AP: Abortion opponents hope to limit access for California girls

[question everything]

Sunday, September 18, 2005

Abortion opponents hope to limit access for California girls

By: LISA LEFF - Associated Press

(snip)

Among the most hotly contested of the eight initiatives on the November ballot is a constitutional amendment that would require doctors to give parents or guardians written notice 48 hours before performing an abortion on a minor. Adults would not have to consent to the procedure, but sponsors hope the notification requirement would reduce California's teen abortion rate -- the nation's fourth-highest -- by getting parents in on the decision.


(snip)

According to a recent poll by the Public Policy Institute of California, 70 percent of likely voters would not support overturning Roe. v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision guaranteeing the right to abortion. But the same poll found voters more evenly divided on Proposition 73, with 48 percent opposing the parental notification requirement and 44 percent supporting it.

(snip)

The proposal contains several exceptions to the two-day advance notification -- a doctor could perform an abortion in a medical emergency, for example, and a judge could waive the requirement on a case-by-case basis. But abortion rights activists worry that some of the detailed requirements and language spelled out in the measure are overly restrictive and make it unnecessarily difficult for a girl with a troubled home life to petition a court for a waiver.

Equally disturbing to Maggie Crosby, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, is a clause in the amendment defining abortion as a procedure that "causes the death of the unborn child." Inserting that label into the state Constitution, rather than a medical term such as fetus or embryo, "can have far-reaching consequences on everything from stem cell research to fertility treatments and it's totally unnecessary to the definition of abortion," Crosby said.

(snip)

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/09/18/news/state/16_13_489_17_05.txt


On the Net:

www.parentsright2know.org

www.noonproposition73.com/

[TahitiNut]

1. So, the (grand)parents have a reproductive 'choice'? Where'd they get it?

I really don't comprehend the kind of thinking that goes into this. It seems to me that these girls are largely in two positions: (1) victims of incest or sexual molestation, or (2) effectively emancipated minors. In neither case do the (grand)parents have any remaining 'ownership' (chattel) interest. Just how the hell can we abrogate the pregnant girl's rights to the rest of her life by closing the barn door after the horse has escaped?

Under the principle of delegated powers, how can anyone (including government) exercise a power over another's exercise of their rights if those rights don't exist in the first place? How can a government assume or empower the exercise of 'choice' if that right doesn't exist? For parents who've effectively emancipated their daughter (by the mere fact that she became pregnant), how can they back up and pretend she's not?

[happyslug]

10. Emancipation Requires more than a Girl getting Pregnant.

Now California law might be different, but the English Common Law rule on Emancipation is such emancipation is do to an ACT OF THE PARENTS that the child is no longer under the CARE, CONTROL and SUPERVISION of his or her Parents. Furthermore Emancipation covers the right to entered into a valid enforceable contract. Un-emancipated Minors can only enter into Voidable Contracts (i.e. Contracts the minor can enforce against the other side BUT the other side can NOT enforce against the Un-emancipated Minor).

Note it is NOT the act of the Child that makes the Child Emancipated, it is the act of the Parents. In 1993 the Pennsylvania Superior Court even ruled that even marriage does NOT make a child emancipated (This was long after the Same Court had ruled that pregnancy also does NOT make a child an emancipated minor). All of these decision follow English Common Law rules on the issue of Minor's Emancipation.

Before the early 1970s (When all of the states started a mass movement to reduce the age to made valid enforceable controls from 21 to 18), the mere fact that someone joined the Military, went away from home to go to Collage or even getting a Commission as an Officer in the US Army did NOT make such a minor an emancipated minor. Such acts were EVIDENCE of Emancipation but NOT proof of such emancipation and did not address the issue that under the Common Law being an Emancipation minor was NOT a permanent condition. Under the Common Law (which still the law in Pennsylvania and most states) Minors can move in and out of emancipation based on the fact the Minor goes back under the Care, Control and Supervision of their Parents and such Parents again ending such Care, Control and Supervision.

Parents can do Care, Control and Supervision through others (i.e. your teachers, other adults or even other minors), and by long distance (i.e. when you are in school) and in the military you are NOT really on your own. Thus it is up to the person trying to prove a minor is or had been Emancipated NOT the minor proving he or she had NOT been emancipated.

Now the political argument of the 1960s to reduce the age of majority to 18 was do to the fact people were being drafted at 18 so why could they not vote? This argument was dieing when the switch occurred (The draft ended for all practical purposes in 1972). In fact the main push to reduce the age from 21 to 18 came from Collages and banks who were tired of dealing with parents when it came time to arrange student (and other) loans for minors between the ages of 18 and 21.

