Judge declares N.H. parental notice law unconstitutional

[Caution]

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) A federal judge on Monday declared unconstitutional a state law that would have required parental notice before a minor could get an abortion.

The ruling came two days before the law was to have taken effect.

The law's supporters said they would either appeal or rewrite the law to make it constitutional.

The law would have required abortion providers to notify at least one parent at least 48 hours before performing an abortion on a minor. The parent would not have had to approve the abortion.
<snip>


Judge declares N.H. parental notice law unconstitutional

[demsrule4life]

1. At the risk of being flamed

I agree with this. I'm responsible for my kids until they turn 18. I would not deny my daughter the chance for an abortion, but I have the right to know in case of any complications afterwards.

[demdave]

2. Pull on your asbestos underpants, I am sure you are right.

I also agree with your position. Now sit back and wait as we are told how all fathers would beat and kill their children if they were informed. Ignore the fact that this law states that "only one" parent need be informed.

I refuse to use the exception to form the rule. The vast majority of parents stick with their children through thick and thin, even when it goes against their beliefs or religion.

[fjc]

27. I'm sympathetic with this view , however...

I'm impressed with how the supporters of this law say that its the responsibility of parents to raise their children, while asking the state to intervene in that relationship. If its true as you say, and I think it is, that the vast majority of parents stick with their kids not matter what, than what is the rationale for making parental notification the law of the land?

[Muddleoftheroad]

32. Others are intefering in that relationship

And putting the lives of children at risk. By claiming medical authority over minors, abortion doctors are performing a hazardous medical procedure on children who are not in their care.

They are the ones intefering.

[fjc]

41. Nonsense.

Do you know any abortion doctors out there recruiting young women to have abortions? No, you don't. It's the other way around, in case you've failed to notice.

[Muddleoftheroad]

44. Nevertheless

CHILDREN don't have the right to make their own health decisions. They are not young women, they are kids.

[sistersofmercy]

48. So a sixteen year old can drive a car but not determine the

right to bear a child or not? What a bunch of hooey! Did you know that the last time I checked there was at least one or two live births to a ten year old mother on record in this country per vital statistics? What does that say about this country? I have never been in favor of the right of notification. If a YOUNG LADY makes a mistake she has a right to correct that mistake regardless of her parents, as their political views may differ.

[Muddleoftheroad]

50. Age of emancipation

If a 16-year-old is medically emancipated in that state, then yes, she can make the decision. How about 15? 14? 13? 12? 11? 10? (I think I saw a case of a 9-year-old who was impregnated in NY, what about her?)

In many of the case I have just listed, a crime of rape has occurred. What are the abortion doctors and Planned Parenthood doing to address this issue? Are they informing the family? The police? Social Services?

Again, 10, 11, 12, etc. are not young ladies, they are children and need to be viewed as such.

[sistersofmercy]

55. You know

the whole issue is sad if one brings rape and incest into the picture, it is a harsh reality. I know more than just a few women who have been forced by their parents to birth a child, one was brutally raped by multiple men. Most I have known who have been forced to give birth have not been happy campers in their lives.

[Muddleoftheroad]

56. No matter how you look at it

This is a horrifying issue. Lots of underage girls raped and many impregnated. I don't see any push by abortion doctors to do their part in making sure that the crimes are punished, so molesters and rapists continue to do what they do best.

[sistersofmercy]

58. Dolefully...

I agree. I know it's off the subject but I wish our government would do more about the atrocities happening daily in this country rather than worrying so much about the problems of the rest of the world. I know some issues are in our best interest to address but still...at times, I find myself in utter disgust with tragedies that occur here.
But I don't think that parents always act in the best interest of the child either and honestly just can't fathom how in certain circumstances where informing the parents would offer any constructive purpose.
Sort of a red herring but I can say this as an adult woman, my mother would never respect my wishes for right to die, never! She'd buy into the hope that right-to-lifers would feed her and hold a feeble hope that somehow in the event of persistive vegetative state her only daughter would somehow return to former self.
Back to informed abortion, it's a complicated issue with no definite solution but rather needs to be clearly spelled out in stages according to age and circumstances surrounding the occurance of pregnancy. I do feel that a fifteen year old in most circumstances is emotionally equipped to make the decision for herself, excluding the mentally handicapped which does occur.

[Muddleoftheroad]

59. So much to do

There is much to do both here and abroad. I fear that we need another man as large as FDR and all we have are little men or those with little chance.

Parents are not perfect, but this ruling assumes parents to be in the wrong, whereas all other aspects of family law assume the opposite. The parents are removed from being the medical authority at the whim of a child and a doctor who knows nothing about the family.

It is indeed a complex situation. Many here keep defaulting to discussions about those who are 15, but what about children who are younger? 14? 13? 12? Where does it end?

Clearly, it doesn't.

[sistersofmercy]

61. I agree to a certain degree but

I have to call in question the parents of children who get pregnant at 14, 13, 12. Perhaps, in effect, the law is doing just that and surely there exists other factors along with parenting or some in which parenting has nothing to do with the outcome, ie, rape but still it is a tough call. It's almost a case by case issue.
I can't help but wonder if the morning after pill will have an age limit on its purchase, if not might be a good solution.

[Muddleoftheroad]

62. I don't think you mean to do this

But in effect, you seem to be blaming parents if their daughter is raped. That is as wrongheaded as you can be.

Parents can't supervise a child 24-7. They go to school. They play soccer. They go to church. They go over friend's houses. They might even date. If a girl gets pregnant during those times, it is not necessarily the fault of the parents.

[sistersofmercy]

63. NO NO

I mean the young girls who have a lack of parental supervision and have a pregnancy with nothing to do with rape. I do have a problem with a 12 year who gets pregnant while her parents are out in a bar or something like that. I certainly didn't mean to imply a rape could be a parental fault, unless of course incest was involved. I'll check my reply for clarification, it is getting late here and beyond my bedtime.

[Muddleoftheroad]

65. I didn't think so

Just making sure. Still, kids are kids, not adults. As such, they do NOT have the same rights and parents are obligated both legally and morally to intervene in their lives.

[iverglas]

72. muddled of something, anyhow

"Still, kids are kids, not adults. As such, they do NOT have the same rights ... ."

I keep waiting for you to produce some authority for this claim, which you never tire of making.

Children DO have the same FUNDAMENTAL, CONSTITUTIONAL rights as anyone else. If you want to say they don't, you really need to produce some authority for what you're saying. (Or heck, you could just keep on making baseless claims that anyone reading them can feel free to simply ignore, that being the most sensible thing to do with baseless claims.)

Children do have a right to life. That would be why parents are not allowed to beat their children or starve their children to death, just for instance -- or (at least in civilized parts of the world) deny their children life-saving medical treatment.

Children do have a right to liberty. That is why the state cannot just lock children up without a trial, just for instance. (The reason why the state can't do that really is not that it would be stealing parents' property, you see.)

Choices about pregnancy are exercises of the rights to life and liberty. They are decisions that people make in their own best interests, for their own reasons, just like all the other decisions people make that involve protecting their lives and achieving their goals and aspirations.

