This weekend, an issue that came up in a post by Kevin Beck over at Dr. Joan Bushwell's Chimpanzee Refuge really got me thinking. Kevin was amusing himself by shredding one of the denizens at Stop the ACLU, who was complaining about a Florida court decision that permitted a minor to bypass the state's parental notification law, and obtain an abortion without informing her parents. The post got me thinking about parental consent and notification laws in general, and my own views. I have to admit that this is an issue that really makes me uncomfortable.
Personally, I think that abortion is a medical procedure, and should be treated as such. It should not be singled out for special treatment. Requiring that patients be given information about adoption and other "alternative courses" is unreasonable. Requiring a "waiting period" is massively unreasonable. Legislating a list of specific possible adverse consequences that patients must be told about is an insanely unreasonable legislative invasion into scientific territory. Abortion is a medical procedure, and it should be treated just like any other medical procedure.
When it comes to parental consent laws, however, I think that abortion is a medical procedure, and it should be treated like any other medical procedure. If my daughter is of an age where she would normally need my consent to receive medical care, then I don't see why abortion should be singled out for special treatment. If she would need my consent to get a nose job, why shouldn't she need my consent to get an abortion?
I realize that is a blunt way to put it, but I think it's a legitimate question. I understand that there are circumstances when a child might be put in danger by parental notification, and I fully, fully, fully approve of having legal provisions available to cover those cases. I just think that the default position should be that at least parental notification (if not consent) is required unless special circumstances exist.
In this particular case, I think I'm looking at this both as a parent and as someone who's first child was not the result of well-executed family planning. The discovery that you are going to be a parent is scary. It was scary for me when my wife and I found out that we were going to have a second child, and we had been trying that time. It was a lot more scary the first time around, when the discovery was greeted by a universal, "You're What!"
One of the things I worry about, especially as the kids get older, is how to balance communicating the very important message, "I will always love you, no matter what," with the (also important) message, "don't screw up." I worry about my daughter making a decision based on an unjustified fear of my reaction if she were to tell me she was pregnant, and I worry about how to communicate to her that she doesn't need to worry about my reaction without weakening the at-least-as important message that she needs to be very careful to protect herself when having sex.
Treating abortion differently from other medical procedures, and exempting it from the parental consent requirements of other types of treatment, does affect the rights of parents to participate in medical decisions that involve their children. That might not be the intent of the practice, and it is certainly not the only effect, but it is a real effect. The right of a child to not be forced to bear a child is important, but so is the right of parents to be involved in important decisions made by their children. I just don't know how well these rights are balanced by current practices.
- Log in to post comments
Yes, it is important that parents stay involved in their teenagers' lives, but not every parent does so. In Oregon, we have a law allowing teens 15+ to make their own medical decisions, even for surgeries. Measure 43 (the parental consent law on the ballot this Nov) would make abortion one of the only medical procedures a teenager needs her parent's permission to obtain. She could even get her tubes tied without her parents knowing.
(The Oregonian's article: http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/116043995…)
sorry, I hit post before I intended.
Since I am a recent Oregon transplant, I don't know the context of the law allowing minors such medical autonomy. But if parents want to legislate control over their kids' medical decisions, they should petition to repeal the law. This approach of focusing on abortion (and not even other reproductive decisins) seems inconsistent to me. Does the religious right not care about teenagers' access to birth control or tubal ligations? I find that hard to believe. Maybe they think that a specific restriction on abortion access will be easier to pass than a restriction on the other aspects of reproductive procedures.
The whole question of parental authority is vexing. I don't know whether or not you will view it as relevant to that question, but there is an ambiguity in the claim that abortion is a medical procedure. Yes, the techniques, and often the providers, come from the world of medicine. But a large percentage of abortions are not medically indicated procedures. The decision whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term is usually not a medical decision. If abortifacients were developed that could be safely and effectively self-administered, there would be every reason to make them available over-the-counter -- and not in the half-assed way that we've seen with Plan B.
Well, for one, not getting a nose job doesn't mean she's going to have carry a fetus to term, give birth, and have a child for the rest of her life. If there's one thing I've come to realize in the abortion debate it's that abortion absolutely defies analogy. It doesn't compare well to a life saving procedure, nor a cosmetic one (the usual strawman metaphor I read here is to tattoos or piercings; at least you chose an actual surgery). Maybe it's okay if abortion is treated differently.
I'm not even sure myself how I feel about consent laws. They sound more-or-less reasonable, but I fear the unintended consequences. Is what will be gained for daughters of supportive, rational parents worth what will be lost for others? Will we end up harming the most those who are in the most need?
