I think anti-notification rules are just damn stupid. If you are under 18 you are essentially the property of your parents. They are responsible for you in just about every meaningful way, they have to grant permission for you to leave school 20min early on a Friday, it stands to reason that they should at least be TOLD you went for an abortion.

This is an example of groups attempting to take away parental rights and try to pass them on to the government. I don't like the anti-notification idea any more than I like the instant removal to CPS if a kid doesn't want to tell mom and dad. That's just attempting to pass the buck of responsibility in a different manner.

I don't like the anti-notification idea any more than I like the instant removal to CPS if a kid doesn't want to tell mom and dad

So how would you set up the system to protect potential abuse while still giving parents the right to be responsible for their kids?

Great article, LH.

I don't think there's a straightforward answer to this, other than treating the problem before it happens. How do you do that? I don't know. I guess if you assume that most people graduate from high school, that's where you have the character education classes, that's where you intervene in abusive situations, because most abusers were at one time abusees.

But I agree with you that parents should be notified that their child has requested an abortion. How can a health care provider not do that?

If abuse is an actual factor in the situation, it would come forward in the process, or be revealed some other way. I for one think before an abortion is granted to anyone under the age of 18, mom and dad should have to come in with the girl and talk to the doctor to make sure everyone understands fully what is happening and what the procedure is. If a parent really is abusive, I bet it would come out in the "interview" or whatever you want to call it.

It is not the responsibility of an abortion clinic to start playing the role of informers for Family Services.

I agree with LW on her last line of the previous post about how the agenda is uncompromising and as it stands doomed to fail. Here's my suggested approach to abortion laws...

1. If you are over 18, they're legal. If it's something you want to do for whatever reason, go for it. However there should be a 1-2 week waiting period before the procedure, and in that time there should be some manditory counciling.
2. Abortions a part of your medical records along with a fee scale for the procedure. This is to discourage "repeat offenders" the types that use it as birth control. For the girl who just made a stupid mistake, the fee would be minimal, for the woman who just couldn't be bothered to get protection, the whole thing should become prohibitively expensive over many instances.
3. If you are under 18, you must obtain the permission of your parents. Said permission has to be granted in the presence of a clinic official. Parents must submit valid ID too. If you're under 18 you need permission for EVERYTHING else, why not this?
4. Do not require doctors to perform abortions. If one wants to offer the service, fine, but do not require it of hospitals or individual doctors. If it is against their beliefs, that's fine, respect it. However this also means that if a hospital has a policy allowing it, or the doctor belongs to a group that allows it, they must abide by the rules of the group they are a part of. If they don't like the rules, then they should move to a group that is more aligned to their views.

The key here is to not be forcing anyone into anything they don't want to be doing. This is the entire point of ACTUALLY being pro-choice. It gives women the freedom to do what they feel is right and gives others the freedom to do what they feel is right. I'm not asking for pro-life people to be forced to conduct abortions. I'm not asking for them to be covered by health plans or to compel doctors or hospitals to perform them. Those that want to provide the service can, those that don't, don't have to. If it involves a kid, there should absolutely be parental involvement. If it's an issue of repeated irresponsibility, there should be disincentive.

I think the overwhelming majority of teens who do not wish to tell their parents are simply hoping to avoid punishment for their carelessness, just another way of denying responsibility at ALL for their actions. Have careless, unprotected sex? Guess what, there are NO consequences, you can get it all taken care of and even mommy and daddy will be none the wiser. You'll never have to face them and own up to what you did. Hell, you wont even get grounded or anything!

LW-I think you said it perfectly. I suspect most kids sneeking off to get abortions are not "in danger", just avoiding consequenses.What kind of adults do we think we are turning out if we adopt policies that avoid responsibility for actions?

Zoomba, Thanks for responding. You had a lot of good points. We don't always see eye to eye, but I like what you said.
1-Good idea, but I don't think that waiting period will happen everywhere. .
2-BRILLIANT! Planned Parenthood can't complain, they can really rack up the $$$ (and that's what they are all about) and those in need can still get it.
4-I'm not sure, but I believe this is currently in place. No Dr can be FORCED to perform it..

