I’ve always thought of blogging as having a lot in common with talk radio, and I’ve tried to follow the example and advice of some talk-show hosts I’ve admired. And one of the greats was Jerry Williams, one of the pioneers of the format.
One thing Jerry said that has always stuck with me is that he would never do a show on abortion. He boycotted the topic, and he gave three reasons:
1) Everybody has an opinion on the topic;
2) No one is going to persuade anyone else to change their opinion;
3) Absolutely nothing new has been said on the topic for about 30 years.
I’ve always thought that profoundly true, and as such have avoided the topic here.
Until now.
The abortion issue is heading back to the Supreme Court, and this time it’s over a New Hampshire law. A few years ago, the legislature passed a law requiring parental consent for a minor to have an abortion, with the only exceptions being with a court’s permission or the life of the mother. Backers of the bill very deliberately skipped the “…or health” loophole, after seeing how in so many other states “health” was stretched to involve “emotional health” or other vague excuses, gutting the purpose of the law. They wanted this to be challenged in court, and now it’s reaching the Supreme Court.
Over my life, I’ve been on both sides of this issue. When I was younger, I thought it an incredibly stupid policy — if a family simply doesn’t talk with each other, then it’s no business of the government to force them to do so. It struck me as parents failing to properly oversee their children, and getting the government to back them up — and that offended the libertarian in me, who didn’t want to see the government playing such a key role in people’s private lives.
But now, though, I’m reconsidering that position.
The most important thing for a government to be is consistent. Laws and enforcement must be predictable, for the sake of the people. They must know exactly what principles govern the laws, and how they are enforced, if they are to comply. Otherwise, our system of laws risks degenerating into chaos, anarchy, or tyranny — we need only look at other countries to see the results.
As it stands now, the government is oriented towards reinforcing the bond between parent and child. Children cannot receive body piercings or tattoos without parental consent. Schools may not give children any medication whatsoever without the parents’ approval — not even an aspirin, in many cases. In divorce cases, the government decides who gets custody of the children, and how the non-custodial parent will support that child — and enforces those decisions with the full force of the law.
Likewise, the government expects the parents to live up to those responsibilities. Parents are legally liable for the actions of their minor children — if a child commits vandalism, for example, the parents are on the hook to make restitution. Children are required to wear seat belts when in a car, and if they don’t, then the parents are cited. And parents that neglect their children are often arrested and punished.
So, in the eyes of the law, children aren’t quite property of their parents, but they are legally an “extension” of the parents.
With that in mind, and setting aside the overall issue of abortion for adults, I have to say that I support the parental notification bill in New Hampshire. It’s a logical extension of the other laws regarding parent-child relationships and responsibilities, and it has the necessary exceptions for extenuating circumstances.
And I hope the Roberts court will agree.
The entire problem with this subject is that SCOTUS imposed abortion across the board for all of us. I have my personal beliefs about it, as do all of you. But matters like these should be determined at the polls on the state level. Not in the courts.
Once the state makes a law about it, then courts can decide cases based on the laws that exist. And; no matter what you might say or think; each pregnancy is individual and rules cannot apply “accross the board” for everyone. So, I do believe that parents should be notified and involved in a childs “circumstances”.
This might make some of you a little mad but this is what I and my family believe: We do not believe that a fetus becomes human, or has a soul, until it “takes the breath of life”. Until then it is just a living mass of tissue. Now, I do not really know if this belief is right or wrong, but it is what I believe. So, to me abortion is not an important issue. I will know for sure when I meet my maker.
For me, the abortion issue is the blatant disregard for the constitution the courts committed with Roe vs Wade. Completely unconstitutional in my opinion.
Also, I would not presume to impose my beliefs on anyone. This stuff is very personal to anyone who might find themselves faced with such a difficult decision. I simply cannot accept the idea that 9 people can impose their beliefs upon everyone in the entire country. I guess that makes me Pro Choice. Dam, this is a very difficult subject for everyone. I wish I knew for sure one way or the other.
