Parental Notification Of Abortion Is Not Comparable To Ear Piercing
Let’s deal with my title first. Just because a minor can’t get their ears pierced without parental notification doesn’t make it the bar we should set our standards. Perhaps making a minor wait until they are 18 to pierce their ears is silly. If you disagree with me on that point, fine. The law, as it stands, is on your side, but can we please stop holding this up as a serious example in the parental notification for abortion law?
As a parent I can see why parents would want to know if their daughter was getting an abortion, but I’d lay money that if my daughter wanted an abortion I wouldn’t be finding out about it from a phone call from a stranger at a clinic. And if I was then there are bigger problems than abortion/pregnancy within my family. Perhaps, those families should have to partake in mandatory family counseling? How dare I suggest such a thing! Right?
But I’m more than a parent. I’m a woman. More importantly I was a teenage girl. And when I travel back in time to those years this parental notification thing concerns me. First, the idea that a 16 year old would avail herself of the legal system to get an abortion is laughable. Won’t happen… unless there is an outside adult to guide her. Bet the “pro-lifers” would love that. So add another teenage mother to the statistics – which is really the point of this bill. Or we can add another backroom abortion, internet remedy to the pile. Because those are the choices this law places on the table.
But if you’re okay with the parental notification for abortion law, then why stop there? Why not parental notification for pregnancy? Pro-life parents can celebrate the upcoming birth by purchasing pre-natal vitamins and a manger, while pro-choice parents can decide whether they’ll keep the baby… or not. Hey, if this is about parental notification, let’s notify from the beginning. I’m not kidding. If a pregnant teen girl decides to keep her baby then her parents should be notified immediately so they can either support or overrule her decision. And if a parent decides that their daughter will have the baby, I’m sure the “pro-lifers” would be fine with that… exactly like they’d support the parent who insists on their daughter having an abortion. Oh, wait…
Starting to see where this law is rooted?
And, yet again, where are the men? Let’s start legislating them. Perhaps they should be left holding the baby. At the very least the parents of the father of the baby should have to be notified, as well. He should also have to appear in court with the mother of his child, and if he wants her to have the baby, despite her wishes, he – and his parents – must raise and provide financially for the child. No excuses.
I’m being very, very sarcastic with that last paragraph, but it does seem to me that – removing “pro-lifers” – one of the reasons the daughter’s parents are okay with this law is that the daughter’s parents are left footing the bill – which is a valid concern if you view this situation from the parents’ viewpoint, and not the teenage girls. That’s what’s also missing from this debate. The girl’s wishes… which she made pretty damn clear by seeking an abortion without having a heart-to-heart with her parents. But who cares what she wants. She’s a child – a child who probably has her ears pierced.
How about this… a law that states that it’s the parent’s responsibility to provide birth control to their teenager? And if they don’t they have to raise and pay for the baby? Why not make this “parents are in charge” really mean something – something prior to pregnancy. I’m warming to this parent responsibility theme.
I’m not kidding either. I’m perfectly OK with notification of pregnancy — in fact, I brought up that point before I heard anyone else make it.
If you want to go at this logical inconsistency in law from the opposite direction, I’m with you on that, too. Make 16 the age of consent for tanning beds, ear piercing, and who knows how many other procedures for which a provider must check ID.
But you’re still left with the problem that I’m legally liable for what a 17-year-old does, but I’m not entitled to participate in this decision because, somewhere out there, bad parents have made their girls afraid to talk to them.
Sorry, but that’s a shit excuse for a law — I lose my parental rights because lousy parents haven’t exercised their parental responsibilities. If that’s the best logic you can come up with, sorry, that’s a fail, and it explains why 70% of the public supports the tenets of HB 80.
“pro-life” posturing on the right is nauseating. There are tried and true things that we could do to bring down teen pregnancy rates (which would have the effect of reducing abortions) that we will not do because these cheap common sense programs don’t not punish women for having sex.
That’s the bottom line. Everything else is electioneering.
But you’re still left with the problem that I’m legally liable for what a 17-year-old does, but I’m not entitled to participate in this decision because, somewhere out there, bad parents have made their girls afraid to talk to them.
Bad parents are the sort a teenage girl can’t come to whether they want an abortion or to have the baby.
Your financial argument holds more water with me because, as a parent, you’d need to sign onto the financial obligation. That involves you. The abortion? Not so much.
So… let’s scrap the parental notification of abortion and go with mandatory notification of pregnancy. Because that’s really what you’re talking about.
Here’s the deal: If parental notification results in a 16/17 year old girl having a baby she would have aborted then her parents must assume all financial responsibilities for that child. No kicking the daughter and baby out of the house when the daughter turns 18. If parents want to make this call then they must own it and pay for it for at least 18 years – no matter what their daughter does.
OK by me. But I’m not talking in grand terms of what would be fairest to all involved. I’m talking about the logical gap in the law that has provided anti-abortion folks the opening they have seized upon here. The easiest, but politcally impractical, solution would be to lower all the other ages of consent to 16.
Geez you are wayyy far from the point. A human being forced to give birth or not by another human being is just plain wrong. The answer is NOT at the Piercing Pagoda!
“A human being forced to give birth or not by another human being is just plain wrong.”
