All eyes are on it
The Supreme Court has will hear an abortion case:
The court will hear arguments on a 2003 New Hampshire law requiring minors tell at least one of their parents 48 hours before having an abortion. The only exception is if the girl’s life is threatened.
Opponents of the law say that exception is not enough. They want girls to be able to obtain an abortion immediately without prior parental permission in cases of medical emergency.
I don’t really see a reason why a parental notification requirement is a bad thing. However, the importance of the case is the court will take up the sacred cow of politics. It will be interesting to watch. I find the pro-abortion crowd’s opposition to the law a bit odd. Seems they, like gun control advocates who endorse any gun control law no matter how silly, oppose any limits just because.
November 30th, 2005 at 10:29 am
Without having a firm opinion one way or another on the topic, might I point out that
“Seems they, like gun control advocates who endorse any gun control law no matter how silly, oppose any limits just because.”
could just as easily be typed as
“Seems they, like gun rights advocates who rail against any gun control law no matter how limited, oppose any limits just because.”
Just sayin’…
November 30th, 2005 at 10:44 am
I can see that. But most of us don’t oppose any gun control law. Most gunnies support background checks and restricting ownership of guns by felons, for example.
November 30th, 2005 at 10:50 am
I’d like to think that nearly all gunnies would be comfortable with a law prohibiting unemancipated minors from taking possession of firearms without informing at least one of their parents at least 48 hours in advance.
November 30th, 2005 at 10:56 am
How many people who oppose notification would be against parental notification or permission for, say, an appendectomy or nose job? I’m generally pro-choice, but I don’t get the logic of carving out this special exemption for abortion.
November 30th, 2005 at 11:10 am
How many people who oppose notification would be against parental notification or permission for, say, an appendectomy or nose job? I’m generally pro-choice, but I don’t get the logic of carving out this special exemption for abortion.
Well put. If a minor cannot sign a legal contract or vote how is it they can have a major medical procedure without theirs parents knowledge? I do not understand the basis in law for this ruling.
November 30th, 2005 at 11:48 am
The problem with the NH law is that it doesn’t contain an exception for medical emergencies. It makes abortion the _only_ generally allowed medical procedure that can’t be performed in an emergency without parental permission.
If you need an emergency appendectomy and there’s no time to consult your parents, a doctor can do it. Under this law, if you need an emergency abortion and your parents are out of town or unreachable, there’s no recourse except a judge– a recourse that takes too much time.
The need for emergency abortions is low, but non-zero. As a Constitutional matter, the cases are fairly clear that parental notification requirements are ok but they have to allow doctors to do emergency abortions to preserve the health of the mother. Because this law doesn’t do that, it misses the constitutionality mark, even if only by a little bit.
The Consitutional solution is to redraft the law to require parental notification but give doctors an out where failure to perform an immediate abortion could have severe health effects on the mother. Unfortunately, the pro-lifers want the broadest ban possible and the pro-choicers want no ban at all, and neither side ireally interested in Constitutionality.
November 30th, 2005 at 11:53 am
Actually, the article says an exception for emergencies is in the law.
November 30th, 2005 at 11:56 am
And, just for kicks, the argument against ALL parental notification laws is simple:
Abortion is unique in that many girls will face severe consequences (including abuse) when they reveal the need for the procedure, especially if the pregnancy is the result of sexual abuse. Because of this, we sometimes need to allow girls abortions without telling their folks even if we wouldn’t allow other medical procedures under those circumstances.
I believe the Supreme Court has ruled that parental notification laws must have a judicial override that lets girls get a judge to sign the permission slip. Unfortunately, abortion is so politicized that there are many judges who literally NEVER grant permission under any circumstances.
Because there are some girls who need abortion without parental knowledge and because the judicial bypass is often broken, the harm caused by parental notification laws outweighs the benefits afforded.
Disclaimer: I don’t really buy this argument, but there it is.
November 30th, 2005 at 1:13 pm
Uncle:
The exception in the NH law only applies to directly-life-threatening emergencies, but those are not the only kind of medical emergencies.