Please excuse me for so many posts, but I wanted to add; my beliefs are very difficult, being the hard core conservative that I am. It seems directly opposed to the party platform. Still, I believe what I believe, just like all of you.
“Should parents have the right to force their 17 year-old to carry a pregancy to term?”
Should 17 be granted the rights of full adulthood then? Would you be asking the question of 16 year olds if that happened?
If something goes wrong and your daughter is rushed to the emergency room the parents would now be required to be there for her treatment, no? Should we do away with this provision? Should all medical care be left up to the minor and her friends?
The underlying assertion seems to be that because some parents aren’t competent, we need to turn important decisions over to the state, or leave them to the children.
B.Moe:
“The underlying assertion seems to be that because some parents aren’t competent, we need to turn important decisions over to the state, or leave them to the children.”
I’m not sure what you think is being turned over to the state. In fact, I think the issue is about limiting the state’s ability to interfere with the relationship between daughters and parents such that pregnant daughters are forced to divulge information that might be very private and embarrassing, when the simple revealing of that information could be very damaging to to the daughter. Maybe the kid does know best about whether her parents should be included.
So, what can a parent do once they’re notified? They can’t turn back time and prevent the pregnancy. They can confort, counsel and help, or they can judge, scold and punish. If the kid can’t yet drive, they can drive to and from prenatal care or the abortion clinic. But should the parent make the daughter’s decision for her?
Unwanted pregnancies are big issues for anybody. But only the pregnant one truly has to live with her decision for the rest of her life. Not parents, not boyfriends, not church leaders. Until and unless Roe is overturned, the decision resides solely with the the girl. And, I think the issue is sober enough that a 14-year-old is capable of seeking advice from those she trusts, and making a sound decision. Isn’t it better for her to live the rest of her life with her own decision, rather than forcing her to spend the rest of her life with someone else’s decision?
Everything else of import a child does is subject to the approval of the parent, as mandated by the state. If the state makes a decision to grant an exemption for abortion, then the state has taken responsiblity of the child from the parents. I really don’t see why I have to keep repeating this, it seems obvious to me.
It also seems obvious to me that if a child is incapable of voting, marriage, driving or anything else without adult guidance and permission, they should have guidance and permission on a decision that as you say is going to live with them, and possible haunt them, the rest of their lives. That adult should be their parents.
B.Moe:
Aren’t we talking about a parental notification law that is in place in some states and not in others? In states that have those laws, the state has stepped in and effectively taken the decision from the child and put it in the hands of the parents. THAT is where the state intervention comes in. In states without those laws, you cannot say the state has stepped in and taken the decision from the parents and handed it to the child–because the parent didn’t have that power to begin with. You’re looking at this backwards, logically backwards. That seems obvious to me.
Traditionally, pregnant kids of any age were treated as emancipated adults for purposes of these decisions. It is the state that is trying to change that, get it?
And yes, I agree that parents should generally be responsible for their kids. But should putative GRANDPARENTS have the power to overrule all decisions of a putative PARENT over the life or death of the potential GRANDCHILD? And should those decisions be made by imposing dogmatic religious beliefs on a would-be parent, when that would-be parent does not share in those beliefs?
Some of you are missing something.
First, does anyone doubt for a second that parents, whether they’re 14 or 40, have the autonomy to care for their babies as they see fit? They are the sole decision makers with regard to pediatric care, surgeries, circumcision, ear piercing, choices of preschool, church, Sunday school, etc. While the state can step in and provide guidelines or mandates for all parents, the grand parents have absolutely NO rights whatsoever. Is that clear to everyone? To change that, grand parents would need a court order declaring their own kids incompetent and appointing themselves as the legal guardian. That is extremely difficult to do.
Given that, why is it you all seem to think leaving the issues of prenatal care, delivery, or abortion should be in the hands of the expectant grandparents? In doing so, you’re asking the state to intervene and set back thousands of years of tradition.
Tattoos and voting rights are not analogous. The true consistency is in not interfering with a mother’s right to control her body and raise her baby as she sees fit.