Parents are generally entrusted, by our societies, which have ultimate responsibility for protecting all our rights (that being what things like laws are all about), with responsibility for exercising children's rights on the children's behalf, in the children's best interests. Similarly, others must exercise the rights of the severely disabled, or the temporarily incapacitated, on their behalf and in their best interests, and are appointed by society to do that.

This DOES NOT mean that children do not have rights, or that parents have the final say in how those rights are exercised, any more than it means that quadriplegics in care facilities do not have rights or that the operators of those facilities have the final say in how those rights are exercised.

In theory, I am not averse to some societal superintendance of minor's decisions regarding their pregnancies -- in all cases, including cases in which the parents have consented to those decisions. For one thing, it is entirely reasonable to expect that some parents will coerce their daughters into having abortions that the daughters do not want.

Every minor seeking an abortion, with or without parental consent, should perhaps therefore have the opportunity to speak in private with someone functioning in an official (disinterested) capacity, to ensure that her consent is voluntary.

And you know what comes next. Every minor who is pregnant and NOT seeking an abortion should also have the opportunity to speak in private with such a person, to ensure that she is voluntarily continuing her pregnancy.

After all, a pregnancy is a major medical event, and is statistically more dangerous to a woman, and particularly to a very young woman or girl, than an early abortion performed in compliance with appropriate medical standards.

In both cases and in a perfect world that opportunity should be mandated. In an imperfect world like ours, two problems arise. The first is that a minor's pregnancy will not come to "official" attention unless someone brings it to that attention -- whether the minor herself, or her parents, or her doctor, or someone else who knows about it. And the second is that all of those parties could have reasons for *not* bringing the pregnancy to official attention. The minor, because of fears (whether founded or not) that the pregnancy will be disclosed to her parents, who might compel her either to terminate or to continue the pregnancy. The parents, because of fears that they will be unable to compel the minor either to terminate or to continue the pregnancy.

The most likely and very forseeable outcome of mandating any form of official superintendance of minors' decisions regarding their pregnancy -- whether it involves parental notification or simply some administrative (e.g. social worker) or judicial review of the minor's situation (but not her decision once it was determined that she was not being coerced) -- is that some young women and girls will not seek the medical attention they need, whether for a safe abortion or for a safe pregnancy and delivery. And, of course, that some young women and girls will have pregnancies and children (since that is the result of the inaction that would result from their fears of taking action) that they do not want and that will in many cases have devastating effects on their physical and emotional well-being and negatively impact their future personal, social and economic situations.

And that is the HARM that such a policy risks causing. And it is a harm that can very reasonably be expected to occur, based on our knowledge of young people's psychology and ability to deal with complex problem situations.

And no bleating about parental rights/responsibilities, or vague allegations of the harm that could befall minors who have abortions without their parents' knowledge, is any answer to that very real and very foreseeable harm.

.

[sistersofmercy]

77. Now that's what I call an excellent rebuttal!

Bravo, well done! :kick:

[LiberalFighter]

78. Yes it was!!!

Muddle tends to argue without providing supporting evidence. Some of his statements are true but he needs more.

Parents are suppose to be responsible for the welfare of their children. Yet, in this situation depending on state law they may not have. If only there was a unbiased arbritration means of that would allow the child to have the abortion when needed with the point that the parents would be able to follow up on medical.

Everyone has rights including animals in this country.

[Muddleoftheroad]

84. Parental responsibility

You argue against case law. State courts and the Supreme Court have ruled in various cases that what you say is false. Children ARE limited in their activities. They can't drink. They can't vote. They can't drive. They can't serve in the military.

How many can'ts do you want?

They are NOT full citizens with full rights. They are NOT emancipated.

Yes, they have a right to life. How to best decide that is determined by their family. Can a family move them to a dangerous neighborhood? Yes. Can a family allow them to play a risky sport? Yes. Can a family allow them to travel to risky foreign lands? Yes.

Can a family equally prevent them from doing all of those? Yes.

Even when you get to "life-saving" medical treatment, the rules are not crystal clear. Families have the right to make choices about the medical treatment their children receive. If they think one method of treatment is better for their child than another, they may choose that. It takes a mighty effort to overrule such a choice.

Children only have a PARTIAL right to liberty. The state is limited in how much they may restrain the child. But families are much less limited. Parents might ground a child every night of the year. That is not child abuse and they will be allowed to do so. In fact, parents can home school their children and basically keep them in the house 24/7/365. So liberty is far from the way you paint it.

I agree that choices about pregnancy are exercises of the rights to life and liberty. And parents are involved in both those choices all the time. You and others seek to overturn this right.

How parents choose to interpret what is in the best interests of their children is a very wide area. As long as they are not beating or molesting their children, courts and social services agencies give them wide lattitude.

What this means is that children do not have the same rights as adults.

Ultimately, not only is this a medical decision for a parent, but a financial one.

Abortions are entirely legal. If a child has an abortion, everyone around here seems quite happy about that choice. What about a 12-year-old girl who decides to HAVE a child, perhaps even putting her own life at risk. How do you handle that one? Does the child have any right to keep the child or, for that matter, even make that decision for herself?

Twelve-year-olds don't have final say over their bodies and their lives. They don't have the legal right or the experience or understanding to make final medical decisions for their lives. Parents do.

Ultimately, abortion doctors know little about the situation they are intervening in. They need to be forced to get legal authorities involved for underage pregnancies and need to involve the only people who really are knowledgeable about the child -- the parents. If they don't, there will be even more problems for abortion doctors in the U.S. than there already are.

[iverglas]

87. "What this means is that children do not have the same rights as adults."

You can keep saying it, and you will keep on being wrong. You simply do not understand (or refuse to acknowledge) the concept of "rights" -- fundamental rights, constitutional rights, human rights; the rights we are talking about here -- and there's nothing I can do about that.

If you would try addressing anything I actually said in response to what you say, we'd see that ... well, that you can't.

You can't explain how it could be that a physically disabled adult who is unable to communicate, or a severely intellecually disabled adult, or a senile elderly person, has rights but a child doesn't, for instance -- even though the disabled adult or senile elderly person is no more able to exercise his/her rights than a child is.

I mean, I assume you would agree that a disabled adult and a senile elderly person have exactly the same rights as you and I have, and I assume that you can't explain why they do but children allegedly don't since I haven't seen you try.


"Can a family move them to a dangerous neighborhood? Yes. Can a family allow them to play a risky sport? Yes. Can a family allow them to travel to risky foreign lands? Yes. Can a family equally prevent them from doing all of those? Yes."

Can a parent send a child into a lion's den at the zoo? No. Are there both foreseeable risks and benefits in any of the things you mention? Yes.

How exactly would society go about preventing parents from moving their children to a dangerous neighbourhood -- when society is not capable of providing safe neighbourhoods that families can afford to live in?

In some society of the future, it may be regarded as an unjustifiable rights violation for society not to ensure that all neighbourhoods are safe, for children and adults. At present, we don't take that position, largely because we take the view that it is impossible. So if it is not a rights violation for society not to protect adults from dangerous neighbourhoods, how could it be a rights violation for parents to move their children to one?


"Parents might ground a child every night of the year. That is not child abuse and they will be allowed to do so."