As long as most college students parents paid for their Education (or paid by the WWII era GI Bill) the problem of giving loans to 18-21 year olds was NOT a problem. With the mass entrance of Women into Collages during the 1960s you had the first group of Students who were still under age 21 whose parents were NOT paying for their education and it was unclear if such students had ever ceased being under the Care, Control and Supervision of their Parents. Thus were such loans voidable by the Student? (The general answer was "yes").

Now a lot of parents were paying for their son's college (Remember we are talking about the 1960s and the days of the Collage deferment from the Draft) but a lot of students could NOT get their parents to co-sign (or worse given their parents economic situation the parents could NOT co-sign). This seems NOT to be a problem until the draft was abolished in 1972 and parents stopped paying for collage for their children. It was during this period that the States switched the age of majority to 18 NOT the late 1960s when the draft was in full swing.

Please note many states did NOT change the age of Majority to 18, instead just said minors between the ages of 18 and 21 are to be treated as if their were over 21. A technical difference, the last time it was important was in the late 1990s when the states started to crack down on underage Smoking. Most State laws on Smoking used the term "minor" NOT the "age 18". The Courts than had to address the issue of what was meant by the term "Minor" in such statute. Some Trial Courts ruled it meant 21 (and to make sure no appellant court would rule the same way, the tobacco companies lobbied and had the State Legislature change the term from "Minor" to "Anyone under age 18").

My point here is to show that Emancipation requires something MORE than a teenage girl getting pregnant. Now the Same courts that made the above emancipation rules ALSO set the Rules as to Custody and Visitation of any resulting child of such pregnancy. The Courts have ruled that the under 18 mother can NOT become an emancipated Minor even after she gives birth to her child, but when it comes to custody of the New Born child, the dispute is between the Mother and Father of the newborn, the grandparents have little legal standing when it comes to Custody and Visitation of their Grandchild EVEN IF THE MOTHER OF THE CHILD IS STILL UNDER THE CARE, CONTROL and SUPERVISION of the Grandparents. Sounds stupid, but it works. I have had several such situation in my practice and it is the best resolution of the problem of teenage mothers.

Yes, I did NOT address the issue of the California Proposal just wanted to address the issue of Emancipation which I have found most people get wrong (I am going to leave that up to the people of California). I will also NOT address the problem if "Incest" or "Sexual Molestation" except to note while such things happen (And I have had cases with those issues) most of my teenage pregnant clients are NOT the product of such situations. Teenagers have sex and get pregnant with their teenage (or older) friends much more than they get pregnant through Incest or Sexual Molestation.

[TahitiNut]

14. I was using the term "emancipated" more in a figurative sense.

Disclaimer: IANAL

In effect, a teen-aged girl afforded the opportunity and 'choice' to engage in sexual intercourse and become pregnant is, at least in part, the result of parental supervision that amounts to emancipation. (I think of it as a "barn door" argument.) Clearly, in my view, the more persuasive argument against coercing 'parental notification' or 'parental approval' is based on the implied nature of a parent-child relationship where such collaboration isn't willingly sought. I tend to view that kind of relationship as one in which the child is, in effect, emancipated as well. Furthermore, any legally-imposed delay in the exercise of that choice, given the time-sensitive nature of both the legal and biological considerations is, in effect, a material erosion of the exercise of the child's rights, not only as a teenager, but thereafter when she attains the age of majority with an unwanted child.

It makes me wonder whether that teenager might have a cause of action against her parents once she becomes an adult - if her parents were to prevent her from termination her own pregnancy.

I'm somewhat disrespectful of a 'usage' history (in ECL) that's inseparable from a long-standing attitude that children (and women) are, in effect, chattel. I wonder what the law would say if the parents somehow forced their daughter to have an abortion against her will as a minor. After all, how can the law be "one-way" if in fact there's a choice?

I don't wish to pretend that I'm not conflicted (ambivalent, to some degree) about this. It's an incredibly difficult issue.

[nvliberal]

49. Making it harder for minors to get abortions

has nothing to do with parental "rights" or "fostering communication" or "emancipation" and everything to do with chipping away the right to abortion for ALL women by going after the most vulnerable women first.

It's not rocket science.

