I agree.

Without taking a stand for or against abortion, I'm curious how you reconcile your position with all the reasons proffered by pro choice advocates in favor of legalizing abortion?

You are correct in that states are charged with protecting minor children, and laws designed to do so are usually upheld. In this context, the question will be to what extent parental consent imposes a chilling effect on the "right to choose," and whether that "right" would be effectively extinguished in the context of a minor.

Putting that aside, I'm a bit baffled by your reasoning and the examples you cited. I think your piece would be much stronger if you simply resorted to the platitude that states are validly empowered to protect minor children from themselves, others, and even from their parents.

Do you really equate abortion with tattoos and piercings? Do 13-year-old kids really congregate outside abortion clinics and goad each other into plastering garish abortions all over their bodies? I'd say the decision-making processes are very different, the motivations are very different and the need for parental intervention is different.

Schools dispensing drugs: That rule is to protect children from having untrained lay people prescribe and administer potentially harmful medications without even the benefit of the student's medical chart. It is also to protect the school district from liability. Is that analagous to a physician administering an abortion after having done a complete workup on the patient? Nope.

Seatbelts: Jay, in most states it is the DRIVER (not necessarily the parent) who is cited when any passenger, whether adult or child, neglects to wear the seatbelt. Now bootstrap that in to a rationale for parental consent for abortions.

Parents are legally responsible for the actions of their minors? Hardly. There is some minor, extremely limited, liability in some instances, but by and large parents are not held responsible for their kids mistakes. But even if you were completely correct here, how does that support your argument for requiring parental consent for abortions?

I am pretty confident that the SC will say the law violates the "super-duper precedent" that abortion has become, according to Arlan Specter.
The current make-up of the court is still as it was even when you factor in Roberts. Look for another of those fantasitc 5-4 decisions this current SC is famous for.

You pretty much own your child until he is about 18 years of age. Their is no decision a child can make independent of the parent, why should a child be able to obtain an abortion without a parents consent?

What has also concerned me with these folks who feel parental consent should be optional - what happens if a minor has an abortion unbeknownst to her parents and then complications occur that require significant medical intervention?

Yep, I'm voting for CA's Prop 73 Parental notification law.

Mark? Notice the word notification not permission.

I have two main points vis a vis why parents should be notified.

1) Too many young girls, say 13 or 14, are impregnated by males in their 20's. Allowing abortion without parents knowing is to aid in a crime (illegal sexual intercourse with a minor).

2) We generally should not make laws based on exceptions. Society and law already reflect that we default to a parent's judgement on how to raise children absent any evidence that a parent is unfit in particular cases to raise a child. There is little to argue for reversing such a stance in case of abortion except for political reasons.

oh! to add a third point

if said minor girl is contemplating an abortion, why is everyone around her get to influence her (opinions of peers and impregnator) except her own parents?

I'm curious what Mark's justification would be for not requiring parental consent for a minor's abortion. I'm responsible for my children's welfare while they're minors, along with their mother, so how is the decision on whether or not to have an abortion not a part of that welfare?

Because some small minority of parents are unfit to be parents, and therefore their consent should be replaced by that of a judge, I and all my fellow capable and responsible parents are excluded from a very important decision, should a minor daughter become pregnant.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense, Mark.

Darleen,

Thanks for helping me read. "Notification" is certainly different from "permission."

Or, is it? I suspect a key motivator with kids is simply avoiding the wrath of their parents. Chill and chill alike, I guess.

I'm a parent, I want to know everything about my kids. From that perspective, I support the law. I'm just saying I suspect the "notification" law will endure rocky times ahead, and I'm saying Jay didn't promote any compelling arguments to help the cause.

Hmmm.

Frankly the entire basis of not notifying the parents is based on the absurd notion that it somehow enables abuse or will put the girl into harm.

If we really have such a massive epidemic of parental child rape, impregnation and abortion going on that justifies this crap, then someone needs to actually prove this rather just making ridiculous charges.

IMHO there is no justification for not notifying the parents of a minor child seeking an abortion. Nor is there any justification for said parents not being asked for their permission.

But what the hell. It's a *Republican* Supreme Court so all is well right?

Boyd,

Where did I ever say I didn't support the law?