Actually, it might well be child abuse -- or at least sufficiently bad parenting, sufficiently contrary to the child's best interests, for society to intervene. On the other hand, normal "grounding" is an exercise of the child's rights, on the child's behalf and in the child's best intersts, by the parents. As are deciding what the child will wear and eat and read and watch on TV.


"I agree that choices about pregnancy are exercises of the rights to life and liberty. And parents are involved in both those choices all the time. You and others seek to overturn this right."

"Parents are involved in both those choices all the time" simply DOES NOT = "this right".

There is a complex web of rights involved, there is no question about that. Reproduction -- childbearing and childrearing -- are indeed "rights", elements of the right to liberty, the right to free association, and so on. Where the exercise of the various rights leads to a conflict -- where the parent's swinging fist hits the child's nose (metaphorically speaking) -- the child's rights may prevail, just as in any other such conflict.

Minors DO have reproductive rights ... or perhaps you think that a parent could have his/her minor daughter artificially inseminated and compel her to bear and rear a child, as an exercise of the parent's "parental rights". Do you?

And I don't think you've yet answered whether you think a parent should have, or has, the "right" to have his/her minor daughter's pregnancy terminated against her will -- the right to require a physician to "treat" the child by terminating her pregnancy even if the child objects, just as a parent could require the physician to terminate the parent's own pregnancy. Or hell, whether a parent should have, or has, the "right" to prevent a physician from terminating his/her daughter's pregnancy, on the same basis as a parent could prevent a physician from terminating the parent's own pregnancy.

If children do not have rights, and if it is the parent's "right" to decide what their children will do and what will be done to them, why would you not agree with any of those propositions?


"If a child has an abortion, everyone around here seems quite happy about that choice. What about a 12-year-old girl who decides to HAVE a child, perhaps even putting her own life at risk. How do you handle that one? Does the child have any right to keep the child or, for that matter, even make that decision for herself?"

I think you've noticed that everyone around here would be rather unhappy about parents compelling their daughters to have abortions, too, actually.

If the risk to a 12-year-old girl in continuing a pregnancy and bearing a child were severe, then yes, I think that a parent could have the pregnancy terminated in the child's best interests. It would depend on a number of factors, including the child's maturity and ability to assess the situation and understand the consequences of her decision -- as in the case of children refusing other needed medical treatment, which they are sometimes, though infrequently, permitted to do (for instance, for religious reasons, or out of a desire not to prolong their own suffering).

I fail to see any analogy to the girl terminating the pregnancy contrary to the parents' wishes, since I can't imagine a situation in which the risks of the termination (of the usual, early term kind) would be life-threatening.

A 12-year-old who wanted to have and keep a child is still, of course, a minor. If her parents did not agree with the decision and agree to take primary responsibility for the baby and the 12-year-old insisted on keeping it, then the 12-year-old and/or the baby would be in the same situation as any other 12-year-old or baby whose parents were unwilling or unable to care for them. The 12-year-old would presumably have a choice between giving up the baby and remaining with her parents, keeping the baby and going into care with it (if society provided such facilities), or giving up the baby and going into care herself. Twelve-year-olds don't get magical solutions to their problems any more than anyone else does; they are entitled to choose from the options available to them, subject to parental/societal decisions as to what is in their best interests -- as to what exercise of their rights is best for them.


"Twelve-year-olds don't have final say over their bodies and their lives. They don't have the legal right or the experience or understanding to make final medical decisions for their lives. Parents do."

And you can keep on saying that, too, and it won't make it any more correct, or relevant, or conclusive of the issue.

Even those parents with the experience and understanding to make decisions for their children may not be acting in their children's best interests. It's as simple as that. And parents are NOT entitled to act contrary to their child's best interests, where the potential harm is significant and there are better options available to them, and where the manner in which they wish to act falls outside that latitude that society recognizes.

What a child eats, as long as the child does eat and is not so malnourished as to be harmed, where a child goes, as long as it is not into the front lines of a war or into a lion's den, fall within that latitude. Whether a child who does not want to have a child can be compelled to have one, or whether a child who wants to have a child can be compelled to have an abortion, simply does not fall within that latitude unless there are extraordinary circumstances that the child is clearly too short on experience and understanding to appreciate and to be able to act in her own best interests.

And you know as well as the rest of us do that compelling a child to notify her parents of her intention to have (or not have?) an abortion exposes the child to risks that she will be unable to exercise her rights, as a result of coercion in various forms, whether physical or emotional or intellectual, that we simply are not able to protect her from -- and so by compelling her to do that, WE would have interfered in the exercise of her rights.


"Children only have a PARTIAL right to liberty."

There simply is no such thing as a "partial right" (when we are talking about the rights that we are talking about -- fundamental rights, human rights, constitutional rights, and not other things we call "rights", like property rights), any more than there is such a thing as a partial pregnancy.

There are limits -- justifiable or otherwise -- on the exercise of rights. In their own best interests, and yes, there is often considerable latitude allowed to parents in determining those best interests, children's exercise of their rights is often and, we think, justifiably more limited than adults'.


.

[iverglas]

71. I give up

What was said (underlining mine):

"... surely there exists other factors along with parenting or some in which parenting has nothing to do with the outcome, ie, rape ..."

What you replied:

"... in effect, you seem to be blaming parents if their daughter is raped."

How exactly did you read some in which parenting has nothing to do with the outcome, ie, rape and conclude that the poster was blaming parents if their daughter is raped?

Your comment:

"That is as wrongheaded as you can be."

was certainly à propos, but not of what the other poster said.

.

[Ilsa]

68. Sorry, but childbirth, especially in the US,

is statistically more dangerous to the mother compared to early term abortions.

[Muddleoftheroad]

70. Both are medical operations

And both should include parental involvement. How many 13-year-old girls know their whole medical history? How many are emotionally prepared to deal with the whole situation on their own?

[iverglas]

38. aren't you two just the cutest things?

"Now sit back and wait as we are told how all fathers would beat and kill their children if they were informed."

I haven't read all the thread yet. Maybe you can save me the bother, and point me to the posts that say this.

"Ignore the fact that this law states that 'only one' parent need be informed."

Okay. As long as you agree, in return, to ignore the fact that a parent who is abusive/controlling toward his/her children is very possibly the same toward his/her spouse. A girl telling her abused/oppressed mother that she is going to have an abortion just might not be any different, in the end, from telling her father directly. Of course, a lot of girls wouldn't be able to find their fathers to tell them even if they wanted to ...

"I refuse to use the exception to form the rule. The vast majority of parents stick with their children through thick and thin, even when it goes against their beliefs or religion."

So why was it that you demanded the law mandate that parents who would stick with their children be informed that a minor is seeking an abortion? Surely the law won't affect them.

Oh yeah. You guys have a "right" to know, and somebody just might be trying to take that right away from you. (Even though this possibility is of the purest hypotheticalness, as compared to the reality of teenagers' unwanted pregnancies that the law is actually meant to address.) This time maybe you can point me to the provision of the US constitution that enshrines that right, and to some authority for your implied assertion that it overrides the rights of the minor in question.