This statement is what’s far from the point. Under current law, a parent gets to do just that if the girl is 15. Calling a legal minor a “human being” is off by a long way when we’re talking about legalities. The discussion is about whether what’s good for a 15-year-old ought to apply to 16- and 17-year-olds as well.
EDIT: Moved from the GA Thread.
Legal rights and accountability are very hard to separate. If you have the legal responsibility for a kid until age 18, then you ought to be legally responsible for that kids offspring if they are having kids under 18 and you insist on forced birth as your parental legal right.
No one is talking about removing kids from homes, but I think you have a pretty limited view of what counts as a dysfunctional family. And in how the state gets to know that they ought to be in intervention mode. And not much appreciation for the life change a parent insisting on a forced birth is using their so-called rights to enforce.
What I *am* talking about is making sure that the rights of the young woman forced into parenthood that she doesn’t want — if we are infringing on her rights, then we definitely need to make sure that the accountability for the result is strictly enforced. Which means that parents insisting on forced birth should have some legal accountability for that birth. As should the man (and young man’s family) who impregnated her.
Again, no problem from me. However, you are again citing cases for which we have no data but anecdotes. My view, by the way, is formed in part by the state social worker I have lived next door to for the past dozen years. It’s not as limited as you seem to think.
I am asking for either a logical reason why abortion should be an exception to our general principle of 18 as the age of consent (in a related question, why are 16-year-olds treated differently from 15-year-olds?) or evidence that the needs of these so-far-imaginary girls exist in numbers large enough to override the rights of everyone else who would be caught up in the net of an overly broad law.
Which means that parents insisting on forced birth should have some legal accountability for that birth. As should the man (and young man’s family) who impregnated her.
Exactly! This isn’t about being responsible for the pregnant teen and her baby while she’s a minor. It has to be “legal accountability.” Big time.
And if we placed any sort of legal accountability on the boy/man and his parents that would go a long way to curbing teen pregnancy.
I’m am really tired of all the legislation targeting women/girls.
Maybe we should pass a law ordering teen boys (or unmarried men) to have a vasectomy. Everyone okay with that?
I’m legally liable for what a 17-year-old does
Please explain. I’ve never heard of this doctrine.
“I’m am really tired of all the legislation targeting women/girls.”
I’m tired of everyone here acting as if a 16-year-old is a woman and not a girl.
“If we placed any sort of legal accountability on the boy/man and his parents that would go a long way to curbing teen pregnancy”
Try the courts. Child support is the law no matter what the age of the father, and while I’m not a lawyer, I’m pretty sure the parents would have to pay if the father is underage.
John: If your 17-year-old invites her friends over for a beer party while you’re out of town and one of them gets drunk and kills someone on her way home, guess who gets sued? You. If your 17-year-old goes out and tags Hagley Museum with graffiti, guess who gets the bill for reparations? You. And so on.
Everyone wants to focus on the pregnant teens in bad families. I still don’t know how many of them seek abortions, and neither do you. I get on conservatives all the time for empathizing with fictional people, fetuses included. I don’t see why liberals should get a pass.
I get that the law treats a 15 year old differently from a 16 year old, but I don’t agree. If a 14 or 15 year old girl becomes pregnant I’d afford her the same rights. This legislative line makes no sense to me. IMO, it’s just lazy legislating – ear piercing and flag burning. Not much difference to the nodding heads.
Again, to be clear, I’m not pro-life. I ridicule that position by talking about the “fetus-Americans” they claim to speak for. And I realize that the purported reason for this bill, and the reasons I”m talking about, have little or nothing to do with why they want this bill — they’re actively seeking a slippery slope.
But what’s obvious to liberals is not obvious to everyone. The data point y’all ought to address is the 70% support for the bill. That figure includes a majority of choice supporters.
Pandora: You’re exactly right. But that lazy lawmaking is what has provided the opening for the pro-lifers on this issue.
I’m tired of everyone here acting as if a 16-year-old is a woman and not a girl.
A pregnant 16 year old is a women. In fact, we – as a society – mark the onset on menstruation as becoming a women. Because they can now become pregnant!
Everyone gets sued, whether or not there’s liability. Where is the strict liability that you initially asserted? Actual negligence would have to be proven in the house party situation. Hagley would not be able to collect. Has your experience been different?
Bad reason to impair rights of young women old enough to choose.
If your daughter trusts you she will tell you. If she doesn’t trust you, then she shouldn’t have to tell you and neither should anyone else. I do have a daughter and I believe she would tell me if the time ever came. If she did not trust me it would be a life-changing wakeup call for me.
Abortion is different because of the stakes involved. Just ask any pro-lifer. Little is at stake if you are forced to tell your parents about your suntan or your ear piercing.
The data point y’all ought to address is the 70% support for the bill. That figure includes a majority of choice supporters.
Not so sure that public support for constraining anyone’s rights is an especially good reason to support it. And, as usual, we find ourselves with a public who wants to treat women as children without compelling anyone to be the supportive parent in this case.
Besides, the public supports all kinds of anti-abortion positions that have little to do with reality, largely because the anti-abortion groups have been spinning out tales that leave people believing that you can go get a 3rd trimester abortion on demand.
What do you mean by “strict liability”? That parents go to prison for crimes committed by minors? My experience has been that you better get a damn good lawyer to avoid being found negligent. I know someone who lost his house over just such a party.