I'm just saying its inconsistent with most arguments proffered in favor of "choice." Notice I never even said where I come down on choice/abortion, so so you can't even infer whether I support those arguments.

So tell me, Boyd; where did I fail to make sense?

Boyd ingnorantly asked:

"I'm curious what Mark's justification would be for not requiring parental consent for a minor's abortion."

Boyd, I am not here to proffer "justification" since I am not advocating anything. However, I will give you just one example of an argument proferred by others (not me) in favor of legalizing abortion that could arguably be defeated by the parental notification rule. Its an argument born of pragmatism, and we've already seen examples where parental notification rules have failed that argument.

Remember the spectre of illegal back alley abortions with coat hangers? Wasn't that a major argument in favor of legalization? Well, kids who live in fear of their parents will go to great lengths to hide or eliminate pregnancies they fear their parents will deem shameful. Many would prefer to take matters in their own hands rather than shame their parents, and we've seen examples of this.

I think one example was raised in a blog (here?) several months ago. There, a boy was convicted of some degree of manslaughter or murder for killing a fetus inside his girl friend. Together, the boy and girl beat the crap out of her abdomen until the fetus was dead. The girl consented to the beating, but the boy was convicted. Perhaps this is the type of harmful and risky behavior opponents of parental notification or permission are seeking to avoid.

Now Boyd, before you flame me, notice that I am not advocating a position here. I am not justifying anything. I'm merely applying logic to some arguments expressed by others who support abortion. If you buy into those arguments, as the Supreme Court has in part, then I'm sure you can see how the parental notification laws would at least partially conflict with those stated goals.

Not only do I want parental notification before an abortion, I also want to be notified if my daughter is pregnant and has made a preliminary decision to carry to term. I want to be of counsel either way.

Hell, I wanna be notified that they are about to have sex so I can counsel before that too.

None of the above statements are made in defense of any law requiring notification. Notification should be voluntary. If the girls are afraid, for whatever reason, to confide in their parents about matters of this import, then required notification will in most cases not be in the best interest of either party.

I'm bored for the moment, so let's explore Boyd's reading comprehension:

Boyd said:

"Because some small minority of parents are unfit to be parents, and therefore their consent should be replaced by that of a judge, I and all my fellow capable and responsible parents are excluded from a very important decision, should a minor daughter become pregnant.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense, Mark."

Now, I would like to see a show of hands from anyone who thinks I said anything even remotely along these lines. No hands? I thought not.

Perhaps I should not throw stones considering Darleen's exposure of my own reading failures. But at least I didn't make up ridiculous shit and attribute it to other commenters.

Mark: "Do you really equate abortion with tattoos and piercings? Do 13-year-old kids really congregate outside abortion clinics and goad each other into plastering garish abortions all over their bodies?"

Huh?

I've got a daughter who wants piercings. Are you trying to say that piercings are more serious a matter than abortion? That it makes *sense* to require parental permission for her to get holes in her ears, but doesn't make sense to require parental permission for a major medical procedure?

"I'd say the decision-making processes are very different, the motivations are very different and the need for parental intervention is different."

Frankly, other than the preservation of parental authority, I see no real need for there to be restrictions on piercings or tattoos. They are often ugly, but so? The issue of parental authority is not a *different* thing at all. I'm responsible for my children. With that responsibility *must* be authority. One demands the other, or I can't do my job. I tell my kids that my job is to teach/protect/care for them and that *their* job is to cooperate with me. Our laws and our courts need to promote the authority of parents if they expect to demand the responsibility of parents. Jay Tea very rightly brings up the legal liabilities parents face.

On a purely pro-life stand, often as not, the person driving the minor to the clinic is a parent, and quite frankly, there's no reason at all to think that those minors who are driven to the clinic by mom and dad have *chosen* an abortion for themselves. This definately goes both ways.

The whole *point* is that minors are not considered competent to do a whole load of things (though actual competence is individual) they can't sign contracts, they can't get piercings, go on field trips, join the military, or submit themselves to elective surgery. If they are competent to make a choice as serious as getting an abortion then what possible rationale is there to prevent them from making any other possible choice about any other possible issue in their lives?

The idea that we should have inconsistant rules for different things because we have different goals for different things is a bunch of BS.