“But should putative GRANDPARENTS have the power to overrule all decisions of a putative PARENT over the life or death of the potential GRANDCHILD?”
“Given that, why is it you all seem to think leaving the issues of prenatal care, delivery, or abortion should be in the hands of the expectant grandparents? In doing so, you’re asking the state to intervene and set back thousands of years of tradition.”
But what you are doing is granting parenthood without acknowledging the existence of the child. If we are going to call the pregnant a parent, then doesn’t that make abortion murder?
Either the pregnant child is bearing a sub-human fetus, making her still a child and the abortion a medical procedure; or the pregnant child is bearing a human child, making her a parent and therefore an adult, but also making the abortion murder.
B.Moe:
“But what you are doing is granting parenthood without acknowledging the existence of the child. If we are going to call the pregnant a parent, then doesn’t that make abortion murder?
Either the pregnant child is bearing a sub-human fetus, making her still a child and the abortion a medical procedure; or the pregnant child is bearing a human child, making her a parent and therefore an adult, but also making the abortion murder.”
Ah-hah!
So your “pro-parental notification” argument is not that at all. It is really an “anti-abortion” argument, isn’t it? (I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with being anti-abortion.)
You’re not alone. I think most, if not all, of the pro-notification people here are using that as a pretext for their underlyiing anti-abortion sentiments.
The problem is, you can’t have a productive or meaningful debate on the notification issue, until you can intellectually divorce yourself from your real agenda for a moment. Like it or not, abortion is a constitutionally protected “right” according to the Supreme Court. Until that’s changed, the only issue before us is “notification,” which should be addressed on its own merits and not as a hook to limit the scope of our constitutional rights.
That’s where my frustration comes in. I’m trying to honestly sort out the conflicting interests I have as a parent, and I find myself just reacting to many of you who pretend to participate in the debat, but instead are just looking for ways to lash back at Roe.
Quick show of hands:
How many of you who argue on behalf of parental notification already know that you would forbid your child from having an abortion, if the decision were up to you?
[For purposes of this poll, assume the pregnancy resulted from consensual sex, and the fetus is healthy and viable in every way.]
Aha your ass, where did I say I was opposed to abortion? I have no problem what so ever with early term abortion. I just pointed out the fallacy and inherent moral problems with your arguments. If you chose to try to defend the indefensible by putting words in my mouth and attacking a strawman, that is your problem.
My exact stance on abortion is this: a fertilized egg is obviously not a human being, and abortion at this point is obviously not murder. A baby the day it would be born naturally obviously is a human being, and abortion at this point is murder, not withstanding exeptional circumstances.
The actual point it becomes viable is the sticky wicket, and until medical science can come up with an exact definition, I think the grey area should be an individual call. I also think this is an incredibly life altering and traumatic decision and a minor should have the consent of her parents.
I have known too many girls who will forever be haunted by rushing into an abortion they later regreted, and the counsel of the people who know you better than anyone else in the world should not be overlooked. Yes, I can imagine how scarey it is to have to tell your parents you are pregnant, but alot of necessary things in life are scary.
As to your poll, I would not forbid it, and would leave the decision up to her. But I would want to make damn sure she understood what she was doing, what her options were, and that I would be there no matter what.
Ok B.Moe, I read ya wrong. Sorry. You know, all the murder buzzwords, etc.
By the way, I wasn’t about to attack any straw men. If you fell into the group I suspect many here fall into, I was going to respect that and leave it alone.
B.Moe, based on what you just said, the notification laws won’t likely affect you. You sound rational and compationate, and you’re kids will value your input even when they disagree with you.
So, who does the law affect? Kids who want abortions when they know their parents will absolutely forbid it. The laws still leave the choice to the child. So, what’s the point of forcing the confrontation and all the ugliness that goes along with it? What’s the point of putting children in the situation where dogmatic fundamentalists start telling their kids they’ll burn in hell, and disowning them, and all that bullshit we all know is far to common?