Oddly enough, exceptions are usually the reason that rules are made. I'm sure you'd never commit murder, and yet there are laws prohibiting murder, and I don't hear too many people squawking about them.

If y'all's relationship with your daughters is what it oughta be and you claim it to be, surely you expect that if those daughters decide to obtain abortions, they will inform you.

Obviously, this rule is of no more concern to you than the rule prohibiting murder -- except that it just might protect someone you may never meet. But who cares; it contains the hypothetical kernel of a violation of YOUR RIGHTS, so it has to go, right?

Such a lot of protesting for so little reason. One wonders whether there might just be some other reasons.


Fortunately, what you do or do not "refuse" to do is of absolutely no consequence in this instance. What the people concerned -- the minors in need of health care -- have the right to do in their own interests, which includes their right to be protected, prevails over your personal preferences.

.

[truthspeaker]

75. but those kids would be telling their parents anyway

Pretty much the only kids afraid to tell their parents are the ones whose parents WILL beat them up and/or kick them out of the house.

[Maddy McCall]

3. Do you realize that in Mississippi....

parental notice requires that BOTH parents be notified and approve. That means that girls in single-parent homes have to find the absent parent and attempt to get approval. That means that many girls who WANT abortions are prohibited from having them because of this assinine regulation.

I totally disagree with parental notification.

[dolstein]

5. Do you realize we're talking about the New Hampshire law

which requires that only one parent be notified?

[Maddy McCall]

7. Of course I realize that...and I also understand that the ruling in

New Hampshire will have a detrimental affect on the requirement in Mississippi.

The point is that the FEDERAL ruling will affect STATE regulations. Isn't that obvious to you??

Woooohooo!!! This is a great day for women!!!

[dolstein]

18. The ruling in NH won't have ANY effect on the Missippi law

The court that ruled on the New Hampshire law was by a U.S. district court located in the 1st circuit, which does not include the state of Mississippi (which I think is in the 5th Circuit). The only thing the ruling does is make it more likely the Supreme Court will revisit this issue. What happens next is anyone's guess.

[Maddy McCall]

21. Let's not play semantics...

A federal court ruled for women today. It will probably be visited by the Supreme Court. I understand all of this.

Still, district court rulings have ripples beyond their districts. Since we have the most stringent abortion laws in Mississippi, it is only a matter of time before the ripples are felt here. For that I am celebrating.

[Muddleoftheroad]

33. It didn't rule for women

It ruled against parents.

[PassingFair]

37. Crapola!

As a parent of 2 daughters, I know darn well that they'd come to me without a court ordering them to. That's parenting. A young woman that HAS to go to court has already ruled out the possibility that a compassionate parent can help her through this difficult time.

[Violet_Crumble]

42. Couldn't agree more...

I'm the parent of 1 daughter who happens to live somewhere where there are none of these ridiculous laws concerning abortion. And what you said about parenting is exactly right. If my daughter was ever to find herself in the situation where she's considering an abortion, I'd want her to come to me willingly, not be forced to by some court. Of course, if I did live somewhere where those sorts of laws existed, and I was officially notified, I'd have no problems at all in supporting her no matter what she decides, and being there for moral support for her if she did decide to have an abortion. And that support is there no matter how old she would be. My mother gave me that same support when I was faced with an unwanted pregnancy...

The thing with these ridiculous notification/consent laws in the US is that they're driven by anti-choicers, who have zero respect for women and view women and girls as chattel, but only if the people who the decision on whether to abort or continue a pregnancy are anti-choicers like themselves. The obvious plan with these notification laws is to try to make it as difficult as possible for pregnant teens to obtain an abortion in the hope that most won't even try and a generation of unwanted children that the anti-choicers don't give a shit about once they're born can appear...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

45. I am happy for you

Not everyone has a perfect relationship with their children, but that doesn't make the parents monsters or even bad at what they do. For doctors or judges to overrule family involvement should be an extreme case that takes great pains to ensure that the child is protected and receives appropriate medical care prior to, during and after a major medical procedure.

[Deesh]

46. PassingFair --

Your post carries this discussion. Bravo, and thank you.

[PassingFair]

82. No, thank you, Deesh

...and the unspoken agenda here is that if the, shall we say "Controllers" want to hinder the "Controllee's" ability to terminate the pregnancy, there's no better way than to tie the Controllee up in court. By the time her rights are asserted, its often too late to do anything about it. Makes my blood boil...

[demdave]

8. That is not true, according to plannedparenthood.org

In Mississippi, if the minor’s parents are divorced or otherwise unmarried and living separate and apart, the written consent of the parent with primary custody, care and control of the minor is sufficient. Also, if the parents are married and one parent is not available to the person performing the abortion in a reasonable time and manner, then the written consent of the parent who is available shall be sufficient.

But don't let that stop you from repeating it.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/library/ABORTION/StateLaws.html

[Maddy McCall]

13. Well I am holding in my hand a report published by

the Sarah Isom Women's Research Center at the University of Mississippi that INDEED states that in ALL cases both parents' notification is required. It also discusses just what I stated above, that getting the consent of both parents is prohibitive to control of one's own fertility.

Mississippi is indeed a TWO PARENT notification state.

[Maddy McCall]

16. And let me add that many girls simply leave the state and travel

across state lines to have abortions done rather than submit to the most stringent abortion laws in the US.

[Mississippi Liberal]

24. My recollection from law school . . .

is that Mississippi requires both parents if they are still together, or at least alive. A single guardian can provide consent if that's all there is, and I believe that a judge can provide consent in place of a guardian.

There was a particularly outrageous case several years ago in which a seventeen year old girl with no living parents tried to get permission from a wingnut circuit court judge. She wanted the abortion, and her grandmother (and de facto guardian) wanted her to have the abortion. But since the grandmother had not taken the procedural step of being named as her legal guardian, the wingnut judge denied the request, stating that the girl wasn't "mature" enough at 17 to responsibly choose an abortion.

In any case, I believe that _Casey v. Planned Parenthood_ states that states can require parental notification but must leave an option for getting permission from a judge instead, IIRC.

[demdave]

26. You are correct on all counts.

It is well noted that "guardian" is singular.

[Maddy McCall]

30. Yes, the only other alternative is indeed chancery court consent...

which means that the girl will have to seek permission from a local judge in her home county. The whole law is designed to be so humiliating that women will just give up.

[rocktivity]

67. Originally posted by Mississippi Liberal

...the wingnut judge denied the request, stating that the girl wasn't "mature" enough at 17 to responsibly choose an abortion.
Are rich girls ruled against because they can provide for their children financially? Are poor girls ruled against as "punishment" for "being bad", or forced to have abortions as "punishment" for "being bad"? Is there a predetermined quota? And if you're not mature and responsible enough to have an abortion, how can you possibly be mature and responsible enough NOT to have one?

I hope the grandmother wised up and took the girl across state lines.

rocknation

[LiberalFighter]

80. And if the judge is against abortions completely?

[demdave]

25. You call that proof? Read the law and leave Sarah Isom out of this.

If I wanted propaganda and agendas I would read the FR.


MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972
As Amended

SEC. 41-41-53. Requirement of written consent; petition for waiver.