Any teen savvy enough to arrange an abortion behind her parent's back is savvy enough to report them for abuse in the first place, if they were being abused, that is.

If abortion was legal without parental consent, they don't need to be savvy...and they may be too scared to report abuse. I still think young children should be removed from the home if abuse is possible/suspected. Maybe having a counselor affiliated with CPS on site? They can ask questions and hopefully remove those in danger or in abused situations without removing kids who just made a poor decision..

1. If you are over 18, they're legal. If it's something you want to do for whatever reason, go for it. However there should be a 1-2 week waiting period before the procedure, and in that time there should be some manditory counciling.

So, let me get this straight, you can walk into Walmart and buy a gun and get it that day, but you think that I am too stupid to have actually thoughtfully considered the outcome of my actions and therefore, I need you (the government) to tell me to sit and have a think for two weeks--and then you are going to force some mandatory counselling on me. There are plently of people in the country that make decisions that I disagree with daily, but I wouldn't be so bold as to tell them that they should have mandatory counselling.

2. Abortions a part of your medical records along with a fee scale for the procedure.

While I do not disagree with the statement that abortion should not be used as birth control--I, quite frankly, do not think that I need lawyers or legislators in my medical records. What happened to privacy? It's either legal or it's not. Each pack of cigarettes you buy doesn't get incrementally more expensive--though you are well on your way to killing yourself and any one else who might be around your second hand smoke.

3. If you are under 18, you must obtain the permission of your parents. Said permission has to be granted in the presence of a clinic official. Parents must submit valid ID too. If you're under 18 you need permission for EVERYTHING else, why not this?

Would you have waivers for young women who are victims of incest, or abuse? Because currently many states with the parental notification clause do not, and therein lies the problem. What about in the case of a medical emergency--would you waive parental consent then?

We will have to wait and see what the future supreme court decides on parental consent, but I think it is a sticky situation. Yes, there are plently of teens who just don't want to face the music and I don't believe that the law should help them shirk responsibility. But, for the few, the minority, who are in fact, in very difficult positions, be it as a result of rape or incest--I don't think that parental notification should be required. And, I believe that equal protection of the law should include minors.

So, let me get this straight, you can walk into Walmart and buy a gun and get it that day, but you think that I am too stupid to have actually thoughtfully considered the outcome of my actions and therefore, I need you (the government) to tell me to sit and have a think for two weeks--and then you are going to force some mandatory counselling on me. There are plently of people in the country that make decisions that I disagree with daily, but I wouldn't be so bold as to tell them that they should have mandatory counselling.

I think there should be waiting periods on guns too. If you are absolutely sure you need an abortion, a week waiting shouldn't matter. This is a compromise point to reach some middle ground with the pro-lifers out there that want to act like it's all done on a whim. The fact is that this battle must be won in steps. You can't go from nothing to 100% free no-questions-asked-get-it-when-and-where-you-want-it abortions. Think of this as an intermediary stage. It doesn't actually prevent someone from getting an abortion, it just delays it a little bit and makes the moralists think that it may change some minds for women who just paniced.

While I do not disagree with the statement that abortion should not be used as birth control--I, quite frankly, do not think that I need lawyers or legislators in my medical records. What happened to privacy? It's either legal or it's not. Each pack of cigarettes you buy doesn't get incrementally more expensive--though you are well on your way to killing yourself and any one else who might be around your second hand smoke.

Who said the government would be in your medical records? I'm just saying that like any other medical procedure it should be recorded and made available to other physicians who need to provide care. An abortion could have other medical implications down the road. On the issue of a pay scale, once again this shouldn't be a problem to the woman who has made a mistake and an abortion is their only reasonable option. It only becomes a problem to those who frequent the service. This is again a compromise point. I also happen to believe that if you're using it as a form of birth control, you're making a bad name for those who have very real need for the service. This is not preventing an abortion, it's just adding a disincentive to those who fall back on them frequently.