The law empowers the kids to make the decision, so they should choose who they trust to help them with that decision.
Remember, the kids already rejected their parent’s advice when they chose to have sex, and when they failed to take precautions. Think they’re ready to start listening now? Doubt it.
“So, who does the law affect? Kids who want abortions when they know their parents will absolutely forbid it. The laws still leave the choice to the child. So, what’s the point of forcing the confrontation and all the ugliness that goes along with it? What’s the point of putting children in the situation where dogmatic fundamentalists start telling their kids they’ll burn in hell, and disowning them, and all that bullshit we all know is far to common?”
I don’t like laws that are written based on the behavior of a very small percentage of people, and I do believe it is a very small percentage.
What about the good girl of reasonable, loving parents who makes a mistake. What if she doesn’t want to tell her parents because she is afraid of disapointing them? What if she gets told by her friends it’s no big deal, pressured by her “boyfriend” that it will ruin both of their lives and he is ready to get married, and rushes to have an abortion behind her parents back, compounding her guilt?
I suspect this is the case more often than the poor child being beaten with a bible for getting pregnant. In fact, I know more than a few anti-abortion “Christians” who didn’t feel that way at all when it was there little princess with one in the oven. It seems they only want other people to not have abortions.
Mark
Sheesh, I go away for a day and then I find you decide I’m “anti-abortion.”
Nope, nada, not a bit. As I’ve said before, if an adult woman of sound mind wishes to have an abortion, I believe she has every legal right to do so, without any legal interference within the first trimester.
MINOR girls are something else all together. To deliberately cut parents out of the information loop on their daughter is assinine.
Planned Parenthood makes a great deal of their yearly revenue from abortions, so I do NOT consider their “opinions” on providing abortions to 12 y/o’s as unbiased.
I am tired of seeing minor girls exploited for sex then told to “take care of it” as if abortion was no bigger deal then choosing the red or blue dress for prom.
Gov. Arnold was very un-PC not long ago in expressing his support for CA’s Prop 73. He said (paraphrasing) as a father if he found out some man took his underage daughter for an abortion without Arnold knowing, he’d kill him.
I applaud that line.
John
First off, I thought I’d check into CA’s laws pertaining to medical records and privacy.
If my minor child is in the hospital for, as was mentioned above, an appendectomy…the doctor/hospital cannot refuse me access. Oh they may try, but they have no legal grounds to refuse. THE ONLY medical records they can refuse me are to those procedures to which my minor can legally consent — ie due to emancipation, the minor’s own marriage or divorce, or relating to pregnancy, contraception, abortion, rape or STD’s. (minors cannot consent to sterilization).
Again, we are seeing the law take a different approach to reproductive health than any other health concern.
You have brought up the idea of consistency. Why then is the law inconsistent when it comes to a minor’s health? Especially in the state of CA which has “age of consent” as 18, but allows minors to seek all manner of reproductive health service at age 12?
BTW… the teenage birthrate stats? Can you source that for me, because IIRC a lot can be explained by demographics with the highest rates in immigrant groups.
The idea that teens don’t have access to information, services and even free condom is just silly.
Teen birth stats here: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/peo_tee_bir_rat
I was shocked at the numbers, btw. If someone had asked me before yesterday what the US teen birth rate was compared to other countries, I would have been way off.
So, I gotta hand it to Jay for bringing this issue (and others) up in a way that can be discussed without really getting into the red-hot issue of abortion, although we have a little here. I just did a little poking around, looking at your prop 73 in CA, and getting up to speed on what current CW is. Cuz, before this weekend, I was all “Hell yes, parental notification, dammit!”, but no longer. I would vote against it.
I mean, one can come up with their own explanation for the embarrassing teen birth stat, but the three I mentioned are the most reasonable explanations. What’s yours?
And I never said teens have no access to information and services, but you must admit it’s restricted and stigmatised. Other countries are more open about teen sex, therefore the teens are more knowledgable.
