed because a parent should know or is this about you being informed so you can stop your daughter?

[Muddleoftheroad]

349. How much informed consent can a 12-year-old really have?

She is not mature enough to make the decision to have sex. She is not mature enough to make the decision for the abortion. She might not know enough about her own health to inform the doctor.

It is beyond idiotic to cut parents out of this process.

[Alenne]

359. Then as her parent you should be watching her.

If you have a 12 year old there is no excuse for not knowing everything she does. It is beyond idiotic for a 12 year old to be unsupervised. I have an eleven year old and I know what she is doing at all times. If my twelve year old can come up with $300, make it to an abortion clinic for the pregnancy test and make it back to the clinic for the abortion without me not noticing she has missed a period I don't deserve to know.

[Bettie]

319. Its not about abandonment

This is about the parents who would FORCE their will on their child.

This is about:

Parents who would force a girl to have an abortion because that's what they want.

or

Parents who would force a child to bear a child because that is what they want her to do.

Having a child is a life long commitment, it doesn't go away and the kind of parents who a girl felt she couldn't confide in are the very ones who would make the decision for her, not with her.

Children DESERVE input into decisions that will affect their entire lives, especially since we are not talking about five year olds here, these are older girls who can understand the ramifications of their decisions, given enough information. (And yeah, sometimes 10 year olds get pregnant, but more often the girls are 15-17)

No one is saying that girls CAN'T tell their parents, only that they shouldn't be compelled to do so when it is not in their best interest.

Plus, I bet you anything that if parents were trying to force a girl to have an abortion, there would be pro-lifers out there fighting against her parents' rights to make her decisions for her.


Unfortunately, its not really about parental rights at all, its about further limiting access to abortion.

Actually, its pretty hard to find a doctor who will even perform an abortion these days.

[Samurai_Writer]

339. Check out my other thread on this subject...

About REAL LIFE situations with pregnant teens and about telling their parents or not.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1437364&mesg_id=1437364

[Zomby Woof]

350. no

Never give an inch to the uterus nazis. Parental notification is not what they really want. It's just one of the many ways they want to keep chipping away at reproductive freedom. The anti-choicers will hide behind sanctimonious rhetoric about their 'rights' as parents. Parents' rights are not absolute. The anti-choicers truly won't be satisfied until Roe v Wade is reversed and dry cleaners start running low on wire hangers.

[AngryAmish]

351. Boy, this is a long thread