[HockeyMom]

74. I will give you an example - ME at 17

I graduated HS at 17 (graduated early). I had a full time job, my own apartment with a roommate (19 year old friend), going to college at night (free tuition from job), my own insurance from job, paid all my own bills, etc., etc. My parents contributed nothing to my support, except for any occasional $25 or so until my next paycheck.

Enough to meet the criteria for Emancipated Minor? If anyone had told me back then that I would have needed my parents permission for ANYTHING, I would have been highly insulted. I was living the life of an ADULT.

[happyslug]

78. The law reflected rural reality that it developed under.

Remember prior to 1920 most people lived in Rural Areas. Prior to 1800 95% of the population lived in Rural areas. Thus the Common Law reflected this reality.

When it came to Emancipation of Minors the law required some act by the parent that they were No longer doing Care, Control or Supervision over the minor. Permitting you to move out of their home, into an apartment and NOT paying for the apartment shows a lack of Care, Control and Supervision. Note a runaway is NEVER emancipated unless the Parents do nothing but if the parents do what a parent should do about a runaway (i.e. report it to the police and any one else they can think of) the runaway is NOT emancipated. On the other hand if the parents do NOTHING i.e. do NOT call the police, do NOT look for the Runaway, that is showing a lack of care, Control and Supervision and thus the act (or more accurately the lack of act) showing the minor is emancipated.

Furthermore in rural America is was NOT uncommon for teenagers to leave their family home in the spring, work on various farms in the Spring, Summer and Fall. While on their own during the Spring, Summer and Fall the minors would be emancipated Minors, but once they return home in the beginning of winter they would cease being emancipated minors (and this could go on for years given the age of Majority was 21 prior to the early 1970s).

My own Father's family dissolved during the great depression when my Father was about 14. From that point on my Father lived on his own as an emancipated minor. At age 17 my Father tried to enlist into the US Navy. My Father could not find his Father to sign the enlistment papers. The US military did NOT permit emancipated minors to enlist unless their parents sign off on the enlistment (The same test as for non emancipated minors) thus since my Father could not find his Father my Father could NOT enlist dispute the fact he had been on his own for almost 4 years. Subsequently my Father enlisted into the National Guard which did permit emancipated minors to enlist (This is the Pre-WWII National Guard, since 1947 National Guard members must meet the same requirements as regular troops thus since 1947 emancipated minors need their parents permission to enlist in the National Guard).

Just to show you that emancipation did NOT always mean you did NOT need your parent's permission to do things. Emancipation gives you the right to enter into a valid enforceable contract but if some other age restriction exists the fact that you are an emancipated minor does NOT override that age restriction. Let me give some Examples:

1. Children and Youth has jurisdiction over minors up to age 18 (In all the states I know of, but some may retain 21 as the age limit) even if the minors are emancipated,
2. if your state says you can NOT drive after midnight, the fact you are emancipated does not over rule that restriction,
3. if your state says you can not marry without your parent's permission if you are under 18, emancipation does not overrule that restriction,
4. any restriction as to going to school and/or work are NOT overridden by the fact you are emancipated, and
5. Any requirements of Juvenile law is NOT ended by the fact you are an emancipated Minor,
6. You can not vote till you are 18,
7. Depending on your state you can NOT work around Alcohol till you turn 21 in most states,
8. While most states have "age of consent for sex" lower than age 18, the fact you are an emancipated minor does NOT permit you to have sex in violation of such statutory Rape laws,
9. If someone decides they do NOT want to deal with you, he or she can use the fact that you are under 18 to refuse to deal with you. The fact that you are an emancipated minor does NOT overrule the rule of law that you can NOT force a contract onto someone who does NOT want to contract with you (Unlike Race, Sex, age, and disability discrimination when the use of Race, Age, Sex or disability can NOT be used to deny the right to contract).
10. There are other exceptions, but the general rule is emancipated minors have the same rights as someone over age 21 except if govern by a law that requires a set age and does not address emancipation.

Now my Father was NOT receiving any money from anyone when he was in his teens. He did live with some relatives, but paid for his room and board. He worked on various farms (and knew more about farming than most people I have meet including many farmers). From what you told me you also sound like you were an emancipated minor, the mere fact they were sending you money did NOT overcome the fact you were on your own. Fortunately for you your status was NOT questioned while you were under 21 (or 18 if we are talking about approximately post-1970).

Now I have teens in my office all the time wanting to be emancipated. I tell them the law and than ask if they can have their parents come down to my office to sign affidavits that the parents are no longer doing care, control or supervision of the minor. Such Affidavits are acceptable to my local Public Housing Authority (PHA) and as such such minors can get housing. I would recommend to any minors to do the same, thus such a minor would have a piece of paper saying the minor is NOT under the care, Control and supervision of the minor's parents do to the act of the Parents.