“Bad reason to impair rights of young women old enough to choose.” The controversy is over whether they are in fact old enough to choose. You split hairs over my point, they apply yours with a broad brush, showing the intellectual dishonesty I have come to expect from you.
Sixteen-year-olds do not have full legal rights. You still haven’t explained why they should.
“A pregnant 16 year old is a women. In fact, we – as a society – mark the onset on menstruation as becoming a women. Because they can now become pregnant!”
Wrong. The average age of the onset of puberty for American girls is under 10 full years (Wikipedia), meaning the process is complete at an average of 14. Besides which, the law (as opposed to “society”) does not recognize 16 as the age of majority.
“Not so sure that public support for constraining anyone’s rights is an especially good reason to support it.”
They are not “anyone,” they are children. As has been noted by others, we restrict their rights in many, many ways.
“If your daughter trusts you she will tell you. If she doesn’t trust you, then she shouldn’t have to tell you and neither should anyone else.”
You have every right to this belief. I have every right to find it a flimsy justification for termination of parental rights.
They should have full legal rights over their bodies. For example, a 16/15/14/13/ etc. should be able to say yes or no to another chemotherapy treatment.
Sheesh, Geezer, we make ridiculous age decisions all the time. Rather than take them as the do all, end all perhaps we should start fighting the stupidity… like joining the military at 18, but not being able to drink until 21.
Also, I’m hearing an awful lot about how this affects parents. The girl… not so much.
Also, also… if your point is that you’d be financially responsible for the baby then her having an abortion would erase that argument.
They are not “anyone,” they are children. As has been noted by others, we restrict their rights in many, many ways.
So now they are children — female children only! — who are being forced into birth, which is a further restriction of their rights. And their lives.
And here’s the given in the argument: They are teenage girls trying to get an abortion. They have already made their decision. Any steps after this point are designed to overturn/delay that choice.
Strict liability occurs when someone is found civilly [or criminally liable] without regard for state of mind, intent, etc.
16-year-old girls are old enough to engage in sex, http://delcode.delaware.gov/title11/c005/sc02/index.shtml#770, and are old enough to decide whether or not to become mothers.
the decision to be a parent belongs to the prospective birth parent period!
Pandora, a 16 year old is not an adult.
a 16 year old girl (or boy) is not mentally or physically matured… not even close. 14-20 is a weird time. some people mature much faster than others, some THINK they do. I can tell ya, I work in a college and am surrounded by 20-22 year old boys and girls, NOT men and women.
the 4th paragraph of your post is uncharacteristicly hyperbolic. Im certain the drafters of this law came from a bad place, and I’m totally with you on the idea that the right wing is trying to punish women for being women. I also will never know what it means to be pregnant and I’m kinda happy about that, I get a paper cut and I’m DLed for a few hours in agony.
Let’s look at this proposal as if a pro-choice Democrat put it forward. In that scenario, i can see it being about what is best for the pregnant child. (first of all, the sperm donor gets no claim on the decision at any age unless, I would argue, within marriage.. and in that case i would just want to know and be able to offer support accordingly)
We already have age restrictive laws regarding sex so matured adults can’t prey on emotionally undeveloped and hormone-driven teens. Those laws are a good thing. My ideal version of the law? the girl has the final say in matters regarding her body…. but parent’s and guardians should be made aware unless extenuating circumstances prevails i.e her father is pat robertson and he might kill her.
I have to say, im pro-choice, but last resort pro choice. maybe because a few consecutive generations of my family are the product of failed birth control including myself. I dont think a 17 year old should be forced to birth and raise a child, but I would also LOVE to see the foster care and adoptive services in this country improved so abortions can one day will be limited, by choice…not by law, to medical necessity.
Force the parents to have to adopt the child. Or the childs legal gardian. Let them have a new baby to deal with.
Doesn’t this violate medical privacy? Why are we ignoring the fact that it may be dangerous for some girls to inform their parents of a pregnancy?
UI–The bill makes provision for such cases. Also, PARENTS are privy to their children’s medical records.
Is see this as being no different than that ridiculous bill last year that would require parental consent before a teacher could assign one of 100 books to their class.
The point of the book consent bill was to make it so difficult for teachers to assign one of those 100 books that they would eventually just bag it, no more “Outsiders” no more Vonnegut, no “Grapes of Wrath.” It was backdoor book banning, just like this abortion bill is a backdoor way of preventing abortions.
It’s time to be firm with the radical pro life right wing, it’s time to tell them to shut the fuck up and deal with the LEGALITY of abortion. If they want to have parental consent before their child has an abortion, we need to tell them to put on their man pants and be better parents, and then they will be able to make the decision WITH their daughter and not FOR their daughter.
Just the fact that this bill comes out of the Delaware Family Policy Council should make it clear what the ultimate intent is, and it’s time to tell the DFPC where they can shove it, if “it” can fit past the gigantic sticks jammed up their asses.
“And here’s the given in the argument: They are teenage girls trying to get an abortion. They have already made their decision. Any steps after this point are designed to overturn/delay that choice.”
Thank you for recognizing that they are teenage girls. They are not adults and they are unable to consent to have a doctor remove a wart from their finger w/o their parent’s permission. Why should they have to power to grant permission for a doctor to perform a much more invasive medical procedure?
FWIW, I’m pro-choice where ADULT women are concerned. I’m pro-parent where CHILDREN are concerned.
