Since it came up in another topic, let's
devote this one solely to discussion of
abortion notification and parental consent
laws.
Here's a couple articles I found today to
spur the issue:
chicago sun times online
wrote:
by abdon m. Pallasch legal
affairs reporter
illinois' courts are not ready to handle
pregnant teens arriving to seek permission
to get abortions, a federal judge ruled
tuesday.
So the state's parental notification law,
which has been on ice for 12 years, stays
that way.
But when the state's courts have worked
out the procedures so girls arriving there
are directed to the proper courtroom and
the forms are all ready, attorney general
lisa madigan can return to court seeking
to finally get the long-delayed 1995 law
enacted, judge david coar ruled.
Madigan's attorneys said they would
return, though they gave no timetable.
New bill introduced
the american civil liberties union and
abortion-rights activists praised coar's
ruling, though they recognize it may not
last forever. "we applaud the judge for
looking carefully at this and we are
hopeful we will never see parental notice
in illinois," said aclu attorney lorie
chaiten. "we think the ruling is one that
benefits the young women of illinois."
state rep. John fritchey (d-chicago) has
introduced a bill that would broaden the
list of adults a pregnant teen could have
notified, including a clergy member.
Dupage county state's attorney joe birkett
said the law as it stands already allows
for other adults to be notified and has
been found constitutional in 38 states,
including all of illinois' surrounding
states.
for all the passions they
generate, laws that require minors to
notify their parents or get permission to
have an abortion do not appear to have
produced the sharp drop in teenage
abortion rates that some advocates hoped
for, an analysis by the new york times
shows.
The analysis, which looked at six states
that introduced parental involvement laws
in the last decade and is believed to be
the first study to include data from years
after 1999, found instead a scattering of
divergent trends.
For instance, in tennessee, the abortion
rate went down when a federal court
suspended a parental consent requirement,
then rose when the law went back into
effect. In texas, the rate fell after a
notification law went into effect, but not
as fast as it did in the years before the
law. In virginia, the rate barely moved
when the state introduced a notification
law in 1998, but fell after the
requirement was changed to parental
consent in 2003.
Since the united states supreme court
recognized states' rights to restrict
abortion in 1992, parental involvement
legislation has been a cornerstone in the
effort to reduce abortions. Such laws
have been a focus of divisive election
campaigns, long court battles and
grass-roots activism, and are now in place
in 34 states. Most americans say they
favor them.
"it's one of the few areas that the u.S.
Supreme court has allowed states to
legislate, so it's become a key for
lowering the abortion rate," said mary
spaulding balch, director of state
legislation for the national right to life
committee. Ms. Balch said she believed
that consent laws were effective.
Yet the times analysis of the states that
enacted laws from 1995 to 2004 — most of
which had low abortion rates to begin with
— found no evidence that the laws had a
significant impact on the number of minors
who got pregnant, or, once pregnant, the
number who had abortions.
A separate analysis considered whether the
existence or absence of a law could be
used to predict whether abortions went up
or down. It could not. The six states
studied are in the south and west:
arizona, idaho, south dakota, tennessee,
texas and virginia. (a seventh state,
oklahoma, also passed a parental
notification law in this period, but did
not gather abortion data before 2000.)
supporters of the laws say they promote
better decision-making and reduce teenage
abortions; opponents say they chip away at
abortion rights and endanger young lives
by exposing them to potentially violent
reaction from some parents.
But some workers and doctors at abortion
clinics said that the laws had little
connection with the real lives of most
teenagers, and that they more often saw
parents pressing their daughters to have
abortions than trying to stop them. And
many teenagers say they never considered
hiding their pregnancies or abortion plans
from their mothers.
"i would have told my mother anyway," said
a 16-year-old named nicole, who waited
recently at a clinic in allentown, pa., a
state that requires minors to get the
permission of just one parent. Nicole's
mother and father are divorced, and it was
her mother she went to for permission to
have an abortion.
"she was the first person I called,"
nicole said. "she's like a best friend to
me."
abortion rates have been dropping
nationwide since the mid-1980's, most
precipitously for teenagers. But in three
states — arizona, idaho and tennessee
— the percentage of pregnant minors who
had abortions rose slightly after the
consent laws went into effect.
When the times study compared the first
full year after a state began enforcing a
parental law with the last full year
before the law, it found that abortions
among minors dropped an average of 9
percent. But in the same period, the
rates for pregnant 18- and 19-year-olds,
who were not affected by the law, dropped
by 5 percent, suggesting that most of the
drop among minors was associated with
other factors that affected minors and
adults alike.
"there are ongoing trends that are pushing
both birth rates and abortion rates down
significantly, and those larger trends are
more important than the effect of these
laws," said ted joyce, an economist at
baruch college in new york who has studied
parental involvement laws. He found they
had limited effects on small subgroups of
minors but little impact over all.
Of the remaining decline in teenage
abortion rates in the times study, Dr.
Joyce said that some of it might be
attributed to minors going out of state
for abortions. The health departments in
these states do not track data on such
abortions, but in three previous studies
of states where such data were available,
completed before 1991, two found that any
drop in minors' abortions was matched by
an increase in minors getting abortions
out of state.
Previous research on the effects of
parental notification laws has been
slender and has produced contradictory
conclusions. All were hampered by
inconsistencies in the ways states gather
and report data.
The times analysis was limited by its
focus on just six states, but it avoided
the possible distortions of including
states that gather data in inconsistent
ways.