Please note the above assumes a "normal" family situation i.e. one without Children and Youth Services involvement. Remember CYS has jurisdiction over any minor till that minor is over 18 whether the minor is emancipated or not.

[fleabert]

2. can't wait to vote NO.

one thing is good about CA, we get to vote A LOT.

[SoCalDem]

3. California "girls" have an ace up their sleeves on this one

Mexico is close to most in California,. relatively inexpensive to visit, and an option that lots of "girls" in Kansas, Ohio, Nebraska etc do not have..

[SIU_Blue]

6. um, getting an abortion in Mexico?

I'm a guy, but does that sound scary to anyone else?

[SoCalDem]

13. There are actually some very good hospitals and clinics there

I suspect that doctors here will have a connection or two to give patients ...in case it ever becomes inmpossible here..

[BSDRebel]

15. not to be racist or anti-Mexican

I'm Latino, so, i'm not coming at it from an anti-Mexican perspective, but...

Are we sure we want California girls having abortions in some shady clinic across the border? I'd be as afraid of that as illegal, "coat-hanger" abortions here.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

21. Is abortion legal in Mexico?

If not, yes, they'll be shady. Otherwise, they won't.

[BSDRebel]

22. hmmm...good question

I'm not sure. Depends on their social values. It could be either way, given the strong, conservative Catholic values of the people.

[Le Taz Hot]

31. Abortion is NOT legal

in Mexico. This is largely due to the Catholic Church's influence in which all girls are taught that their only purpose in life is to have babies. And yes, they will be back-ally type operations. This is NOT an option. Ever.

[slackmaster]

27. Yeah, let's go back to the "good old days"

:eyes:

[LiberalFighter]

4. Too bad they couldn't require a procedure for the guy...

that impregnates the girl. Such as castration for the boy or the father of the boy and/or girl if the girl is refused an abortion.

[dionysus]

5. castration for an accidental pregnancy, how Nazi-esque

eugenics anyone?!? :puke:

i hope that was sarcasm on your part but i'm tired ;)

[kestrel91316]

8. Castration for denying your daughter an abortion - works for me!!

[BSDRebel]

16. why would they require castration of the man?

If a man has sex with a woman, and she becomes pregnant, and she wants an abortion, and the State refuses to concede it to her, how is that his fault?

There is no law that requires men to be responsible (beyond child support) for their offspring, at least not to the level where castration is a mandated punishment for the man.

I'm all for abortion and abortion law to be decided among the women of this society, but I draw the line on the issue of men. My body, My decision should also be the motto for men. My body, My Penis, My choice on how to use it.

Edit

Oh, you guys mean the parents? Well, I don't know. If she's a minor, don't they have parental rights?

[slackmaster]

28. That's the dumbest thing I've read on DU, EVER

Nice job LiberalFighter.

:nuke:

[entanglement]

77. Don't you think your comment is a bit extreme?

n/t

[melody]

7. simple "conservative" concepts shut down this nonsense

It'll never fly.

Even "conservative" Californians are pro-choice, except for a handful of morons who build backyard barbecues cleverly disguised as shrines to the Virgin Mary, but thank heavens he's gone.

[jayctravis]

9. Actually if this were modified, I'd agree with it...

Doctors should be required to notify the parents of a minor who had an abortion within 48 hours *after* the procedure is performed.

[question everything]

11. So.... if the girl does not feel comfortable communicating with

her parents, will probably resort to illegal abortion as long as her parents do not know - you are going to force an open communication, and when the girl is most vulnerable?

Yes, we wish that people will not get married until they are mature enough for a commitment; and we wish they not have children until they are ready and we wish for all kids to grow in open, warm households... but this is not the reality and you cannot pass a low to force them to communicate.

Can any one who supports a notification put oneself in the shoes of a scares still young girls who thinks that her parents will "kill" her if they find out that she was sexually active? Because, really, it is not the pregnancy that girls are afraid to tell their parents but their sexual activities and, of course, their partners.

[jayctravis]

17. Hopefully if the girl is in this much trouble

there should be other programs to assist her -- a women's shelter perhaps. But if she is a minor, her legal guardians are responsible and should be notified of any surgical procedure.

I do see your point...but minors do have different rights than adults.

[Baconfoot]

30. Um...this proposition says that a CHILD exists at the moment of conception

The proposition inserts language into the constitution which says that a child exists a the moment of conception.