We have principles of freedom, autonomy, etc. that we adhere to because they are more important as concepts than whatever inconvienience is caused by them. Should we throw out privacy just because it would make the police's job much easier not to have to get warrents?

When we talk about Rights we talk about those things that we *must* take for granted and that must, if the government has a need to violate them, *must* be proven to be not only necessary but also done in the least intrusive way.

When it comes to homeschooling, despite unpopularity, strong legal attacks from schools, and a proven interest by the State in ensuring that children are educated, the law came down on the side of the Rights of parents. The proven interest of the State wasn't enough to compel classroom attendance because the *State* also had to prove it could meet that interest in no other way.

If parents actually have any Rights *at all* it is not enough to say that we've got this *goal* and so we get to dump parental rights down the loo.

Synova,

I don't disagree with you about the need for parental supervision of minors, and you're entirely correct about their lack of legal "competence" to make many types of decisions that can bind them throughout their lives. I seriously doubt anyone (except my teenage daughter at the moment) would disagree with that.

And, no. I'm certainly not saying piercings and tattoos are more important than abortions. I'm saying they're very DIFFERENT. So different, that Jay's use of one to support the other is very weak.

Part of my point was that Jay's piece would be more convincing if he didn't use the unnecessary, and weak, examples to support his conclusion. There's nothing wrong with saying, "kids need supervision, damn it!" and leave it at that.

But while we're at it, I do think there is a greater RISK (not to be confused with greater HARM) in the realm of tattoos. People often get tattooed on a whim, and often as a result of peer pressure. Tattoos are basically permanent, and anyone who's tried laser removal will agree. So, there is a high risk of fivolous tattoos with little attendant contemplation or thought. That's exactly the type of behavior teenagers are often protected from, and for good reason.

Now do you really consider abortions in the same realm? For the same reasons? I don't. I do think parental supervision is important, and I hope my girls will come to me if they get in trouble. I'm not convinced minors are equipped to know what is right for them in this regard. But abortions are not usually done on a whim, and certainly not as a result of peer pressure. I think even minors put a great deal of thought and soul searching into these types of decisions. I'm not saying minors should be given the absolute right to make this decision, I'm merely saying the tattoo analogy is not fitting.

Although, perhaps the piercing example can be bootstrapped into an example of the back alley abortion. My 15-year-old can't get piercings without our permission, but we let her have a few in her ears. We have witheld our permission a few times, as well. For that, we were rewarded with her learning to pierce herself in the bathroom with safety pins, which she has done several times. Fortuately, after we reminded her who's supposed to be in charge, she agreed to take out the studs and let the holes grow in. But still, the permission requirement creates a self-help industry. You decide whether you want that for abortions.

Should a parent have the right to force their 17 year-old to carry a pregancy to term?

To expand on Synova's point - which I agree with - The SCOTUS has also held that minors cannot be executed for murders they commit. The reasoning, as I paraphrase it, was that they don't have the necessary maturity to fully understand the consequences of their actions, and therefore should not be held to the same standards an adult would be who commited the same crime.

So, according to the state, my daughter can not take an aspirin, get a tattoo, or have an ear pierced without my permission. If she murders someone she gets a mulligan - all this because the government recognizes that she's too young to understand and fully evaluate the implications of these decisions - yet she can get an abortion and possibly incur life threatening complications from it and by law (in some states) not only do I have no right to know about it, but people could be severely punished for telling me about it anyway because it would violate her privacy ??

It does not make a whole lot of sense from Jay's consistency perspective. (Which I also agree with).

If the girls are afraid, for whatever reason, to confide in their parents about matters of this import, then required notification will in most cases not be in the best interest of either party.

John, what if those reasons are unreasonable? What if those reasons are not the girl's own, but those of her impregnator, or the impregnator's parents or her girlfriends or even a "trusted" teacher who have their own agendas on what is "right" for this girl? Why do they all get a say in persuading her but her parents don't? If her parent(s) are truly abusive, she has a judicial "out" and getting abortion money machines like Planned Parenthood to "counsel" the girls thusly won't be a big stretch.

Mark

Do 13-year-old kids really congregate outside abortion clinics and goad each other into plastering garish abortions all over their bodies?"