Doesn’t everyone know some stupid teenager who pierced their own ears or had one of their friends do it and they ended up with an infection or a ruined ear lobe?
Let’s not force our teenage girls into the back alley for a procedure that should be safe and legal. And don’t be stupid, they WILL go to the back alley, just like they did prior to Roe v. Wade. `
The time for PARENTING is BEFORE your kid is pregnant, not AFTER. Keep it legal, keep it safe for everyone.
The time for PARENTING is BEFORE your kid is pregnant, not AFTER. Keep it legal, keep it safe for everyone.
Thank you, Captain Obvious.
One of my HS classmates was the daughter of a Baptist preacher. Her parents were very conservative & instilled what Newt Gingrich would call “Traditional American Values” in her from birth.
It didn’t take. She was a huge coke whore & I wouldn’t be surprised if she had at least 1 abortion before the age of 18 and prob. more in college.
Her parents did everything they could to raise her right, but she still turned out to be a tramp. Should they not have the right to know if their daughter is pregnant & considering termination? BTW, this particular family would have adopted their daughter’s child & raised it as their own.
Ah yes, a “whore” and a “tramp” so happy to see the pro woman crowd out this evening.
Just because she was the daughter of a “Baptist preacher” doesn’t mean her parents weren’t dysfunctional assholes. Since you like to speculate on this woman’s personal life, allow me to speculate about her parents, they probably WERE assholes and most likely the REASON she turned to drugs.
No woman should be forced by anyone to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. A teenage girl’s fetus is NOT the property of her parents. If you don’t want your kid to have an abortion, learn to talk to them BEFORE they get pregnant.
Whore? Tramp? Who “probably” had more than one abortion?
*wince*
You do realize if you talk like this in front of your daughter then I wouldn’t count on her being able to come to you for help.
Under what circumstances should a minor child be provided medical attention without consent of the parents? Certainly in emergency situations when the child’s life is at stake such as an accident. You would not let the child perish simply because no parent was not available to authorize an emergency tracheotomy. In cases where there is no parental authority, the state allows for treatment, effectively the state becomes the proxy parent.
Is there ever a situation where medical treatment, which is not life threatening, and therefore elective, can be provided to a minor without parental consent? I would think that the answer would be generally no. So are there exceptions? Well one might be if the minor child were emancipated, but then they would no longer be considered minor.
At what age would a minor be able to give their consent and recognize the risks and consequences? If the age is 16, why 16? why not 15 or 14? I suppose the argument might be that the line needs to be drawn somewhere but if so, why 16? What’s the rational basis for that?
Is there an acceptable alternative to parental consent? The state can step in when it perceives it to be in the child’s best interests and the parents would be unwilling to authorize the medical procedure or the child would be at risk if the parent were notified. State intervention does have precedence (Terri Shiavo for example).
So except in cases of emancipation, should there be some adult authorization required, whether it be the parents, the state, or some authorized temporary guardian or should the minor be allowed to obtain medical treatment on their own?
I believe if one is a minor, then some authorization from an adult with some legitimate responsibility for the minor is necessary and the right thing to do. In most cases it would be the parents. For some cases the state could create a mechanism that allows an adult advocate for the child to be responsible for that authorization when the minor would be at some risk if the parents were involved. For those who believe that this restricts parental rights, well it does, and the state does have some obligations in that regard such as mandating school atttendance, driving, drinking, end of life decisions, etc.
“16-year-old girls are old enough to engage in sex, and are old enough to decide whether or not to become mothers.”
The code says only that they’re old enough to engage in sex.
Seriously, you’ve put forward nothing except your assertions in this discussions — nothing in the way of evidence. I didn’t realize you were so lousy at this.
Backed into a corner, having developed belated parental concern with how 17-year-olds are behaving, the Dillettante says his counterparties are “lousy.”
And yes, the law allows 17-year-old women to decide whether they want to become mothers. The Dillettante and his anti-choice friends want to end this stable state of affairs. Abortion strikes them as icky.
The interesting thing here is that I’m simply putting forward a justification for the proposed bill. Nothing anyone has said constitutes an evidence-based argument against it. Nothing. All I’m getting is a bunch of scare stories about terrible parents forcing girls to bear children. There’s not a shred of evidence beyond an anecdote or two indicating the prevalence of such cases, which would show the law needs to stand as is.
The issue isn’t whether or not YOU think it should be legal, or what the historical justifications for legal abortion are, or your passionate anger at pro-lifers, or what policy towards minors ought to be. I’m asking for refutation of the pro-life position on this very specific proposal.
Here, let me help: The best answer to the ear-piercing point was finally hit upon by anon, who pointed out that if you make it illegal they’ll do it themselves. That’s also an answer to the “dental surgery” argument the pro-lifers have used (refer them to the story a few weeks back of the New Jersey 17-year-old who pulled his own teeth with pliers because his father wouldn’t take him to the dentist).
What you haven’t found an answer to is the reality that most parents would want to be notified. Hence the 70% support.
Here’s the real-world result of Delaware’s current law: The folks who hired Kermit Gosnell advertise for patients in Pa., where notification is stricter. So if the idea is to keep abortion “safe” for such girls, I’d have to call the law a failure on that score.