But the bottom line is what’s been repeated here: Who is the law helping, and who is it hurting?
I agree with Arnold only under the assumption he meant a man over 18 taking his underage daughter to an abortion. I’d want to kill the guy, too. Surmise what the parental notification law could do in CA: Force Arnold to possibly make good on his threat.
Heh, Darleen, I didn’t decide you were anything. Have I labelled you or accused you of anything at all?
“To deliberately cut parents out of the information loop on their daughter is assinine.”
Once again, that’s not the issue. Parents aren’t in the loop in California. You’re seeking to force that on daughters who feel they can’t trust their parents but would still like to retain some relationship with them. You advocate state intervention to create a loop where none exists.
I don’t have the answers. I said from the outset that I want to be in the loop. I’m a parent. However, I’m not convinced the state should force my daughters to tell me if they don’t want to. And, for damned sure I don’t want any majority of voters interfering with our relationship. Frankly, I think I should earn their trust, and they will consult me when they’re interested. I would be crushed, but I think their interests come first–and they’re not necessarily synonymous with mine.
As for the consistency arguments, forget about tattoos and peircings and crap. The reproductive services laws, and the autonomy young parents are awarded over their own offspring, are far more relevent. In that context, a child’s autonomy over her own uterus is far more consistent with long-standing law than Jay would have us believe.
I think parental notification laws are a pretext for circumscribing Roe. Period.
However, I also think Roe is one of the worst-reasoned Supreme Court decisions of all time.
For what it’s worth, my personal bottom line is this: Abortion ain’t good. But I am not qualiified to tell another person what they can and can’t do with their body. There are enough open questions that I don’t feel a state or a bunch of voters should take it upon themselves to control others. I think all errs should be in favor of less intrusion rather than more. I guess that means I’m pro choice, yet anti-abortion in most circumstances.
Here’s another thing to noodle: Why on that magic day of my daughter’s 18th birthday does she suddenly possess the competency to make that decision? Why not the day before? Why not 6 months later? Why not a year earlier?
You see where I’m going with this: We all know girls mature at different speeds. And if you don’t know that, trust me on this one, I have three daughters.
Man, I would hate to have to go through the thought process of a gal 3 or 4 months shy of her 18th birthday who screws up on prom night. Before the law? After the law?
I think it would be worth it to require notification *even if* the choice was 100% up to the girl… *including* if she wants to carry the baby to term.
What ever decision she makes should *not* be made because she doesn’t want her parents to find out. Notification would take this issue out of play. Mom and Dad *will* find out. So decide what you want to do.
It may also lessen the problem of girls not telling Mom and Dad until they show… maybe at five months or more when they can feel the baby move, and get hauled off for an abortion by her folks.
B.Moe:
“I don’t like laws that are written based on the behavior of a very small percentage of people, and I do believe it is a very small percentage.”
Once again, you’re missing the point. You’re the one advocating that a law be written. I’m advocating what is the status quo in my state: no law.
Dude, you’re advocating the departure from tradition, and from existing principles of laws governing reproductive services.
Oh, and by the way, nearly all laws are written based on the behavior of the few. The majority of people behave.
Synova has a point that occurred to me earlier. I’ve honestly got to admit that it addresses some of my arguments, since it certainly rules out secret abortions motivated by the desire to conceal the pregnancy from parents. On the other hand, full term pregnancies aren’t well hidden, are they? On second thought, her modification doesn’t really change things, does it?
In Synova’s world, the girl is screwed regardless of her decision. In New Hampshire today, the girl is screwed regardless of her decision. As a parent, I would be comforted by that. As a person and former underage adult, I’m appalled.
I don’t pretend to have the answers. However, as a person who was financially independent from my parents by the time I was 14 (seriously, I worked three jobs simultaneously throughout jr. high and high school), but lived rent-free and freeloaded off them until I turned 17, and immediately bolted to tour the world on my own terms, I tend to have more faith in teenagers than those who led more sheltered lives. Kids are only as dumb as you treat them. Faced with cold, hard, reality, they’ll surprise most people most of the time.