I think we will be able to defeat it on that basis.

This isn't JUST a proposition calling for parental notification.

It's a sneaky way to pave the ground for getting rid of the right to an abortion altogether.

They don't tell you about the alteration of the language to the consitution in the little summary blurbs they are sending out to people either. You have to read the opposition or the actual proposition itself.

This is all to say that even if you were correct about notification, you are incorrect to favor this proposition unless you really are against the right for choice.

But as it happens you are incorrect about whether there ought to be parental notification. The impact is to encourage the girls to do things, for example, like beat their own stomachs with their fists to induce spontaneous abortion causing injury or death.

In this area, a minor should be given the same rights as anyone else.

[Lindacooks]

33. Do you have any idea how much funding for women's shelters have been cut

in the chimp regime? They're barely able to keep up with homicides, let along help a girl who wants an abortion.

And what if the fetus is the result of incest, or the girl is already being abused by her parents/guardians?? There's going to be a whole lot more severely injured and dead girls if a law like that is passed, because if the 'adults' in this situation get wind of an abortion, there WILL be hell to pay. And it will be paid by the girl.

[noonwitch]

12. I have such mixed feelings about parental consent

On the one hand, I do believe that parents have rights when it comes to their children and medical treatment/procedures. A kid should not be allowed to get an abortion without consent when she can't even get her ears pierced without parental permission.

Michigan has a law, with a definite process for judicial bypass. Where that works well in Wayne or Washtenaw Counties, I wonder how many girls in Kent or Ottawa Counties can get a judge to consent?

I also am concerned that the girls who are most unwilling to discuss a pregnancy with their parents are equally afraid of the courts, and end up being the ones giving birth upstairs in the bathroom when nobody ever realized they were even pregnant.

[Solon]

18. Actually, in most cases they don't have rights to make medical...

decisions for their children, if intereference in that decision endangers the child's life or health. Hence why vaccinations are REQUIRED, Christian Scientists, who are parents, are thrown in jail when there kids die because of lack of medical treatment, etc. Pregnancies for any woman is risky, period, however, it is more of a risk for pubescent girls than full fledged adults, and is MUCH more dangerous for them than an abortion. By that standard alone, parents shouldn't be involved. Also, the comparison to piercing of ears is stupid, we are talking about medical procedures here, or would you prefer hospitals and doctors to have a total hands off approach to ALL kids that enter their domains, even when parents aren't present?

[LeftyMom]

24. Your information about vaccinations is incorrect

Vaccinations aren't required. They're recommended for public school admission (and information about exemptions is generally hard to get,) but every state has a medical exemption for that and most also have religious or philosophical exemption. In California a parent simply signs the back of the school's blue shot card in the preprinted exemption space when the child is of school age.

I agree with you about the rest, but the example of mandatory vacccination was simply inaccurate.

[Solon]

80. Just going by my own experiences...

Back in High School, I was given a notice to have my last vaccination done or I couldn't go back to school for Senior year. Never mentioned any exemptions, don't think that's the law around here. No biggy, went in for the shot at the doctor's, didn't even hurt, come to think of it, I'm due for a booster this year, oh SHIT, I forgot. I don't see such laws as those flying around here, we have had various "scares" of hepititus and other diseases at school, and ALL kids were tested then inoculated, any refusals were kicked out of school, for the health of the rest of the kids. Public health, especially in close settings like schools, means that SOME things are required. If you home school, no problem, the onus is on you if your kid gets sick, but in public school, that kid better be vaccinated, or I wouldn't want my kid around them.

[LeftyMom]

81. Every state has at least one exemption, all but two have two or more

but yes, schools and public health authorities tend not to let people know about them and in some cases the school personnel don't know the law and need education.

FWIW, your state has both medical exemption (legal in all 50 states) and religious exemption (legal in 48 states, Mississippi and W. Virginia are the exceptions.) Court decisions have led to an enviornment where the religious exemption is interpreted broadly and protects strong and sincere beliefs that aren't entirely dependent on religion, so there's little practical difference between a religious exemption state and one that allows for the philosophical exemption as well.

[MountainLaurel]

19. The problem with judicial consent

Is that in some areas family court judges, who are tasked with this duty, are REFUSING to hear these cases, thus leaving the girl with no recourse.

[hogwyld]

20. Let me ask you this

If it was YOUR daughter, wouldn't you like to know if she was pregnant and seeking an abortion? Now, I'm as liberal as the next person, But, I know I would like to be informed if a surgical procedure was being performed on my little princess. Of course that's just my .02.