It's nice to think that a girl will get better advice from her parents than others. The pro-life parable that's always spun here inevitably involves a dead-beat boyfriend trying to force his girlfriend into having an abortion (bonus points if he then dumps her, leaving her emotionally distraught and turning to drugs, or the Democratic party). No nod is given to the possibility that parents may be the source of equally bad advice (in either direction!) or stigma. But that's the real world too. Judicial overrides may help with the worst of it (say, clear cases of abuse), but is unlikely to do much for your garden variety dysfunctional family.
The best way to proceed with your daughter, I suspect, is head-on. When the time is right, tell her exactly what you told us. That she doesn't have to worry about your reaction . Tell her that you love her and will help her as best you can, no matter what.
Under the current system, parents don't have the right to be "involved" with decisions, they make the decisions. As long as they can find a physician willing to carry out the procedure, they can legally force their children to undergo any medical procedure.
The potential for human rights violations is stunning, and sometimes it actually manifests, particularly with homosexual teenagers and parents who want them "deconditioned".
I know that it is possible to get medical treatment for depression in many states as a minor without parental consent. Well, not personal experience on my part, but I looked up the relevant statutes for a friend of mine. I think abortion would fall under the same category as mental health treatment.
If you're worried that your daughter might get an abortion without your knowing about it, then the solution is to talk with her often. If a girl does not wish to tell her parents, there's something wrong, and it's not with her.
Don't forget, many parents are abusive, and unreasonably controlling, and many families are dysfunctional, and that is the most important reason to not require that a child notify her parents. It can cause grave harm to her.
The other reason a child might not want to notify her parent is that she doesn't want her parent knowing she's having sex. If she's having sex and it's a good thing then she should be OK with telling her parents. If she's having sex and it's a bad thing it's because she has low self-esteem, or is in a socially disadvantaged position and lacks the skills to negotiate her situation, and the parent has failed there again. The fact is, most people are uneasy about female sexuality, and this is the root of the uneasiness about abortion. Most people do not feel that queasiness about killing an embryo in a lab. Therefore it's not the killling the embryo part but the girl having sex without their permission part. Sexual attitudes in out culture are highly contradictory when it comes to young maturing women, and they bear the silent brunt of our lack of sorting things out. If we can't understand whether sex is good or not and under what circumstances, then how do we expect out daughters to explain it to us? It puts more burden on a child who is already seeing her life flash before her eyes.
The solution? Not legislated notification (let alone parental consent--that's barbaric) but FIRST to sort out sex and what all the ramifications and meanings are in our own minds (hard work but start now) and then talk to her about it. Not in personal terms (i.e. when YOU have sex and get pregnant--no) but in abstract terms, in case studies, etc. Look up stories of women who had abortions on the net, women who didn't, women who chose not to have sex and whether that meant not having a boyfriend, etc. Then you'll be the FIRST person they come to IF they inadvertently have that problem.
The problem with judicial bypass for laws requiring either parental notification or consent is that it rarely works out... Many judges refuse to hear such cases, and scheduling it adds time to what is already a time-constrained procedure.
(disclosure: I have a long personal history of pro-choice involvement, primarily escorting patients and their companions through anti-abortion protestors...)
If abortion should be treated as a medical procedure, does that mean my insurace should cover it?
The analogy to cosmetic surgery doesn't wash, for reasons eloquently stated by Wallace. In fact, the best analogy I can think of is the honour murders carried out by nutjob muslim parents (not that this practice is unique to Islam, but islamic nutters are the ones that make the news in my neck of the woods).
The analogy is not perfect - for one thing, the reaction is far more extreme - but the underlying logic and political dilemmas are much the same:
On the one hand, you have absolutely unacceptable mistreatment of children at the hands of fundamentalist parents. This provokes a legitimate desire to protect the children from their parents.
On the other hand, you have the majority of families that are more-or-less working. It would be unreasonable and absurd to remove the ability of parents in those families to protect their children from themselves.
It seems to me that one solution could be to give the teens a place to go to if their parents are abusive - or if they fear that their parents will react to certain news with abuse.
Such centres exist for the wives of violent men. Why not make them for the children of insane parents?
- JS
Oh, and in the hassle, I almost forgot why I dropped by tonight:
http://tinyurl.com/y6ae4t
Somewhat off topic, but I thought you might like the link (well, actually I'm suspecting you'll not precisely like it), since you've posted on the topic of Iraq in the past.
Sorry for the double post.
- JS
You're missing an essential perspective. You might be a loving and rational father who would want your daughter to talk with you, and you would be supportive and helpful...so sure, there's no problem with you being notified.
The reason we need ways to bypass parental notification in some cases, like this one, is that in case you hadn't noticed, a significant number of the parents in this country are utterly insane on the topic of abortion. They will treat their daughters with contempt, if not violent fury, if they get pregnant. Requiring such young women to go through the hostile intermediary of their parents is a way to effectively suppress their ability to get an abortion at all.