Oops, hit submit early...

Would you have waivers for young women who are victims of incest, or abuse? Because currently many states with the parental notification clause do not, and therein lies the problem. What about in the case of a medical emergency--would you waive parental consent then?We will have to wait and see what the future supreme court decides on parental consent, but I think it is a sticky situation. Yes, there are plently of teens who just don't want to face the music and I don't believe that the law should help them shirk responsibility. But, for the few, the minority, who are in fact, in very difficult positions, be it as a result of rape or incest--I don't think that parental notification should be required. And, I believe that equal protection of the law should include minors.

Issues of incest and abuse should result in the intervention of family services, and the forfeiture of all parental rights... which it generally does. There should be provisions for abortions for women under the care of the state. We don't need redundant laws or groups covering issues that are already addressed.

If a parent is to be responsible for their child, then they are responsible, period. If they have to give permission to go on a school trip, then they should have to give permission for any and all major medical procedures. If you want true equal protection under the law for minors, it has to span beyond abortion issues. Kids would face the same legal rammifications for their actions, would be required to face those they accuse no matter the age etc... You play a dangerous game with the rights and role of children in a society when you try playing around with true equal protection. And it can't be something that's only done on a case-by-case basis.

I'm tired of parental rights being taken by the state. We complain that parents don't do enough to properly raise their children, but we're taking the tools and the ability to raise their children as they see fit away from them. It is NOT the supreme court's decision to tell someone how to raise their kid. It is not the role of the government to raise children.

You can't go from nothing to 100% free no-questions-asked-get-it-when-and-where-you-want-it abortions.

Actually, right now, that's what we have. Either make it legal or don't, but the in-between, where someone gets to plant their morality on my shoulders is a little too much for me. I don't need the government to tell me to think about it before I do it--would the government tell you to think about having your wisdom teeth out? No, of course not. The mandatory waiting period implies that I am not responsible or educated enough on my own and that I need the government to hold my hand in the process.

This is again a compromise point

The idea that there is a point at which pro-lifers compromise makes me laugh--what you are saying is that if we go in on the little stuff, then they will conveniently forget that their position is that it is a life to be saved and not destroyed? If that's the case, they are standing on pretty shaky ground in my book--it's either murder or it isn't and if you are saying it is murder, then how can you make exceptions? In my mind, once you make that first exception, you've lost the entire argument. It's no longer murder, but rather a morality against sexual promiscuity (which is fine, but just admit that that is where your problem lays, not in the murdering of an "innocent baby."--and then, of course, I would politely urge you and your legislators to get out of my bedroom).

Usually, I'm the queen of compromise, but I feel no need to compromise my body to some dracion set of laws that says that should I make a mistake twice in my life I will face a heavy monetary fee, but if some man gets caught driving drunk repeatedly he'll get a slap on the wrist, or if he date rapes women repeatedly, he'll most likely never have charges that stick.

I can't compromise on this--and for the life of me, I dont' see how true pro-lifers can either.

LH, thank you!

You just solved the issue.  I doubt that it will be adopted.  NARAL and the democrats wont allow it, but your solution is good and on the mark!  And yes, I have a real problem with anyone touching my daughters when they cant even give them aspirian without my permission!

It is the insanity of NARAL.  And those who cannot be reasonable and understand Rape is rape, and needs to be dealt with legally.  Not hidden behind Ye Olde Butcher Shoppe.

you can walk into Walmart and buy a gun and get it that day

Not all places....many states have a "cooling off period" just in case it is an impulse decision. Having individual states decide on a pre-abortion waiting period is fine, provided it is based on the desire of the majority of people in that state and not legislation from the bench.

Would you have waivers for young women who are victims of incest, or abuse? Because currently many states with the parental notification clause do not, and therein lies the problem. What about in the case of a medical emergency--would you waive parental consent then?