(1) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, no person shall perform an abortion upon an unemancipated minor unless he or his agent first obtains the written consent of both parents or the legal guardian of the minor.


(2)


(a) If the minor's parents are divorced or otherwise unmarried and living separate and apart, then the written consent of the parent with primary custody, care and control of such minor shall be sufficient.


(b) If the minor's parents are married and one (1) parent is not available to the person performing the abortion in a reasonable time and manner, then the written consent of the parent who is available shall be sufficient.


(c) If the minor's pregnancy was caused by sexual intercourse with the minor's natural father, adoptive father or stepfather, then the written consent of the minor's mother shall be sufficient.


(3) A minor who elects not to seek or does not obtain consent from her parents or legal guardian under this section may petition, on her own behalf or by next friend, the chancery court in the county in which the minor resides or in the county in which the abortion is to be performed for a waiver of the consent requirement of this section pursuant to the procedures of Section 41-41-55.


SOURCES: Laws, 1986, ch. 448, Sec. 2, eff from and after July 1, 1986.

http://www.mscode.com/free/statutes/41/041/0053.htm
Perhaps the "distinguished" Sarah Isom Women's Research Center at the University of Mississippi should have it's credentials looked into.

[iverglas]

39. "propaganda and agendas"??

I'm sure seeing some ... but it ain't at the Sarah Isom Women's Research Center at the University of Mississippi.

.

[Ilsa]

69. What I don't like about the law making exceptions

is that a girl/woman might feel compelled to claim rape when none existed. For a teenage girl, she might not be thinking through all the consequences of making such a claim.

Women shouldn't have to cry rape to obtain an abortion. It is a disservice to real rape victims.

Pro-choice always and forever. If you give the govt the right to tell you can't, you are only a step away from giving the govt the right to say you must.

[LiberalFighter]

81. If they claim rape...

Would they be forced to expose the name of the raper? And if they weren't raped possibly make a false accusation?

[Muddleoftheroad]

86. The possibility

That a crime has occurred is yet one more reason NOT to leave out the parents.

If a girl (not a woman) was raped, she needs her family to be there for her. In addition, cases of statutory rape or other predatory sexual acts might not be treated by the victim as it should be -- as rape.

[LiberalFighter]

79. Is that dual parental notification..

required in divorced homes where the father is not involved?
required in homes where the parents are separated?
required if the parents have never been married?
required if the father is dead but there is a step-father?
required if the mother is dead but there is a step-mother?

How about invitro fertilization? Will they have to contact the real mother and/or father?

How about adoptions? By male/female, male/male, female/female?

[Caution]

9. And in cases of incest?

Howard Dean has been recently quoted on this issue as being against notifying the parents of one of his patients. They leave out the part of the quote regarding the fact that he felt after speaking to the young girl (14 IIRC) that the probable father of the girl's child was also her own father. Parental notification sounds well and good but there are times when this simply isn't a good idea. Children have rights too and some of those rights thankfully exclude abusive parents.

[RainDog]

11. The real issue

is that birth control should be available without parental consent. This may not please parents, but if someone drives a car without a parent present, they have insurance (and, yes, I realize that the parent provides that insurance.)

but if a teenager is going to engage in sexual activity, he and she should also have insurance against pregnancy.

I'm a parent of two, and I have a relationship with my kids in which they tell me what's going on in their lives. we talk about the issue of birth control.

neither of them is sexually active at this time. but they know when they are that they have the responsibility for birth control (and they're boys, btw).


with my own parents, however, if I had been sexually active and wanted to get birth control, well, there is no way I would have even sought their consent.

it was safer for me to drive a two ton vehicle than to talk to my parents about sex...and that lasted through the time I was in college, too.

Luckily, by that time I was able to get birth control on my own.

But if I had gotten into a situation when I was younger, my parents were the last people I would have gone to, and I would have gotten an abortion any way I could have.

[Judi Lynn]

22. I identify with your personal experience with your parents completely.

It's valid, and so familiar.

I'm certain some girls would simply be thrown out of their homes.

How many actual wives and girlfriends have been beaten, even KILLED for pregnancies, in totally adult, and monogamous relationships?

A whole lot of growing up to do on the parts of actual adults in this country.

[KissMyAsscroft]

4. No flame, but I disagree...

It is a medical procedure between a person and their doctor.

There are a lot of parents that would do serious harm to their children and in rape and incest cases there would be serious reprocussions.



**On edit, I agree with the ruling not the law. I am against parental notification. It chips away at Roe vs. Wade.

[Maddy McCall]

10. Exactly...it is devised to chip away at Roe v. Wade n/t

[demsrule4life]

12. And if this prodecure should go all wrong

who will have to pay for it? If it is a minor the parents will get the bill.

[Maddy McCall]

14. Botched abortions are VERY RARE

and are used as right-wing pro-life propaganda.

[Caution]

15. Ummm...if your daughter has an abortion that goes wrong

the last thing you are going to care about is the bill!

[Maddy McCall]

17. One would think, anyway, huh?

[demsrule4life]

19. You are right

and why I have a right to know as in my first post.

[Caution]

23. and what difference would your prior to the fact knowledge have?

Would this somehow prevent the abortion from going wrong?

[demdave]

28. Access to healthcare from the best quality doctor a parent could find.

Instead of the best a minor child could get with what little money she, and pehaps the boy, could scrape together.

[demsrule4life]

29. Thank you (nfm)

[Maddy McCall]

31. You live in Mississippi???

If you do, you have two choices, and they both cost the same amount of money, because no doctor in Mississippi is going to do an abortion that is not medically necessary.

The "best qualified doctor" will be at one of two women's clinics in Jackson that perform abortions that have not been threatened or intimidated into leaving the state. Those are your alternatives. Cough up about $250 and you and your wife sign the form and your daughter can have an abortion.

Oh yeah, and if you live outside of Jackson, plan on spending two nights in Jackson, becuase there is also that stupid little matter of the twenty-four hour waiting period.

Or, did the health care you intend to provide mean maternal/fetal care?

Would you even support your daughter if she chose to have an abortion or would you force her to handle it your way. That is the danger of parental consent, that women's will is once again subverted in the will of men.

[Muddleoftheroad]

34. Women's will should not be subverted

Only problem is, these aren't women we are talking about. They are children -- in some cases quite young. They don't get to be the only ones who make decisions in their lives. They don't decide to drive, most can't. They don't decide on medical choices, their parents do. They don't understand all of the ramifications of those choices because, in some cases, they don't even know their own medical history thoroughly. Nor will a doctor.

Parental notification, with an end run for rape or extreme family situations is the right way to go.

[put out]

36. I always thought this was interesting:

If a parent makes the medical choices for a sexually active minor, would it not follow that the parent could force an abortion upon the minor? Override the health, needs, and decisions of the minor(s), the other potential grandparents? Would it not make sense, then for the parent to force medication or contraceptive measures on a suspected sexually active minor? If so eager to assume the decision making, how to contend with the results of the decisions?

Take it to the extreme. If a parent of the minor makes the decision that abortion will not be permitted, is the parent then responsible for the care and support of the baby from birth until 18 or 22, whichever the courts decide? Is the parent of the minor the one who will decide if the baby is put up for adoption, and will they decide to the child would be given? If the minors do not wish to give their baby to adoption, are not the parents of the minors then responsible for support to the minor parents and their child?