Hell, I managed a lucrative business at 16, and i know another commenter here who did the same at the same age–and we hired and fired employees 2-3 times our age. We actually managed competing businesses, and we handled tons of money and a lot of liability issues. Teenagers are NOT children!
Like it or not, they rise to the occasion when they need to. Their choice of tattoo or peircing might be suspect, and they might eat crap, but when handed the reins, most are as sound as adults. Oh, and don’t get me started on the fucking loser adults I encounter in my line of work–they’ve got nothing on bright hard-working responsible teenagers (if any are still allowed to aquire those attributes).
I’m done. I’ve argued far too much, and I’ve slightly contradicted myself a few too many times in this thread. I’m torn with regard to the laws, but I favor fewer intrusive laws rather than more. I have faith in kids if you give them a fair chance. I hope I don’t live to regret the chances I give my own girls.
Mark, the comments are too long to read them all, so I’ll address your points and hope I’m not repeating other people.
1) Do you really equate abortion with tattoos and piercings?
Absolutely not. An abortion is a major medical procedure that can actually threaten the life and health of a woman. An abortion, even a “well-performed” abortion, can threaten a woman’s reproductive ability. That’s pretty serious. Not to mention the fact that this procedure is done, in the case of minors, without any reference to a medical chart. And minors are not the best people from whom to get that minor’s medical history, that would be their parents. Especially reactions to certain medications.
2) 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.
Exactly. Yet abortion mills perform invasive surgery on minors without even the benefit of a complete medical history. Or do you honestly believe a minor knows their own medical history better than their parents? Of course not. They have no idea if they had bad reactions to certain medications when they were much younger. And obviously having a complete and accurate medical history is of no concern to abortion mills, because they make no attempt to obtain one.
The fact remains that medical providers are prohibited from doing anything to a minor outside of emergency life saving procedures without the parents’ consent – except of course providing abortions. The reasoning behind not performing any medical procedures without parental consent? To protect the child. Apparently, abortion advocates don’t give a rat’s ass about the child, they just want the abortion to happen come hell or high water. Sickening.
As for protecting a minor in an abusive family, or even a minor who became pregnant by a non-related man who is above the age of minority, most parental notification laws provide a procedure for getting court approval for the procedure. An easy procedure handled by a social worker called by the school, or the child directly. The important thing about that option is, any abuse automatically gets reported – further protecting the minor.
Why anyone would be against these notification laws is baffling. The arguments against them are weak, if not non-existent, and only go towards endangering the health and well being of the minor in exchange for easy on-demand abortions for minors. Sickening.
seriously, I worked three jobs simultaneously throughout jr. high and high school
Big deal? You think that’s typical? If you do, you’re deluding yourself. You talk about the loser adults you encounter in the working world, do you think they were any more proficient or well-informed as teenagers? Honestly, do you?
No Sean, I don’t think it’s typical. The difference is I was given the chance to rise to the occasion rather than being treated like a helpless child. If I could do it, why not most others? There’s nothing super about my dna–I’m made of the same shit we all are. My point is I think most teens are capable of handling their lives and making good decisions–if given the chance. I think most parents tend to quash that potential these days, and I think the state has no business intruding and making that worse.
Mark:
“However, as a person who was financially independent from my parents by the time I was 14 (seriously, I worked three jobs simultaneously throughout jr. high and high school), but lived rent-free and freeloaded off them until I turned 17, and immediately bolted to tour the world on my own terms”
This seems to be a bit of a contradiction in itself. What does “financially independent” mean in this sense? You didn’t need to ask them for spending money? Did you just freeload on the rent, or did they provide meals as well? How about healthcare, auto, or liability insurance? Did you purchase all of your other necessities with your own funds (clothes, toiletries, medicines, etc.), or let Mom & Dad chip in so that you could use reserve your own cash just for the stuff you wanted including your world tour?