[Bridget Burke]

23. We would hope your "little princess" would tell you herself.

But some family situations are less than ideal.

[LeftyMom]

25. Honestly, no

I don't need to know the results of her pap, what birth control she's on or if she's ever been pregnant. It's really not my business.

[Beaverhausen]

41. If you had a good relationship with your daughter it would be moot

most parents do know when their daughter has an abortion. If the child can't tell them that usually means there is a problem with the parent/child relationship.

[nvliberal]

52. And conversely

should the parents FORCE a daughter to have an abortion because THEY don't want to be saddled with raising the child themselves (which is often the case)? I have known a lot of situations where this was the case, but the girls opted to have the children.

I never hear the anti-abortion people talk about the flip side of "parent notification," for if parents can STOP girls for having abortions, shouldn't they be able to FORCE them to have them?

They aren't known for consistency.

[Baconfoot]

55. In all fairness, this horrid proposition provides relief4coerced abortions

So this proposition at least does not suffer from that particular flaw.

However, it should be opposed by ANYONE who believes in preserving the right to choose because it defines a child to be something that exists at CONCEPTION.

OMG
I can't STAND this proposition.
I'm turning red in the face just thinking about it.

[Arkansas Granny]

26. I think that it is likely that this would reduce abortions, but not

by getting the parents into the decision making process. I think it would make more young women not tell their parents until it is too late for an procedure.

[wmills551]

29. Sounds like a reasonable law!

I hope it passes. There is no reason for abortion to be the only non-emergency invasive medical procedure that a minor can get without parents involved. This law has exceptions for medical emergencies and troubled family situations. This is a compromise on the abortion issue that Democrats need to get behind or we fall further into a marginal status. Plus, it is the right thing to do.

[Mithras61]

32. No reason for the abortion, maybe (and I'd argue that)...

but how about the fact that this law defines abortion as causing the "death of an unborn child" which therefore defines a foetus as an unborn child from the moment of conception? Are you okay with that too?

[wmills551]

38. I can live with that.

[MissB]

40. So I take it you're not pro-choice?

[wmills551]

43. So I take it that you approve no restrictions on abortion?

[Beaverhausen]

45. Why should there be any restrictions?

Just curious...how many daughters do you have?

[wmills551]

48. I have one daughter

Nobody believes that there should be no restrictions or regulations on abortion. At least no one I have ever met. I believe that it should be restricted to adults and children who have talked with their parents or (in rare cases) a judge. I believe it should be done by a medical professional and not at a tattoo parlor. I believe once the unborn child is viable that the physical health of the mother should be the only reason to have an abortion. Thanks for asking

[Mithras61]

53. Sorry, but...

I have a fundamental problem with the definition of a foetus as "an unborn child" since they are quite different things. By the time the foetus is "an unborn child" very few medical professionals would be willing to perform an abortion, and then most would restrict it to the health of the mother as the only legitimate reason. That's usually after the second trimester, though. Before that, it isn't an unborn child, it's a foetus.

As to whether a child (as in under the age of consent) should be allowed to have an invasive medical procedure without her parents consent, I would WISH that there was never a need, but I live in the real world, and all too often, the father of the baby is the father of the girl as well. Aside from that, though, unless the girl feels comfortable discussing the issue with her parents, I can't imagine why they should be involved in the decision. Every woman I've talked to about the issue that has actually had to make that decision has not made the decision lightly, and that includes women that are younger than 18 years...

[420inTN]

75. Re: By the time the foetus is "an unborn child"

Just out of curiosity, when does the foetus become "an unborn child"?

[Zhade]

57. So you're into intellectual dishonesty?

Don't bother unpacking your things, I doubt you'll last long here.

[wmills551]

59. Thanks for the welcome!

[Zhade]

60. Oh, don't misunderstand me: you're not welcome here.

I've seen your type get banned after a thousand posts.

It's just a matter of time.

[wmills551]

62. What type am I?

I see your the type who cannot donate to DU! I guess your also in charge of getting people banned. I am a parent, That is my type.

[Zhade]

64. I've donated before, just didn't this time around.

Been here for years.

The term you're looking for is "anti-choice". Another term could be "autocratic", but I don't know if your desire to control others' decisions extends past your anti-women's rights stance or not.

Regardless, your arguments are flawed and don't take into consideration things like fathers raping their daughters.

I'm wondering how long until you say "well, she could have kept her legs shut..."