No, but as I've stated before, there are loads of people ready to goad a pregnant 13 y/o into an abortion for lots of self-serving reasons having nothing to do what is in the best interest of the 13 y/o.

AkBigBoy,

You make a great argument that has a ton of superficial appeal. I can't say I disagree with it either.

However, you've gotta concede that the argument does ignore several factors that put abortion in a different category from aspirin, tattoos and piercings. Teenage pregnancies come chock full of built-in stigmas, parental shame, tabboo, and other shit that motivates kids to hide or eliminate them. Is there any other teenage issue that is as emotionally charged? Now combine that with the risk of permanent physical harm or death attendant with back alley abortions or having your boyfriend beat the shit out of your abdomen. What's the source of all this risk? Parental notification.

I can easily see how some advocate an exception for the general parental notification/advice/consent theme. I'm not saying I do, I'm just saying there are issues to address.

Oh, and on Jay's consistency perspective, you also have to admit he's ignoring all the inconsistencies in his argument. What about the parent's ability to obtain their child's medical chart? Ever tried that, Jay? How about getting kids tested for drugs or other things without a teenager's consent--can't do it. Nope, teenagers have some pretty strong statutory rights to privacy that parents need a court order to pierce. Abortion fits perfectly within those rights, and they are entirely consistent. Not saying I'm happy about that, just saying one should not cherry pick items under the guise of "consistency."

OK, let's talk about consistency then.

Right now more than half the states which require parental notification of abortion do permit a minor to obtain prenatal care and deliver a baby without notification of a parent.

Once the baby is delivered by the minor, many states recognize the minors competency to make decisions about the health and welfare of the child.

What about other reproductive health services? Should a parent have the right to know when their minor child seeks access to contraceptives or treatment of STD's? The answer is, in mosts states, no.

I maintain that reproductive health services other than abortion are more pertinent analogous issues than tattoos and piercings.

Sorry for being "ingnorant," Mark. I'm not sure why you have to descend into ad hominem, but if that's what floats your boat, have at it.

Extending rights to children without parental notification or consultation or anything else is usually not in the best interests of the child. As the seriousness of the issue increases, the greater the need for parental involvement. So for something as serious as abortion, unless the parent has been or can be proved to be unfit, parents should be centrally involved in the issue.

And Mark, please accept my abject apology for imputing arguments from "the other side" to your comments. I made the error folks frequently make in these kinds of discussions, both written and oral, of pigeonholing people based on prior conversations. And please, please, please forgive me for being "ingnorant" and for being a poor reader. In fact, I can't figure out why I haven't already been banned from Wizbang for such an "ingnorant" commenter.

Maybes I's should git me sum mor lirnin afore I tries to taak on a smart man lik u.

John,

I have a tattoo of an IUD on my shoulder, does that count? It's a Copper 7.

Boyd,

"Sorry for being "ingnorant," Mark. I'm not sure why you have to descend into ad hominem, but if that's what floats your boat, have at it."

Ok, guilty of more than just misspelling. Sorry for that. Your post suggested that you were gonna be one of those who doesn't read or reason, but love to attack 'cause ya can. Obviously I was wrong, I over reacted, and that was unfair. I apologize.

As for pigeonholing based on other threads, I'm trying to remember your previous comments. I think I pigeonholed you as a rational thinker, and not ingorant or whatever I typed.

As for me, good luck. You could find me all over the map, whether I agree with the positions I foist, or disagree. But whatever my true feelings, nothing riles me more than someone proffering an argument for "consistency" when in doing so they intentionally cherrypick around all the inconsistencies that exist. You didn't do that, Jay did. I'm just explaining why I argue with Jay, even when I might agree with his conclusions. For me, taking a valid route is as important as getting to the proper destination.

Mark

The girl that had her impregnator beat her for seven weeks rather than using the judicial option is an extreme example. I could find such for every law on the books. However, we don't formulate laws that way. In the best of circumstances all law is weighed on societal best interest. Do we allow all minors girls who get pregnant full access to abortions sans parents based on that singular horrendous case you cite? Do we not consider the circumstances under which the girl got pregnant? In the balance, will the law do more good or harm?

@Mark:

Good, then. We can move on to other matters.