Actually, I don't think I'm missing that perspective at all. I absolutely understand that issue, and I do support having mechanisms in place to allow parental notification/consent to be bypassed in some cases. I don't have any particular problem with the Florida appeals court case that sparked the Stop the ACLU post in the first place.
My concern is in how to balance the rights of parents (particularly the rational and loving ones) with the rights of the pregnant child. Right now, in states where there is no partental notification or consent requirement, the balance is entirely at the expense of the parents. It might be that this is the only way to protect those children who have parents who are insane on the topic. I'm just not sure that is the case.
The issue for pro-choicers is that this legislation (for a parental notification requirement) is intended (admittedly in some cases) to be another brick on the path of pro-lifers to the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
If that is truly your concern, then you've made a grave error. Two incompatible things cannot be "balanced". Either you preserve one, the other, or violate them both. Violating the conditions of both concerns simply is not acceptable, so you're left with a choice: grant rights to the parent, or grant rights to the child. There is no middle ground, and there can be no compromise - it is impossible when dealing with fundamentals.
Abortion is different because it a choice that must be made about parenting. Like any other parenting choice, it belongs to the parent - not to the grandparents, not to the cousins, not to strangers on the street. The conflict arises when we are dealing with parents - and potential parents - who are still young enough to be legally subject to their own parents.
I don't like parental consent laws - you shouldn't be able to force a young woman into parenthood just because you gave birth to her or fathered her, nor should you be able to force her out of parenthood if she's made that ill-advised decision at a reasonable age.
The gist of it becomes a matter of what is "reasonable age." I wouldn't let my ten year old become a mother. But what about my 17 year old? It's a very hard topic, but on the whole I would prefer to see the balance fall on the side of the young woman.
The article is from 1992, so who knows how old the data actually are, but there's this: at least 6 in 10 minors who get abortions do so with the involvement of at least one parent. There is other, more recent research from September 2006 (though explicitly on family planning services other than abortion) that suggests that the younger the minor is, the more likely it is that their parents are involved (pg. 32 of 42) in their family planning decisions.
In my own experience (recognizing that the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'), minors who appeared for abortion services were nearly always accompanied by a family member: aunt, grandmother, mother, sister; less often, male relatives, but still - I've personally seen many families show up in their entirety to support their daughter. Consistent with the findings above, the younger the child, the more likely it was that family members were involved in her clinic visit. Minors who were accompanied by friends tended towards the older end of things...
If you see abortion as just a medical procedure then you must believe that the choice is ultimately the parents?
So you believe that the parents decision on whether their daughter should have an abortion should be final?
Do you think many doctors would perform an abortion on a girl who does not want it, if her parents decide that they want her to abort?
Do you think abortion providers should perform abortions on girls against their will?
Which parental right, exactly, are you afraid will be removed by a minor obtaining an abortion without consulting a parent? Because I can't think of any.
I would be inclined to divide the population of teenage girls as follows:
Girls whose families are loving and rational, and who know this. These girls will go straight to their parents if they get pregnant. Parental notification laws will make no difference.
Girls whose families are irrational, and who know this. These girls will not go to their parents for legitimate fear of abuse. Standard parental notification laws hurt these girls. Such laws must be very carefully endowed with quick (time-limited procedure) easy (for a twelve-year-old to find out about) reliable (anti-abortion judges must not be the only source of an exemption) workarounds for this.
Girls whose families are loving and rational but who mistakenly believe their families to be irrational and abusive. These are the only girls who would have any prospect of being helped by parental notification laws. I suggest that this population is likely to be small. If someone who has 12-15 years of experience with a particular family believes it is likely to abuse her, who am I, with 0 years of experience with that family, to overrule her? My judgement is more mature, yes, but does that outweigh the fact that I don't know anything about her family?
It looks to me like parental notification laws will (unless very carefully constructed) hurt one population of teenage girls and maybe help another (small) population. For the majority of girls (raised by sane, loving families, and knowing it), they will make no difference. I don't think the risks are worth the benefits.
youre lucky with your kids and im lucky with mine ..ive seen horribly destructive parents among my some of sons friends including 1 religious fundie *sshole who left a dent in his kids head and another who sent her son to a mental institution by lying to a psychiatrist .....id feel even sorrier for those kids if they had been female and pregnant ....they would have been thrown out or subjected to even worse abuse thatn normal
anybody who thinks that seriously emotionally abusive parents can be prevented from further harming their kids is just deluded ...i even contacted the child protective agency in the second example to warn that the kids mom was really the one who needed to be hospitalized ...they investigated but did jack ......his mom was good at fooling people she really wasnt to impress
needless to say im totally against parental notification laws .....it would really make some girls suffer horribly .....abortion is hard enough without having to deal with a nutcase parent ....and its usually the rebellious types who dont get along with their folks ..who do end up having unplanned pregnancies