Again, while the bill was killed in committee, I’m sure it will be back. If you want to change minds among the 70% who support the idea, you’re going to have to come up with something more convincing.
Ah, the ad hominem attack. Backed into a corner, eh? You’re the one without an argument, pal.
Sorry Geezer, nobody appointed you professor. I don’t recall registering for this class. So what if there is 70% support? We don’t legislate by polls.
That 70% support is an issue of tyranny of the majority. Most of those 70% would never be affected by the law. The notification law by its nature affects only a very small part of the population, but that is exactly who it is designed to protect.
We are talking about a conflict between two unwritten sets of rights. One is a minor’s right to their own future, and the other is parental rights or some portion thereof. Neither is in the Constitution, so we are making it up as we go along – which is exactly what we are supposed to be doing.
What really bothers me is that all the players aren’t at the table, and the only one with skin in the game is the teenage girl.
The argument is: Parents have a right to be notified which would then include them in the decision. And… then what?
If they support the girl’s decision to have an abortion (because, remember, that decision has already been made by the teenager) then I guess it’s a happy ending – or not, depending on the emotional fallout from the scenario.
If they don’t support the abortion decision, then… does this become a “because I said so” situation. There’s no law dictating that they would have to be financially responsible for the child’s life. Add that. Legislate it just like child support.
The other missing players are the boy/father and his parents. Do they have a right to know? Bet the number of people who would agree that they do would come close to that 70%. And what if the boy’s parents disagree with the girl’s parent’s? Who decides?
But maybe we’re approaching this all wrong. Maybe we’re simply heading towards chastity belts to protect our property. Okay, a little snarky, but every time someone says my responsibility I keep hearing my property.
While I think that parents should be able to make decisions regarding the health of their children (except where their decision will likely result in the death or disability of their child), I do not think that they should have the right to tell their teenage daughters to not get an abortion. The problem w/ those who think that parents should have that right is that they assume that the ramifications of that decision only extend to the health of their child, but clearly it does not. By telling their daughters not to abortion, they are committing their child to a lifelong relationship that will extend even into their daught adult years. I can no more support a parent’s right to do that than I could support a parent’s “right” to c their daugters to relationships in arranged marriages.
The argument is: Parents have a right to be notified which would then include them in the decision.
Exactly. Supporters don’t want notification rights – they want veto rights. Or rather – since most people will never be affected – they want other parents to have veto rights.
“That 70% support is an issue of tyranny of the majority. Most of those 70% would never be affected by the law. The notification law by its nature affects only a very small part of the population, but that is exactly who it is designed to protect.”
No evidence has been presented that it protects anyone at all. As for not enrolling in the class, you’re free to ignore the subject. You chose to engage. I don’t care if you don’t. But when you do, I’m going to point out that your argument isn’t simply weak, it’s non-existent.
When conservatives start whining about “small-business owners” being gored by an increase in marginal tax rates, I call bullshit and ask to see evidence instead of the imaginary people they’re conjured up. I’m doing the same here. If you can’t cite numbers, how is that my fault?
@Dana,
That’s the most sound argument for not requiring notification that I’ve heard.
What is the rationale for parents committing the minor to a lifelong relationship? Is there some precedent for that already? I mean is the some other way in which parents radically affect their child’s future in that manner? Parents choose where to live, where a child goes to school, sometimes who their friends are, and even who they marry (at least in some societies). I can’t think of any other decision parents make that has that kind of impact.
Still parents of minor child has some rights. So the conundrum is how to provide for a child’s right but remain cognizant of parental rights as well? Perhaps a parallel would be a child who is seriously ill and decides they want to live out the remainder of their lives fully conscious and functioning instead of the constant burden of chemo. Certainly a child should have some say so and sometimes the parents accede to the childs wishes, sometimes they don’t. And when they do agree, sometimes the state steps in and forces the treatment upon on the child.
I think it is clear that sometimes both the parents and the state are not good advocates for children. It would seem to me that a children’s advocate is necessary, both for those times when the state is compromising the child’s rights and when the parents are. I remain convinced that the some adult should be involved who can assist the child with such life altering decisions. There are those who would argue that is the role of the parents. Generally I would agree, but sometimes it is not and for those times it needs to be someone else in whom the child can have confidence. I think I would require either parental notification or notification (and counseling) through an children’s advocacy service that can help the child reach a decision that they can live with. The child should have someplace to turn to if they cannot turn to their parents.
“I do not think that they should have the right to tell their teenage daughters to not get an abortion.”
Should they have the right to tell them to get an abortion?
Geezer, nobody accepts that your question is even useful or relevant. Persistently demanding answers to a dumb question is an old troll technique. It is a sign you got nothing, but you want to stay in the discussion anyway and even pretend to lead it.
Nobody is going to give you a list of troubled teens who saved major portions of their sanity and their future by having an abortion without their parents knowledge, so stop asking. It doesn’t exist because we don’t collect that data, and rightly so. Proponents and opponents of notification both lack data, so the discussion must proceed on other grounds.
So its about rights and responsibilities? Doesn’t the parent lose some rights for not rearing the children responsibly?
While there are a few good arguments here, the win is rose and a prayer failed. They and their American Taliban friends will be back to take away the freedom of others.
Should they have the right to tell them to get an abortion?
No. Sorry, but that’s like closing the barn door after the horse has bolted.