Oh, and just for clarity's sake, my mistake was pigeonholing you based on arguments made by others, which included some of the points you were making (not consistency, but the others you mentioned to make your point about consistency), not based on your past comments. I don't have that good of a memory. :)

Anyhoo, we're good here. Everybody move along. Nothing to see (or read) here, folks. Go find the Sun in New England or something.

Darleen,

You bet it's extreme. How common is it? I dunno. How common were those back alley abortions? I dunno. All I know is that pro-"choice" people touted the alley issue, and I foresee a parallel argument from more modern times. If the powers that be bought into the alley argument, I'm just saying they'll have a hard time avoiding the pummelled abdomen example (and whatever similar examples there may be).

So, we've got some things to weigh.

On one hand, all of society has a huge interest in parents being responsible for their kids, and for counselling them and guiding them and teaching them and making them be all they can be. Parent's can't do that unless they know what their kids are going through. This is undisputed, I think (except by teenagers, but give them a few years and they'll come around.)

On the other hand, we have some examples of reality. I think this is changing as parents get a bit more sophisticated, but historically, kids did not come to dogmatic parents when they were pregnant. Many parents and families reacted poorly (and they still do when you consider "honor" killings among muslims.) So they do stupid things to avoid the shame. The potential for these stupid things to be harmful is very high.

Arguably, the first consideration is more idealistic, while the second is more pragmatic. What should the law reflect? Idealism or pragmatism? Let's not kid ourselves that either choice will reduce the risk of unwanted pregnancy.

Isn't it arguable that mandating parental involvement could lead to some disasterous results, whereas the availability of anonymous, but safe, abortions could save lives? If you're gonna err, on which side would you like that error? I hope it's on the side that promotes the safety of your kids.

Ok, now all the slippery slope people can pounce and claim that I advocate free pornos and condoms and vibrators and butt plugs to be passed out in school and church.

Ever so true. The laws have become mush. Not only is it virtually impossible to be in complete obedience of the law but most people on a daily basis are in disobedience of one thing or another. Over complicated and vague, the law makers without thought(apparently)have made it impossible for law enforcement and citizens alike.

It is no laughing matter when a person commits a murder with his bare hands get's caught and is charged with about 20 violations of the law. What kind of crap is that? One law broken one charge thats all. The rest is just an expensive dog pile.

The legislatures could probably get rid of ten's of thousands of laws and we wouldn't even notice. Uh-maybe we would. We would be freer.

John says:

"OK, let's talk about consistency then."

Don't ya just love it when someone shows up with some actual facts? Great post.

Isn't it arguable that mandating parental involvement could lead to some disasterous results, whereas the availability of anonymous, but safe, abortions could save lives?

It is just as arguable the other way, Mark. Or are you unaware of minors dying from "legal, safe" abortions?

Since the incident all all death from legal abortions (and there hasn't been a death from "illegal" abortion in years) is a very small percentage of all abortions, then we are arguing about minors and how far we, as a society, allow them to be autonomous. For instance, the whole juvenile court system was set up to take children out of the adult court system and to offer them a chance at rehabilitation -- society recognizing that immaturity and a lack of consideration of consequences on the part of the minor spoke to the courts taking a parental role in cases of minor crime. The exception being that when a crime reaches a certain level of heinousness and the juvenile perpetator premeditates his/her action, we remand that juvenile into the adult system. These juvies tried as adults are the exception and we still default all juvies first to the juvie court system.

The whole struggle over minor girls having autonomy over their own bodies came from a rather cynical approach to family dynamics. It was a political decision rather than one dealing strictly with a pragmatic health approach. If girls were to be "available" for sex, then they had to be properly "served" ..first by telling them they should follow the male example of how to approach sex (girls and boys are the same the meme goes) then rather then missing all that fun, it was/is up to the girl to take all the steps to avoid consequences.

Adult women have every right to conduct their sex lives as they see fit. Minor girls, until emancipation, are the responsibility of their parents. And when the law usurps that responsibility, the law is an ass.

I don't think anyone here is arguing that, on balance, it's worse for the parents to be involved. In fact, most teenage pregnancies involve the parents counsel, regardless of the governments wishes. The law is not usurping anything.

Do you believe that parental notification laws should require that both parents be notified?(assuming they are alive and can be contacted)

How about an aunt or an uncle, is that