You types always end up blaming the woman, no matter what the circumstances.

Thankfully, a majority of Americans agree with a woman's right to control her own body, and YOU don't get a say. Period.

[wmills551]

65. I suppose you also believe a girl

should be able to sign up for the military without her parents consent. Or get married without parental consent. Or have plastic surgery without consent. That would be consistent at least.

[Zhade]

66. You dodge the example I gave.

Why am I not surprised?

[wmills551]

67. a provision for dealing with the example

you cite is built into the law. I thought this was obvious.

[Zhade]

68. Not if Arnold has his way.

I'm thankful you don't live in my state - we have anough anti-choice idiots as it is.

[wmills551]

69. So Zhade

would you be ok with your dtr joining the military without your consent? If you do not understand this question just say so.

[Lindacooks]

34. Where, exactly, is the 'exception for troubled family situations'??

And who decides what's 'troubled'??

[wmills551]

36. The post above

states that a judge could waive the parental consent requirement. This allows for exceptions when telling parents is not reasonable. I imagine this would be rare. As it should be.

[Lindacooks]

79. Also from the article:

"But abortion rights activists worry that some of the detailed requirements and language spelled out in the measure are overly restrictive and make it unnecessarily difficult for a girl with a troubled home life to petition a court for a waiver."

Once again, who decides what constitutes a 'troubled' home? And unfortunately, girls in abusive or incestuous situations isn't as rare as you like to think it is - one in three women is sexually abused at one time or another during her life.

[MissB]

35. Which one of your precious rights would you like to compromise

on first? C'mon, surely there must be something you're willing to give up. How about we agree that males must be chemically castrated and can only go off the meds if they receive both parental (or spousal) and doctor's permission?

Surely you'd agree to that. You're all for compromising away rights.

[wmills551]

37. I do not think boys or girls

should have invasive medical procedures without parents being involved. Obviously there are rare exceptions, but there are provisions for these in the law. Do you think that children should have medical procedures without parental consent? Do you feel this is a right.

[MissB]

39. Abortion? Yeah.

There are too many cases of screwed up families - which is why laws governing abortion have traditionally erred on the side of the pregnant person. If the teen is old enough to be having sex (and in theory giving birth) then she is old enough to make the decision to have an abortion. It is *her* life that is largely affected.

[wmills551]

44. Just cause a girl is old enough to have sex

does not mean she is old enough to make a decision about abortion, or liposuction, or breast implants or other invasive medical procedures without her parents. I know that there are some family situations that are exceptions, that is why there is a provision for these situations in the law.

[Beaverhausen]

42. Do you really think all parent/child relationships are that good?

In the real world some teens would suffer grave consequences if they told their parents they were pregnant.

Here is more info from the CA Democratic Party:


http://www.cadem.org/site/c.jrLZK2PyHmF/b.983031/apps/nl/content3.asp?content_id={4AF6D9A1-45F2-4572-8A41-C332B22ED3BF}¬oc=1

YOU SHOULD VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 73 BECAUSE …

PROP. 73 IS HARMFUL FOR TEENS

Parents rightly want to be involved in their teenagers' lives, but good family communication can't be mandated by the government.
Medical experts, teachers, nurses, parents and counselors all oppose Prop. 73 because it is harmful to teens.

THE ANSWER IS PREVENTION AND STRONG CARING FAMILIES

The best way to protect our daughters is to begin talking about responsible, appropriate sexual behavior from the time they are young and foster an atmosphere that assures teens they can come to us.
The real answer to teen pregnancy is prevention and strong, caring families, not new laws that endanger our daughters.

IT WOULD INCREASE HEALTH RISKS FOR TEENS

In other states, parental notification laws have frightened teenagers away from medical care and have delayed counseling.
Where parental notification laws force teens to choose between talking to their parents or having illegal or unsafe abortions, some teens choose the illegal abortion even thought it is dangerous.
If, in desperation, teens turn to illegal, self-induced or back ally abortions, many will suffer injuries and some will die.
JUDICIAL BYPASS DOESN'T WORK IN THE REAL WORLD


While parental notification laws may sound reasonable, they don't work in the real world. Some teens live in troubled homes. Their family might be having serious problems, their parents might be abusive or a relative may even have caused the pregnancy.
This law puts the most vulnerable teenagers, those who need protection the most - in harm's way or forces them to go to court. She doesn't need a judge, she needs a counselor.
Even teenagers who have good relationships with their parents might be afraid to talk to them abut something as sensitive as an unplanned pregnancy.