“The difference is I was given the chance to rise to the occasion rather than being treated like a helpless child… My point is I think most teens are capable of handling their lives and making good decisions–if given the chance. I think most parents tend to quash that potential these days,”
Can I assume from the second quote that the situation you relate to in the first quote was a result of parents that were indulgent of your desires and allowed you the opportunity to do what you wanted, rather than you having to work those hours out of necessity? If so, your overall independence was a bit of a ruse, no? Just curious, because that is a pretty crappy foundation to use as a basis for your argument that based upon your experience, teenagers are capable of making these types of decisions.
Anyway, rules for societal interaction always involve tradeoffs. There is no absolute panacia of perfection in anything. Certainly, it is possible that parental notification could cause more harm than good in an individual case, but what is the trade-off, denying rights of every parent the opportunity to know about what could possibly be the most important and life-changing decision that their daughter may ever face? Is there any common sense to this at all?
Also, it is silly to argue that parental notification of an abortion for a minor is a case of the state overstepping its bounds. To do this you would have to assert that historically, minors have always had the right to do whatever they wanted without their parents having the right to know about it. We know that is not the case, and our laws have always recognized this. Now you are arguing that since there is no specific legislation requiring a parent to be notified of this procedure, that somehow the default position in this instance, is that the parent never had the right in the first place? So seeking to assert that right is a case of the government overstepping its bounds? That seems backwards to me.
Sorry I seemed to have dropped out of the discussion- we got very busy at our house with new house building plans.
I would like to respond to two or three (I think) points really quickly.
1. an abortion or D. & C. is simply not as simple and normal a procedure as a waxing. I miscarried at the end of my third term once and had to have a D & C, and it’s really, frankly, just idiotic to claim that this procedure is equivilant to gettin external hairs removed. It requires anesthesia. I was awake, but under gas and constantly monitored by my anesthesiologist. Some kids have bad reactions to that, and they might not know it or remember it.
It HURT, even with the anesthesia, and I needed stronger meds to deal with the pain when I went home- prescription meds.
You can continue bleeding for quite a bit after a D & C- for some it’s like a heavy cycle, for others it’s like the bleeding after giving birth. There’s a lot of info on danger signs, what to look out for, when you should come back in, etc. Parents need to know this.
2. Mark (?) it really is a fact that the death rate to women from illegal abortions before Roe V. Wade is about the same as the death rate from legal abortions afterward. The coat-hangers in back alleys really is a pro-abortion myth- I’ve given you one site on that already. I have more- really, you’re the one making claims without good evidence. It’s your turn to back up your claim with evidence.
3. You want to know who here is pro-life as though that will prove something about the merits of arguments in favor of parental notification. I’d like to know what other surgery you think it would be okay to give to your minor child without letting you know anything at all about it.
I’ve been thinking really hard about this, trying to be extremely honest with myself, and the only time I can think of when I would consider it justified for surgery to be performed on my minor children without my knowledge would be a truly immediate, life or death emergency. If her appendix burst or she was in a horrible car accident and she was in danger of immminent death and I could not be located- yeah, then they had better operate without me- but there had absolutely better be somebody trying to reach me the entire time- not for the least reason because I might know things about her that they don’t know and she is unable to tell them- or, in the case of an abortion, might not think to mention- passing out over heavy periods, hypertrophic scarring, responding to most anesthetics with shakes, tremors, and nausea; mitrovalve prolapse (which requires an antibiotic for *dental surgery,* childbirth, and would also need it for an abortion), bleeding disorders, this sort of list goes on and on.
There is also not any justification I can think of in *any* situation for performing surgery and sending the kid home without letting the parents know.
And finally, sometimes a girl wants an abortion for mistaken reasons- she needs a chance to talk things out with her parents who can give answers nobody else can. Some girls don’t want to tell their parents not because they are afraid of abuse, but because they hate to break their parent’s hearts. Having to talk to her parents would let her know there are more heartbreaking things to them than having a pregnant daughter.
Bottom line is, abortion is a medical event, it’s surgery. Since when do we operate on kids without notifying their parents?