Incest? Abuse? I covered that...if you need a waiver for that, then maybe the child shouldn't be in that home! Any medical emergency treated in the ER is handled under implied consent....you do anything possible to save the life, limb, and eyesight of the individual. An abortion performed in the ER? I could see being unable to save the baby if there is signifigant damage, but that is not the same as an abortion. I allow for the possibility for a ectopic pregnancy with rupturing, but the odds of that are low and the baby would not develop past 20 weeks at most, so it's not really the same.

But, for the few, the minority, who are in fact, in very difficult positions, be it as a result of rape or incest--I don't think that parental notification should be required.

Parents shouldn't know the child was raped?!? If the parent is at fault, the girl should not be returned to the home, so they will find out when she is placed in protective care.

the in-between, where someone gets to plant their morality on my shoulders is a little too much for me.

I'm not trying to force my morality on you. I'm trying to uphold the parents right to raise a child to the moral standards they set, not the state. You are an adult. I don't approve, but I am not debating that today.

but if some man gets caught driving drunk repeatedly he'll get a slap on the wrist, or if he date rapes women repeatedly, he'll most likely never have charges that stick.

That's wrong too! You can't use poor legislation in another situation to justify inappropriate response to another crime.

can't compromise on this--and for the life of me, I dont' see how true pro-lifers can either.

are you saying you can't comprimise on what? A waiting period? Counseling? Parental notification? Nobody has mentioned banning abortion altogether. We are discussing the implications of removing parents from the desicion of a minor child's abortion.

And that's really the issue, isn't it? Who should have authority, in the case of a minor child requesting a major medical procedure?

The medical practitioner? The child's parents or legal guardian? The minor child herself?

NOW would have us believe that most minor children exercise good judgement when it comes to abortion, and that most of their fathers are incestuous pedophiles.

Wake me up when NOW proposes adding some safeguards to the parental notification process, to deal with the rare but possible Evil Father, and I'll consider taking them seriously.

Actually, right now, that's what we have. Either make it legal or don't, but the in-between, where someone gets to plant their morality on my shoulders is a little too much for me

They already do, you just dont see it.  Why?  Because you agree with it.  But for those who do not agree with you, the others are already dumping their morality on those people and it is just as onerous.

Well said stutefish.

They already do, you just dont see it. Why? Because you agree with it. But for those who do not agree with you, the others are already dumping their morality on those people and it is just as onerous.

I'm not for it, but I'm not going to advocate banning it. I am all for gun ownership, but I support a "waiting period" on buying guns. That doesn't mean I agree with the anti-gun crowd. It's not "just as onerous" as supporting a moral ban on guns; it's a reasonable consession that I am willing to make.
The same holds true with my position on Abortion. I feel a "waiting period" on abortion is a consession that should be made to appease both sides. I personally support the life of a child, but I'm not going to tie a rape victim down for 9 months to prevent her from doing what she feels she needs to. A 48 hour period to be sure she has all options won't remove her choice, just as a waiting period doesn't remove the ability to buy a gun.

Yet another pack of lies from the NOW nags! First of all, reversing Roe V. Wade would not ban abortion in the U.S. it would merely return it to a local and state issue.

Next, "parental notification" has absolutely nothing to do with Roe Vs. Wade, so any attempt by the idiots at NOW to link it is nothing more than rhetoric from fools who are unable to formulate a legitimate argument for their side of the issue.

The NOW Nags have nothing but emotional rhetoric and stupid lies to back their claims. They aren't worth listening to in the least.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A friend of mine's daughter came up to her and told her she was pregnant and wanted an abortion. My friend sat down with her daughter and talked about everything that she went through when she got pregnant with the daughter. Then she said asked her daughter if the good times they had together weren't worth the problems that came with being a teen mother.

In other words... "I didn't take the coward's way out and abort you, so do you think it's right for you to do that to your baby?"

and YES make NO mistake... abortion when there is no medical reason for it, IS the cowards way out!!