A LARGE COALITION OPPOSES PROP. 73

The California Nurses Association; the California Academy of Family Physicians; the California Medical Association; Planned Parenthood; the American Academy of Pediatrics, California District; the American Association of University Women - California; the American Civil Liberties Union; the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists - District IX and the League of Women Voters are among many organizations that oppose Prop. 73.

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Campaign for Teen Safety, No on Prop 73

[wmills551]

46. Yes, I believe most families can handle this in a healthy way.

The law provides a provision for a judge to review cases when this may not be the case. There are no other non emergent invasive medical procedures or major life events (marriage, emancipation, drivers license)that minors can get involved in without parental consent or judicial review. Why make abortion the exception.

[Beaverhausen]

47. Do you have any daughters?

Do you know any women who have had an abortion?

[wmills551]

50. As I told you above I have one daughter

I have worked for 25 years as social worker and a nurse. I have some experience working with these situations. How about you?

[Beaverhausen]

54. So, every family you work with has a good parent/child relationship?

If you have all that experience and all the families you have worked with could deal peacefully with a teen getting pregnant and deciding on an abortion, then I want to live on the same planet as you.

Because you and I obviously have very different experiences.

[wmills551]

58. I said most families

deal with it in a healthy way. What has your experience been?

[Beaverhausen]

63. I also said "most families"

but you and I both know that there are some circumstances that if a girl told her parents she was pregnant there would be dire consequences to her health and well being.

I will not vote to have a young girl's only choices be to either tell her parents or have an illegal abortion.

[Baconfoot]

56. Read the whole prop.It'sUNreasonable to say a"child"exists at conceptionNT

[wmills551]

61. That is not really important to me.

What is important is that children work with their parents making this decision (except in rare cases). The same way they work with their parents on other major medical and legal decisions.

[MissB]

76. If you're not pro-choice, I could see why it wouldn't be important to you.

[slackmaster]

72. A single-cell child doesn't deserve the same protection as a newborn

Some disagree, but that's usually based on an unprovable (and un-disprovable) notion such as the existence of a soul.

[warrens]

51. Little Lurleen-Lou, you ain't killin' our baby

No daughter of mine is ever havin' her an a-bortion. I gotta beat the devil out of you, girl.

[flvegan]

70. The knuckledraggers here got the same thing passed last year.

Amendment 1 to the Florida Constitution allows for the same thing.

Total horseshit. Since a woman allegedly matures faster than a male, then maybe their age of "adulthood" should occur when they become mature enough to conceive. What's so damn magical about the number 18, such that when one is 17 years and 364 days old, you're no "adult" but at midnight that evening, you're transformed.

Granted, I don't want children making "adult" decisions, but I think that women should have the right to decide to see a doctor, seek counseling and decide yes or no if they are pregnant, regardless of age, and regardless of parental consent.

But hey, I'm a guy. I can't relate so much to the plight, but I can still smell crap when it's present.

[VegasWolf]

71. "48 percent opposing the parental notification requirement

and 44 percent supporting it."

"According to a recent poll by the Public Policy Institute of California, 70 percent of likely voters would not support overturning Roe. v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court"

<from the article posted>

Thankfully the people of California have their heads screwed on straight and there exists at least one state not completely overrun by Christian extremists.

[Kailassa]

73. can't always trust parents

According to the Administration for Children & Families, in 2002 approximately 896000 children were proven to be abused throughout America. Approximately 10% of these cases involved sexual abuse.

Over 80% of the perpetraters of abuse were parents. (~725.000)
Less than 3% of perpetrating parents sexually abused the children that were reported, let's say 2.5% (18125)
Its generally assumed that between only one out of every 3 or 4 incidents is reported, so multiply that by 3.5 (634376)

So, across America, approximately 63 thousand children were sexually abused each year by their own parents. Of course these are not the only parents whose children should not have to ask them for permission to abort, but they are the the worst of them.

Relying on a judge is no guarantee that the interests of these children will be looked after. Even if you could guarantee a judge would always hear the case, how many judges will be Catholic or radical "Christians"? And how many traumatised pregnant abused girls would know how to present a case to the judge? Would they all be given free legal representation?

The sensible thing is for a professional to offer to talk to the parents with the girl, and if she refuses that, it should be her decision. Life is awfully complex, and applying more than minimal regulation to such complex circumstances can inflict more damage on an already damaged girl.

http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/cm02/summary.htm
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_4_37/ai_72272302#continue