[Violet_Crumble]

43. No, it shouldn't...

Which is why I'm so strongly opposed to the idea of parental notification/consent laws...

I'm curious, Muddle. At exactly what age does a child stop being a child and become responsible for their own decisions? It's just that I've seen you repeatedly say in another forum that Palestinian teenagers aren't children, so is there some rule you apply where female teenagers in the US are different to teenagers elsewhere?


Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

47. Ranges from state to state

Whatever age a state decides a child is emancipated to being an adult. At that point, they can make their own decisions AND live with the consequences. Until then, those who step in and interfere with the parental relationship are doing the medical equivalent of a drive-by shooting. They show up, do their damage and then leave the parents to clean up the mess.

Again, since you bring up the Palestinian issue, children who take up arms and join paramilitary forces are generally treated like adults.

[Violet_Crumble]

51. We're not talking about legal definitions...

We're talking about why *you* call female teenagers in the US children, while insisting that teenagers in other parts of the world of the same age aren't...

Here's a statement from you which caused me to ask the question:

"Like it or not, these "children" (I am reluctant to say a 15-year-old is either small or a child.) (emphasis mine), are involved in the conflict."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=16991

Muddle, children are NOT property. Teenagers do not switch from being children to being not children when it suits you. People with any interest in good parenting understand that as a child gets older they should have the right to make their own decisions, especially those concerning their own reproductive health. If my child were for whatever reason not to inform me she was going to have an abortion, there is NO interference in the parental relationship, because for that to have happened, there's no parental relationship there to worry about....

So, to me, yr defining of who is and isn't a child appears to be rather contradictory, and that's why I thought I'd mention yr comments in another forum...


Damange??? Please expand on that. How is an abortion causing damage??

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

52. Definitions

I am perfectly content to stick to the legal definition that varies from state to state. When these same children take up arms against recognized legal authority and try to kill people, they run into that definition if they live long enough.

The two situations only vaguely relate. Whatever limit we place on it, this ruling still goes below it. As such, you are distracting from the real issue.

Children are not property, wow we agree. They ARE a legal and moral responsibility and, as such remain so until they are on their own. (Really, they remain so forever, but that's for another thread.)

Yes, when a child gets older, that child will make decisions for itself. Is 10 old enough? No! 11? Nope. And on up until we get to the nebulous middle teen years. Maybe, 15 to make a life-altering medical choice, but I doubt it. Probably 16, only because that is also a common age for the age of consent.

An abortion is a not entirely safe medical procedure. As such, it raises issues that involve the girl's medical past and follow-up procedures. In addition, many women find such an event traumatizing, and it is easy to see why it might be so for a young girl.

I am in no way anti-abortion. I am in every way against those who elect to interfere in the health and well being of children who are not their own.

[Violet_Crumble]

53. They're still all children...

That's what yr not getting, Muddle. 14 and 15yr olds around the world, for example, are either children or they're not. A 15yr old Palestinian who throws a rock at heavily armed troops doesn't cease being a child. A 15yr female in the US who finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy doesn't cease being a child either. But you can't have it both ways. Either they're all children, or they're not...

If we both agree that children aren't property, then I don't understand why yr arguing the stance that you are. Teenagers, especially ones that are sexually active, have every right to privacy, and to be treated as though they're not some appendage of the parents and have no minds of their own or the ability to make decisions that profoundly affect their lives...

Getting teeth extracted isn't an entirely safe procedure. Taking the Pill isn't entirely safe either. Continuing a pregnancy is actually more dangerous than a first trimester abortion. You seem to be taking first trimester abortions and treating them differently than anything else. And if you want to know what traumatic is, I wish you were a female so you could know how traumatic finding out yr pregnant is. Or the trauma of being on yr own with a newborn baby...

You haven't actually given any examples of where anyone's trying to interfere in the health and safety of children that aren't their own, though I know I wouldn't have to go all that far to bring up plenty of examples of anti-choicers who love nothing more than trying to interfere, which is why I'm so strongly opposed to this parental notification/consent nonsense in the US...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

54. No, they aren't

Standards of adulthood range from nation to nation and even state to state. They always have.

There are also standards of degree. Our own legal system recognizes this. Children can be tried as adults for more serious crimes, but still treated as children for mild acting out.

So if a Palestinian teen takes a bomb and tries to blow up an Israeli bus or shoots Israeli school children, that is an adult act.

No, teens who have sex do NOT have an immediate right to privacy. Teens, by all definitions, include kids 13 years old. That is too young for sex and legally rape in most instances.

In fact, many of these cases of pregnancy are the result of rape. Rape by friends or boyfriends who are too old to be dating underage girls. Where is the abortion industry dealing with that?

You are right, taking the pill has complications. So does Norplant. So do condoms. (There are people who are allegic to the material or the spermicide.) Continuing a pregnancy or choosing abortion are both medical choices that depend on the mental and physical state of the patient CHILD. I daresay a mental and physical state that the abortion doctor is not knowledgeable enough to comment on.

To exclude parents from this process is to deny them the very right to do what they are obligated to do -- parent.

Every case of a doctor giving a child an abortion without family involvement is a situation where they interfere in the health and safety of children that aren't their own. And yes, so do some of the anti-choicers. Neither is right.

[Violet_Crumble]

57. Yes, they are still children...

Show me the particular laws that define Palestinian teens as not being children and US teens as being children if that's the case. We're not talking about 'adult acts'. We're talking about whether or not children are children...

Abortion industry?? Why, if yr pro-choice, are you using the anti-choice language? That's as ridiculous as saying there's a childbirth industry....

Sexually active teenagers don't have a right to privacy? Sorry, but when it comes to reproductive matters teenagers who have consensual sex do whether you like it or not...

Do you know anything about abortion procedures, Muddle? A doctor performing an abortion knows about as much about the mental and physical state of a woman as a doctor performing any other procedure. The doctor who I went to when I was pregnant knew bugger-all about my mental state...

Laws that force parents to be told their daughter is having an abortion is a law that caters to anti-choicers and lazy parents who don't have good relationships with their children in the first place...

No, doctors who perform abortions on teenagers are NOT interfering in any parental relationship because if a teenager has decided not to tell her parents, the relationship has problems anyway. 'Some' anti-choicers interfere?? Change that to just about all of them and you'd be spot on with that bit at least...

Violet...

[Muddleoftheroad]

60. Malpractice

I have no idea where you were going with the first paragraph. Give it another shot.

As for the term abortion industry, I used it sarcastically. This ruling is definitely a product of a industry like approach to abortion. It cares nothing about the well being of families or children, it cares only about perceived precedent.

I don't know what the law is where you live, but here most teenagers are NOT able to have consensual sex below a certain age. So, that is what we're talking about here. Potentially criminal acts. Pedophilia, rape, assault, etc.

As for the abortion procedure you are entirely wrong. If a doctor performs an abortion on a woman, it can reasonably be assumed that she knows all there is to know about her own medical situation and is making a free choice to have the procedure. She has, as she should, every right to the procedure.