November 30th, 2005 at 1:17 pm
BH:
There’s also a pragmatic argument that you’ll hear a lot of, that the alternative is worse: girls who cannot obtain an abortion without parental consent may conceal their pregnancies and dump the babies once born. It’s not a fairy tale, it’s something that happens a couple times a year at least.
Mind you, this is not a constitutional argument, but a practical one as to why parental notification laws in this particular instance may be a bad idea. Personally, I’m quite conflicted on the whole mess, because there’s literally no option here that I feel good about.
November 30th, 2005 at 1:53 pm
As tgirsch says, the medical emergency exception in the law is narrow. It only provides an exception if the mother’s life is in imminent danger. There are instances where abortions can help girls who are threatened with severely debilitating damage that might not kill them immediately. These girls are the unintended victims of hyper-vigilant pro-lifers. How many of these cases are there every year? I have no clue and I bet neither side will give honest numbers.
November 30th, 2005 at 4:26 pm
Personally, I’m quite conflicted on the whole mess, because there’s literally no option here that I feel good about.
That’s the best reason to keep abortion legal and let women, doctors, and whoever they trust make these difficult decisions. Government interference never makes the decision any easier.
November 30th, 2005 at 6:19 pm
persimmon:
It’s not so much the government intervention thing that bothers me, but the parental consent thing. That said, again, there’s no good answer. As Xrlq and others would probably tell you, most 15 and 16 year old girls are nowhere near mature enough to make an informed, intelligent decision on whether or not to have an abortion. What they generally won’t say, however, is that those same girls are nowhere near mature enough to be having a baby, either, and that the latter decision has much more long-lasting and far-reaching effects.
All that said, my position is that I generally oppose parental notification laws, but I don’t feel very good about it, because the reason for that opposition is that the alternatives are even worse. So I view teenage abortions as a necessary evil.
In a perfect world, nobody would ever get pregnant until they wanted to, and were mature enough to handle the responsibility. But we don’t live in a perfect world, so we have to deal with the only world we’ve got.
November 30th, 2005 at 7:40 pm
Brutal hugger: there are also consequences to parents not knowing their daughter is pregnant. What if her boyfriend raped her? What if a teacher or family friend is sexually abusing her? This law applies to minors, and parents are responsible for their minor children. Keeping that kind of secret from the parents makes it impossible for them to look out for their children’s welfare.
November 30th, 2005 at 8:48 pm
I see this as the beginning of the end for pro-choice. Although this does not affect me personally I do not like to see the .gov in control of anything, let alone medical care. This is just the beginning of the attack on Roe vs. Wade with their new pro life judge in place the attacks are lining up. I personally have no opinion as I have no vagina or womb, but I will say I can see the .gov making a Katrina out of personal medical records.
If I get cancer later in life I certainly do not want the .gov telling me what treatment I can and cannot have. It is like the radio wave treatment for cancer that the .gov shot down due to the fact the cost is so cheap it would hurt the pharmaceutical companies, even though it is one of the highest pain free methods of sending patients into remission from terminal status and is being practiced in China and other countries with much success.
If I hurt someone else arrest me, if I steal from others put me under the jail, if I take a life then take mine, but do not dictate what I can and cannot do with my own body. Drug testing is bad enough, but this is the next step in the path of a totalitarian .gov. Sound like a conspiracy? Read the Patriot act and ask yourself pre-2000 did you think our .gov would arrange an act that would allow them to take rights from tax paying citizens at a whim? I can tell you where the conspiracy starts, and that is in our nation’s capitol.
December 1st, 2005 at 4:40 pm
SU..as I understand it, and has been related on this thread, the big sticking point to abortion restrictions are for life and health of the mother. Pretty much most abortion restriction laws have an out if the life of the mother is at risk. However, most pro-life groups push for laws that don’t have an out when the mothers health is at risk. SCOTUS has ruled that restrictions must have outs for the health of the mother while most laws only have outs for the life of the mother. This is why PBA got struck down immediately.