As a former teenage girl I remember when a friend found out she was pregnant. She was adamant that she couldn’t go to her parents. I thought she could, since her parents seemed (one can never know) very supportive. Her reasoning was that she didn’t want to alter her relationship with her father. She didn’t want to let him down. She didn’t want him to look at her differently. She knew he would love her and support her, but she also knew that this would be a relationship altering experience. So, it isn’t always about abortion or keeping the baby. There are real people involved here.
I am interfering with an ongoing debate here, however, I felt the need to comment from my perspective. I am VERY pro-life, but PLEASE do not confuse me with a right wing republican (*shudders*)! I feel like all “pro-lifers” are being grouped together as horrible people. With that being said, I cannot say that I support this bill. However, I also hope that I will have a relationship with my daughter, who is currently 3, where she would feel comfortable talking to me about anything. An abortion must be a HUGE burden to bear and no doubt anyone, especially a child, making that decision should do it with as much guidance as possible. We don’t own our children, though. It is not our job as a parent to make every life decision for them until they are 18, which is why I can’t support this bill. I also didn’t have the relationship with my mom growing up where if I had been in this situation, and been pro-choice, that I could have gone to her and talked about it and for that, this bill is simply not fair.
“Geezer, nobody accepts that your question is even useful or relevant.”
Bullshit. I know you love to claim you speak for more than yourself, but you speak only for yourself. If it’s such a pointless and uninteresting argument, why are so many people engaged in it?
“Persistently demanding answers to a dumb question is an old troll technique.”
It’s not a dumb question just because it’s one you can’t answer.
“Nobody is going to give you a list of names of troubled teens who saved major portions of their sanity by having an abortion without their parents knowledge,”
I’m not asking for names. I’m asking for statistics. In enacting a law, one customary way of gaining passage is showing its necessity. These exceptions to parental rights were granted without any such step of which I’m aware.
“so stop asking.”
I have a better idea: stop answering, since you can’t.
“It doesn’t exist.”
You don’t know if it exists or not.
“Proponents and opponents of notification both lack data,”
The lack of reliable numbers is a part of the problem here — the state apparently did not collect the data it’s supposed to collect. We don’t even know how many under-18 abortions were performed because of that.
“so the discussion must oroceed on other grounds.”
I didn’t ask for a “discussion.” I’m not interested in a “discussion.” I’m not interested in your passion or the “rightness” of your position or what’s fair or what a best-possible-world solution would be. Either come up with a REASON-BASED argument or realize that the pro-life people have a better case on this issue than you do.
“No. Sorry, but that’s like closing the barn door after the horse has bolted.”
So you think parents should have no rights to decide what an underage girl does with her body or her pregnancy? What about the situation in which your 16-year-old is pregnant and has come under the influence of pro-lifers, who have convinced her to carry to term?
“Her reasoning was that she didn’t want to alter her relationship with her father. She didn’t want to let him down. She didn’t want him to look at her differently. She knew he would love her and support her, but she also knew that this would be a relationship altering experience. So, it isn’t always about abortion or keeping the baby. There are real people involved here.”
So we must have this law to help underage girls lie to their parents. Got it. Funny that of the “real people involved here” you so easily dismiss the concerns of her parents. I’m guessing they were real people, too.
This hideous legislation was rejected yesterday in the House and Human Development Committee.
Thank you, Cornmuffn for your input here. It is never interference to add to the conversation so hope you stick around to add some more.
Hideous, eh? Strong judgment for a guy who can state no reason for his support. Never seen you this lost for words, John.
I haven’t dismissed anyone’s concerns. What I haven’t done is give the parent a right to have “more” concern without backing it up with equally demanding legislation. I’m really tired of giving people the right to veto other people’s choices without any consequences.
And if we are allowing someone other than the pregnant person to weigh in on this decision, then we should be all for bringing the boy and his parents (they’re real people, too) to the table. Or… is it okay to exclude them from the decision? Especially if they disagree with the girl’s parents?
I’m also tired of people comparing pregnancy and giving birth to getting ears pierced and a wart removed. If you don’t see the difference, then I don’t know what to say other than it’s demeaning.
BTW, this particular family would have adopted their daughter’s child & raised it as their own.
You know, I think that if Parental Notification rules *require* the notified parents to adopt the child of their minor daughter, that we might have our solution. Not a perfect one, certainly, but at least the parents who claim all of this responsibility get to have the full measure of it.
Exactly, Cassandra. Let’s legislate their responsibilities.
And, I still want to hear how people for parental notification feel about involving the boy’s parents in this decision.
“I’m really tired of giving people the right to veto other people’s choices without any consequences.”
Now let’s change the sentence to make it accurate to this discussion: “I’m really tired of giving parents the right to veto children’s choices without any consequences.” Not quite the same, is it?
“I’m also tired of people comparing pregnancy and giving birth to getting ears pierced and a wart removed. If you don’t see the difference, then I don’t know what to say other than it’s demeaning.”
Try to see the comparison from your opponents’ point of view. They’re saying what you are. They AGREE with you that there’s no comparison in terms of seriousness. Now take the next step: Why must parents legally get involved in ear piercing but can be legally exluded from determining the fate of a pregnancy?
“You know, I think that if Parental Notification rules *require* the notified parents to adopt the child of their minor daughter, that we might have our solution.”