Kids are different. They don't always know about even their own health -- diseases they had when they were young, medication or allergies or even perceived mental state. Based on this ruling, doctors ignore all of that and go about in their own way no matter what. And they also ignore the after-effects, something an adult woman would be able to deal with by having follow-up visits with other doctors if needed. Here, the prevailing medical authority would suddenly return to the family, but they would be denied the essential information they need.

Ah, so not wanting others to perform medical procedures on your children without your involvement only caters to "anti-choicers and lazy parents?" Wow, funny, I thought it only catered to lazy doctors who think they are God.

Hmmm, teens deciding not to tell their parents something is not news. Medical personnel hiding a major medical procedure from families that are then left to contend with the result NOT KNOWING IT HAS EVEN OCCURRED is what we are talking about here.

It is malpractice and it should be criminal. Heaven help the doctor who ever performs such a procedure on any daughter of mine without my knowledge. Heaven help them, because no one else will be able to.

[iverglas]

74. it's time for you to ante up

"Ah, so not wanting others to perform medical procedures on your children without your involvement only caters to 'anti-choicers and lazy parents?' Wow, funny, I thought it only catered to lazy doctors who think they are God."

Name one, would you please?

Of course, if you want to be taken seriously (something I see no evidence of), you'd need to name a few.

"As for the term abortion industry, I used it sarcastically."

Sure you did. Shall we ask Sigmund?

"This ruling is definitely a product of a industry like approach to abortion."

Evidence, please? Provide us with passages from the debates in the legislature, the evidence and testimony before legislative committees, the public debate in the media, the evidence and argument before the court that made the decision, that demonstrate this "industry like approach" on the part of opponents of the notification requirement.

Or keep on being transparent. Your choice, and all that jazz.

"Medical personnel hiding a major medical procedure from families that are then left to contend with the result NOT KNOWING IT HAS EVEN OCCURRED is what we are talking about here."

What exactly is this "result" you go on about? Again, let's have some facts and figures, shall we?

I know of one result of children NOT having this medical procedure. Children engaging in dangerous acts to terminate their pregnancies (whether self-help measures or interventions by unregulated and incompetent third parties) ... or continuing pregnancies that they conceal from their parents and everyone else, children delivering babies in motels and public washrooms, children killing those babies or leaving them to die -- and children potentially bleeding from post-partum haemorrhages ... or being unable to deliver (13-yr-old bodies just may not be able to accomplish that) ... dying ... and no one KNOWING IT HAS EVEN OCCURRED until the body (bodies) are found.

Whom would you go after then?

"Heaven help the doctor who ever performs such a procedure on any daughter of mine without my knowledge. Heaven help them, because no one else will be able to."

Ah, I see you have wisely taken to veiling your threats. Does this all really make you as apoplectic as you sound in these posts? One would really have to wonder why it seems to hit so close to home in that case ...


(Oh dear, I do think that our Muddle may have me on ignore. Durn, and I was so looking forward to answers to questions ... seeing what success Violet has had getting 'em.)

.

[Muddleoftheroad]

85. Naming one

EVERY SINGLE doctor who performs an abortion on a child without parental involvement meets my criteria for a lazy doctor playing god.

As for the rest, you are placing me in the position of arguing against abortion. Since I am pro-Choice, that's odd. But I am pro-Choice for WOMEN, not kids. So, given that, allow me to present just a little info:

Abortions are not perfect events. Mistakes or errors do occur. According to the Centers for Disease Control, they can even be deadly:

"In 1998 (for which data have not been published previously and the most recent year for which such data are available), nine women died as a result of complications from known legal induced abortion; no deaths were associated with known illegal abortion."

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5109a1.htm

There are a ton of possible complications, including a potential harm to having future children.

"It's possible, but very uncommon, for an abortion to cause scarring on the inside of the uterus. This kind of scar tissue can interfere with subsequent pregnancies and can occasionally prevent conception. However, the scar tissue typically can be removed."

http://www.mayoclinic.com/invoke.cfm?id=AN00633

Then there's this on the overall risks:

"Incomplete Abortion
Rarely, the pregnancy is not removed completely. Bleeding and infection may occur. If the abortion is incomplete, your doctor may need to perform follow-up curettage.

Infection
An infection can occur if bacteria from the vagina or the cervix get into the uterus after an abortion.

Hemorrhage
Some bleeding after an abortion is normal. Bleeding is rarely heavy enough to require a blood transfusion.

Damage to the Uterus
During a surgical abortion, the tip of a device may pass through (perforate) the wall of the uterus or tear the cervix. If this happens, further surgery may be needed.

Death
The risk of death from abortion is lower than one in 100,000 women who have suction curettage.

Afterward
Effects after abortion vary. You may have a wide range of feelings about having an abortion. This is normal.

Some side effects may occur with induced abortion:

Abdominal pain and cramping
Nausea
Vomiting
Diarrhea"

http://www.medem.com/medlb/article_detaillb.cfm?article_ID=ZZZ2K98T77C&sub_cat=2006

Yep, perfectly safe and easy for a child to make this decision.

What's classic is you act like even getting parents involved is stopping abortion. It's not. Maybe every parent will agree the abortion is needed, but so are the parents. They need to be involved, be there to be supportive if an abortion is called for. They need to be there afterward as well. They also need to deal with the very real possibility that rape has occurred and not allow an abortion doctor to shift that fact under the rug.

And, one final point, no my threats would not be veiled if a doctor did this with one of my children. Anyone who places the lives of my loved ones at risk is attacking my family.

[iverglas]

73. wild and crazy allegations

You do seem to be very fond of them.

"In fact, many of these cases of pregnancy are the result of rape. Rape by friends or boyfriends who are too old to be dating underage girls."

Citation, please.

I have no doubt that you actually know what nonsense you are spouting. Otherwise, you would have to believe that 13-yr-old girls are sexually active, but their 13-yr-old male counterparts are still sitting in the rec room playing with their Meccano sets.

"Where is the abortion industry dealing with that?"

I'd answer that, but first you have to answer one for me:

Where is the abortion industry?

I've mentioned that "transparency" has been voted word of the year for 2003. The context was different, but I'm making it my word of the year for 2004 for situations like this. People who use terminology like "abortion industry" to describe the activities of medical practitioners providing a medically necessary service to patients are transparent as all heck.

"Continuing a pregnancy or choosing abortion are both medical choices that depend on the mental and physical state of the patient CHILD."

That is absolute crap.

Continuing or terminating a pregnancy is a decision that is normally dependent on the CHOICE of the person whose pregnancy it is. That person's PREFERENCE in the matter -- whether she WISHES to continue the pregnancy/have a child or terminate the pregnancy/not have a child -- is what governs that decision in almost all cases.

The "mental and physical state" of the individual is very seldom the determining factor in that decision, other than in situations where the pregnancy puts the individual's mental or physical health at risk and abortion is indicated as a therapeutic intervention to protect mental or physical health.

This might be a factor in the recommendation of a medical practitioner in some cases, but you know perfectly well that neither continued pregnancy/childbirth nor abortion is commonly so dangerous to an individual's mental or physical well-being that such a practitioner would actually prescribe either one.