Phillip b. Levine, an economics professor
at wellesley college, examined nationwide
survey results from 1985 to 1996, a time
when many parental involvement laws were
put in place, and found that the laws were
associated with about one-eighth of the
total drop in minors' abortions in those
states. Much of the drop was associated
with other factors, which might include
the economy, availability of abortion,
changes in mores and other trends. "it's
not surprising it's not popping out," Dr.
Levine said of the small drop found in the
times analysis. "there is nothing
overwhelmingly staggering" in the change
associated with the laws.
Supporters of parental involvement laws
say they allow parents to help their
children make an important health care
decision, as parents would on any other
surgical procedure.
For cathi harrod, interim president of the
center for arizona policy, who lobbied for
15 years for her state's parental consent
law, getting minors to involve their
parents in their medical decisions was
reason enough for the laws, whatever the
impact on overall abortion rates.
Arizona's law went into effect in 2003.
Ms. Harrod said she believed that there
was a groundswell of women who have had
regrets about their own abortions and that
as they made their feelings known, "we
think the numbers will go down as minors
learn more about their options." either
way, she said, her organization will push
for stricter standards and more public
accountability for judicial bypass through
access to judges' records.
But providers interviewed in 10 states
with parental involvement laws all said
that of the minors who came into their
clinics, parents were more often the ones
pushing for an abortion, even against the
wishes of their daughters.
"i see far more parents trying to pressure
their daughters to have one," said jane
bovard, owner of the red river women's
clinic in fargo, n.D., a state where a
minor needs consent from both parents.
"as a parent myself, I can understand.
But I say to parents, 'you force her to
have this abortion, and I can tell you
that within the next six months she's
going to be pregnant again.' "
renee chelian, director of northland
family planning centers in the detroit
area, said she had had to call the police
on parents who wanted their daughters to
have abortions, "because they threaten
physical violence on the kids."
ms. Chelian added that the laws might
have unseen effects, including driving
some teenagers to try to abort their
pregnancies on their own.
"kids talk among themselves," she said.
"when we tell them they need to go to
court or tell their parents, that's when
they tell us there's a web site" for
chemicals or herbal remedies that claims
to induce abortions.
Nearly all state parental involvement laws
allow for minors to bypass their parents
by going through a judge. Providers
interviewed in 10 states all said that the
process was generally not cumbersome, but
that some girls would be afraid to go to
court.
For nicole, the 16-year-old in the
allentown clinic, the hard part was
telling her estranged father.
"it was my choice to tell him," she said.
"it hurt him, but he understands and is
there for me. So in a way it brought us
closer together."
should there be parental notification
laws? Should there be ways to circumvent
these laws? Should 17 year olds be held
to the same standards as 14 year olds?
Should minors from a state that has
implemented parental notification laws be
'allowed' to obtain an abortion in a state
that does not have such a law?
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 02-08-07 23:07pm
State lines are not fences; if someone
cannot obtain something in their own state
they have every right to go to another.
As for the age issue... Yes, I do feel a
14 year old should be treated differently
than a 17 year old. Actually, it would
be interesting to see the age that you no
longer need parental consent to abort to
be set at the same age where you no longer
need their consent to have sex and/or
marry.
I know in several states that this age is
as low as 16, sometimes 15. If a parent
is alright with their daughter marrying,
and going off, then I think they should be
fine with that girl obtaining an abortion
without asking.
I mean, if they marry, they're going to
have sex! And if they've reached the age
of consent, then sex may happen too.
Maybe not immediately of course - not
every girl loses her virginity on the
night of her age-of-consent birthday.
But I do know of couples who had to wait
for the girl to reach the right age before
they had sex - highschoolers obviously.
They waited because they didn't want to
get arrested - not because they weren't
ready. Sometimes, they aren't ready,
even then, but that's not the point.
If the age of consent for sex in a state
is 16, then that's where the requirement
for parental consent should end.
Conversely, I believe that younger girls
should have to inform their parents.
These are little girls, barely young
women! They are children, even at age 14
or 15. I was still a kid back then.
I think I like the idea of parental
notification, but not necessarily
permission. I don't think a parent has
domain over a teen's body. Do I think it
would be right for doctors and parents to
convince a 12 year old to abort because it
is safer for her body? Yes.
Just because you are having sex does not mean
you are a mature person!
Just an idea!
|
Moo
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 1046 Location: London
Thanks: 21
Thanked:91
Posted: 02-17-07 16:39pm
I have a very basic stand on this, the one
that is adopted by english law. That is
that provided a person is deemed competent
to understand the nature of the
procedure/risks/side effects/what will
happen if it is or isn't carried out then
they have the ability to make the decision
alone.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 02-17-07 18:40pm
moo
wrote:
i have a very basic stand on
this, the one that is adopted by english
law. That is that provided a person is
deemed competent to understand the nature
of the procedure/risks/side effects/what
will happen if it is or isn't carried out
then they have the ability to make the
decision alone.
i agree, however in a case of abortion,
time is of the essence, and a explortory
board to determine competency could eat up
valuable time, ending up the the girl not
being able to abort at a safe time in her
pregnancy.
The site is not a replacement for professional medical opinion, examination, diagnosis or treatment. Always seek the advice of your medical doctor or other qualified health professional before starting any new treatment or making any changes to existing treatment. Do not delay seeking or disregard medical advice based on information written by any author on this site. No health questions and information on eHealth Forum is regulated or evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration and therefore the information should not be used to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease without the supervision of a medical doctor. Posts made to these forums express the views and opinions of the author, and not the administrators, moderators, or editorial staff and hence eHealth Forum and its principals will accept no liabilities or responsibilities for the statements made.
Schizophreniahealth
This page was last updated on June 11, 2008