This isn’t about finding a solution. It’s a binary question: Do you support such a law or not? When that question was polled, 70% agreed parents have a right to be notified, giving pro-lifers a strong arguing point for their bill. That’s going to be their line of attack next year, which you’ll recall is an election year.
“They and their American Taliban friends will be back to take away the freedom of others.”
Others like their parents? Sorry, but this is a case of competing rights.
Interesting how posters here are so certain what the outcome of these cases would be. That’s a strong sign we’re talking about imaginary people, not real ones.
Assuming what? That parental notification could result in over-ruling a decision the pregnant teen already made?
I’m also noticing, Geezer, that you’re pretty quiet about involving the father of the baby and his parents. You’re also quiet about legislating parent responsibility (liability)… something you started out promoting, but are now calling a binary question and stating that it isn’t about finding a solution.
“Should they [the parents] have the right to tell them to get an abortion?”
No, and for the same reason. The child should have a right to decide w/ whom they wish to have a lifelong relationship, especially when the person is their own issue.
Our legislators have vetoed this sortie from the forced-pregnancy lobby.
It’s best neither to be woofing in victory nor whimpering in defeat. Miami Heat were most recent exhibit on Wednesday night. I’d encourage Geezer to focus his efforts on electing a pro-life GOP legislature.
I agree with involving the father and his parents. Tis his baby and their grandchild also. Or, instead of a parental consent bill, how about a father consent bill? The father of the child must consent to his girlfriend having the abortion. Then we can interlace parental consent that the girls parents must consent to her having an abortion, the father must consent to her having an abortion and the fathers parents must consent to him consenting to the girl having an abortion. As pro-life as I am, no matter what way you look at it, the pregnant girl is the only one who loses her decision in all of this, meanwhile she is the most important one in the whole situation. It’s just not a good bill. Maybe they should look at instituting mandatory CONFIDENTIAL counseling before performing abortions instead (maybe this is already in place though? I am not privy to the whole process). Let an unbiased qualified person counsel the minors about the decision and offer them alternative measures as well and then after that let the pregnant girl decide for herself!
I’d encourage John to review what I have written on abortion before instead of focusing his rage on me. I’d also point out that the rage seems to come from his inability to mount a cogent argument (“we won” is not an argument). Direct your rage where it belongs, John: at yourself.
This proposal will be back, and if all opponents can muster is John Manifold’s self-righteousness, it will someday pass.
Pandora: I don’t care a fig about this proposal one way or the other. My point was that I agree with you, and that none of that matters. They have put forward a compelling argument. Liberals here have come forward with no compelling refutation.
I actually don’t agree with involving anyone but the pregnant teen, but thanks, Cornmuffn, for your consistency. I brought up the point because it seems that some people are comfortable in expanding the circle of those involved in decision making only up to a certain point.
How would the girl’s parents feel if they had to consider the boy’s parents’ wishes if they conflicted with their own? Is this really coming down to property rights?
Your argument, Pandora, consists of saying 16-year-olds should be able to make all these decisions on their own. Fair enough, but I suspect that’s not a position the majority would agree with. We have that evidence on this particular question.
It’s a binary question because all that’s before us (or was when this all started) is this single proposal. “The Way Things Ought To Be” was what Rush Limbaugh called his first book, and I still say that’s the problem with the entire conservative agenda: It’s about creating perfect conditions that have little to nothing to do with what’s possible in the real world.
Here in Liberal Land, nobody has any problem with 16-year-olds making life decisions. You should hardly act surprised that reality looks very different in Conservative Corners, where parents want to control their children much longer.
Correction — conservative parents want to control their *female* children much longer, and most of them (parents or no) want to control all females of child-bearing age.
“Conservative parents want to control their *female* children much longer, and most of them (parents or no) want to control all females of child-bearing age.”
That belief seems to be why the issue elicits such venom here. Those who feel that way should acknowledge that they merely want to substitute someone else’s judgment for the (hypothetical) parents’ — which is precisely what bothers the pro-lifers about the current law.
Sometimes it’s good to put the shoe on the other foot so you learn how it feels.
If it has completely escaped your attention that your teen daughter is having sex… then that she has become pregnant… then that she is agonizing over an abortion – you probably don’t know your daughter well enough to qualify to participate in her decision.
I was surprised to learn that Delaware was one of the few states that doesn’t already have this as a law. It only failed by 1 vote in the House this time and with the poll numbers behind it I’m sure it will pass eventually.
anon: Thank you for adding nothing valuable. You are full of judgments of everyone who even might dare disagree with you, none of them kind. It’s why nobody likes you.
Occam: It failed a committee, not the House, by one vote. And nobody cares what you’re “sure” of. If you want to predict the future, I recommend a visit to Delaware Park.
Sometimes it’s good to put the shoe on the other foot so you learn how it feels.
This is not a game to some of us. And perhaps you should have noted that you thought so alot earlier.
Because a very big part of the conservative project *is* about controlling women. In Texas recently they passed a sonogram law that makes the doctor the woman’s parent — the physician has to not just provide the sonogram, but to describe the features of the fetus. The only reason to make a Grown Woman live through this is to reinforce the idea that she couldn’t possibly make a decision about the risks and dangers to her own life. And young women who can certainly decide to have sex without parental notification, buy many forms of birth control without parental notification should be allowed to manage their own risks and dangers as regards a pregnancy too.