Individuals certainly consider the likely effects of the two options on their own mental and physical well-being when making the decision. Just as I considered the likely effects of having a tonsillectomy at the age of 22: the discomfort of surgery and the potential for serious adverse complications (which I'd been learning all about in law school -- tonsillectomy being statistically more dangerous than abortion) vs. the good possibility of a reduction in the number of infections I suffered from and the risks and pain and time lost from school and work attendant on those infections. No one prescribed tonsillectomy for me; I was given a choice and made the decision based on my own assessment of my needs. And that's exactly what women do when faced with unwanted pregnancies.

It is a decision that no one else is even competent to make for anyone who is competent to assess her own needs. It may be that a 12-yr-old is not fully competent to do that -- but there is also no doubt whatsoever that there are many parents who would make the decision NOT based on an assessment of the child's needs on her behalf and in her best interests, but based on their own needs and interests.

"Every case of a doctor giving a child an abortion without family involvement is a situation where they interfere in the health and safety of children that aren't their own."

So is every case of a fast-food restaurant manager who gives a child a hamburger without family involvement. And frankly, a fast-food manager who does that on a daily basis is doing a whole lot more to endanger the child's mental and physical health, and safety, than a doctor who terminates the child's pregnancy.

Surely you would agree that parents who care about their children's well-being (or who have moral objections to the eating of meat, for instance) should be entitled to prevent people from profiting from their children's lack of judgment or rebelliousness by selling them artery-clogging food items made from inhumanely slaughtered animals. I assume that you will be clamouring for a law requiring that children present evidence of parental notification before being permitted to buy hamburgers and doughnuts.

.

[iverglas]

40. such parental concern

"And if this prodecure should go all wrong
who will have to pay for it?
If it is a minor the parents will get the bill."

Yup. Most good parents I know have their bank account foremost in their minds when considering what is in their children's best interests, or when learning of some awful thing that has befallen their child.

Children are chattel. At least, I'm sure that's what your founders & framers would've said back in 17-whatever, and certainly if it was good enough for them, it is good enough for us. Who the hell had the insane idea of giving women the vote, anyhow?

.

[Maddy McCall]

6. Great ruling!!!

This is a GREAT ruling. Now women in my state at least will have more freedom to control THEIR OWN fertility.

[Heddi]

20. What is the age of medical consent in New Hampshire?

I ask because in South Carolina, the age of medical consent is 16 years old. A person aged 16 or above is responsible for all medical treatment and medical costs.

I know this because I had an on-the-job related injury once. I had just turned 16, and when my mom took me to the hospital, she wasn't allowed to fill out any forms or sign that she was responsible for the bill should workers comp flake out b/c of the age of medical consent.

This struck me as odd, seeing that SC isn't very friendly to minors, and is a very un-pro-choice state (I don't even think there are any planned parenthoods in the state at all)----so basically, in very republican, very conservative, very religious SC, a 16 yr old could get an abortion w/o parental notification.

Does NH have a similar age of medical consent? One would think not if this law was passed, but you never know.....

[pennylane100]

35. The ruling is there to protect every girl in New Hampshire

not just those with responsible parents. A young girl should not be made to give birth just because the people in her life but their own religious and moral beliefs above her well-being.

The parents who do not want the state to interfere in raising their children should remember that the State already has the power to step in when children are being abused or neglected. Now these parents seem to be saying that such action is OK as long as they get to decide what standards to set.

Unfortunately not all parents are good and the only way to make sure all young girls have choices is to pass such a law.

I am a mother of two girls and I am OK with this decision.

[sistersofmercy]

49. Caution, where have you been?

I'm so glad to see you back!:hi:
I've never been a fan a notification laws.

[101 Proof]

64. Good!

Whatever a patient and a doctor does stays with the doctor and patient, no matter what. It's up to the minor to tell her parents if she wanted to. Otherwise, this would violate Patient/Doctor trust, wouldn't it?

Now, on a totally different note, when are the courts going to declare the Patriot Acts (I and II) unconstitutional?

[rocktivity]

66. When I worked in advertising, a line like this was called a "weasel"

The parent would not have had to approve the abortion.
What the heck does that mean--that the parent couldn't stop the abortion whether they approved or not? With 48 hours' notice, that's as simple as locking the girl in her room--or worse. And why only one parent? What if one said no and the other said yes? Does the daughter's decision then carry any weight at all? This is an anti-abortion law in disguise. Under NO circumstances should ANYONE be in a position to force ANYONE to have--or NOT have--a baby. If your relationship with your kids is such that they felt they had to keep this from you, that's YOUR problem.

rocknation

[Heddi]

76. A question for those who think parental notification is good

Let's say a 15 year old gets Pregnant.

According to some people on this thread, a 15 year old is not of the mind to decide whether she should have an abortion. Therefore, she must get the permission of her parents before an abortion can be performed.

What if the parents say no?

Then no abortion, right?

So if a 15 year old doesn't have the mental capacity to make a decision whether to have an abortion, then logically, shouldn't a 15 year old not have the mental capacity to rase a child?

Why are they mental midgets when it comes to making decisions regarding terminating the pregnancy, but suddenly they're fully formed and responsible if it comes to RAISING A CHILD?

If they don't have the mental werewithall to decide to abort, then why would they be able to (mentally) follow the prenatal precautions needed to carry a pregnancy to term (eating right, taking vitamins, seeing the Dr regularly, curtailing certain activities)?

It just seems silly to me, that someone is too much of a 'child' to make a decision in one instance, but once the right of abortion is taken away from them, then they're suddenly fully functioning almost-adults, ready to make the decisions necessary to have a successful pregnancy, weigh post-birth decisions (adoption? raise it at home?)

How can a 14, 15 year old successfully raise a child that THEY DO NOT WANT?

How can a 12 or 13 year old be expected to be mentally sound having to carry a child to term for 9 months that they didn't want? That was unexpected? Unplanned? Not thought about?

And the idea that all 12 and 13 and 14 and 15 and 16 year olds that get pregnant are getting pregnant by OLDER MEN (hence the references to sex at that age being LEGAL RAPE)---statutory rape only occurs when one partner is of the age of consent and the other isn't. It is NOT statutory rape for two 13 year olds to get it on. It's not any kind of rape. It's two 13 year olds having sex.

Alternate Situation:

What if one parent says "NO" to abortion, and one says "Yes"? Who gets to make the decision? Is it a 2-1 vote (2 Yes, 1 No)? Does a judge cast the deciding vote? Coin toss? seek the advice of runes and tea-leaves?

[Blue Gardener]

83. A Doctor is preferable to a coat hanger

If a girl is truly desperate to have an abortion, she will find a way to do so. Going to a qualified abortion provider is much more preferable than taking care of the "problem" on their own. If you don't think girls would be that desperate then you are being naive. How do you thnik women had abortions before Roe v. Wade?

[maxanne]

88. this is good news

The fundies are trying to make their way into NH - and our governor seems to be inclined to let them. Our pious governor, who invokes many platitudes about God and the sanctity of life, and his own family and children - while having a very public affair.

Pious male hypocrites have no place in the reproductive decisions of any female.