This is not hypothetical. And the young women who do not have reasonable access to medical abortions retreat to solutions they find on the internet. Solutions that are way more dangerous than the medical procedure AND that they don’t need parental notification to do.
And it is not a game to those of us who have been in the business of supporting young women in impossible situations. It is only a game to those who just get to set at the head of the table and make a *decision*, without ever having to live with the consequences. Because all we are arguing over here is power. Not responsibility or accountability. And as long as we are not ensuring that those with the power to decide are compelled to live with those decisions, we are just deciding whether or not young women — not young men– get to act on the dangers and risks they see to themselves. And this — along a long continuum of conservative actions that make sure that women’s opportunity to decide for herself — is completely about infantalizing women and making sure they stay that way.
So you can keep dealing with this as though it is a game. Of the two of us you are the only one who can afford to.
Perhaps we could notify parents through a notice in the newspaper?
But, Cassandra is correct. This is not a game. I will also point out that there is still complete silence in relation to my questions of making all involved suffer consequences. Interesting…
Nice, Geezer… the only commenter who regularly carries on an annoying point ad nauseum, replete with ad hominems, without being threatened with banning. Enjoy your blog-immunity – is that why you come here?
An appeal to history is not an ad hominem attack per se. Past results are no guarantee of future performance, etc.
Who said it was a game? Strategy applies to more than just games. This is their angle of attack. I have seen it first-hand, and witnessed its efficacy.
They intend to press forward on this limited point. In my humble opinion it behooves those who support the current standard to prepare for these attacks. My own feelings matter not a whit, but for what it’s worth, I believe 16-year-olds deserve the across-the-board right to decide for themselves what to do with their bodies, whether the case involves pregnancy or ear perforation or tattooing. (Extra-credit question: Should you as a parent be allowed to de-program a 16-year-old in a religious cult?)
One reason for this debate we’ve had is a lack of reliable empirical data. There exists a wide discrepancy in statistics released by the state vs. those compiled by the Guttmacher Institute, an arm of Planned Parenthood and a respected source. If its data is correct, the state’s per-capita abortion rate is double the national average.
The true aim of this push in Delaware, as best I can determine, is to eliminate the state’s status as a liberal haven in the region and “magnet” for girls from states like Pa., which have stricter notification laws.
I don’t know how, if these girls really are coming in from out of state, Delaware could be held responsible for notifying their parents — or how less-government people can justify hiring the enforcement personnel needed. I truly believe it will effect very close to nobody. But forewarned is four-armed, right?
There exists a wide discrepancy in statistics released by the state vs. those compiled by the Guttmacher Institute, an arm of Planned Parenthood and a respected source. If its data is correct, the state’s per-capita abortion rate is double the national average.
Guttmacher Institute is independent of Planned Parenthood. In fact, at the Committee testimony this week, Planned Parenthood reps drew their case directly from State of Delaware statistics, which showed that the urban legend of Delaware as a magnet for teen abortions was nonsense.
After Terry Schooley had schooled the Committee on this topic, eviscerating Rose’n’Prayer’s cut-and-paste job, Monsignor Lavelle was reduced to saying, “Well, there are lies, damned lies and statistics.”
“Planned Parenthood reps drew their case directly from State of Delaware statistics, which showed that the urban legend of Delaware as a magnet for teen abortions was nonsense.”
Nice try, but the state of Delaware’s statistics exclude 3000 abortions that were “underreported” by “one provider,” and the state acknowledges this. Guttmacher’s figures are, by any independent analysis, more reliable.
“The Guttmacher Institute in 1968 was founded as the “Center for Family Planning Program Development”, a semi-autonomous division of The Planned Parenthood Federation of America. The Center was renamed in memory of Alan Frank Guttmacher, an Ob/Gyn and former president of Planned Parenthood, and the Guttmacher Institute became an independent, not-for-profit corporation in 1977.”
If that’s your idea of “independent of Planned Parenthood,” you’ve an ever bigger dick-sucker for the Democratic Party than I previously thought you were. Citing Planned Parenthood as a source on this subject is not unlike relying on Heritage Foundation stats on the economy — they might be right, but I’d like to check first. And where you check is with Guttmacher, where the figures are off from the state’s by about 3,000 for the years the two sides were arguing about.
“After Terry Schooley had schooled the Committee on this topic, eviscerating Rose’n’Prayer’s cut-and-paste job, Monsignor Lavelle was reduced to saying, “Well, there are lies, damned lies and statistics.”
Do tell. Of course I believe every word, being as you’re such an unbiased source an all. I saw what you refer to as a “cut and paste job.” I wouldn’t characterize it that way. But then, perhaps unlike you, I knew what I was looking at.
I agree with Pandora. A girl becomes a woman at the age of menstration. Ask any social worker, or psychiatric professional what they think of this change. They will tell you “go see the crack babies”, deal with the children of young women forced to have the child, they neither take care of it or nurture it, most poor families havent the ability to pay for another child let alone a grandchild. So its the child who will be a victim to bad legislation. This is nothing more than a backdoor attack on Planned Parenthood. I stand with those representatives who stood with poor women. We all know rich women will have their rich kids get an abortion no matter the age. I praise Terry Schooley for having the courage to see what the right wing were attempting to do in this state!