• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

parental notification law repealed

OKgrannie

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 11, 2007
Messages
4,366
Reaction score
3,445
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
This bill was unconstitutional; how many states have unconstitutional parental notification laws on their books?

N.H. votes to repeal parental notice law - Yahoo! News

CONCORD, N.H. - The state Senate voted Thursday to repeal a law requiring parental notification for teenagers to get abortions.

The 2003 law, which never was enforced because of legal challenges, required abortion providers to notify at least one parent 48 hours or more before performing an abortion on a minor.

The Senate's 15-9 vote comes after the House passed the measure 226-130. Democrat Gov. John Lynch said he will sign it. New Hampshire is among more than 40 states with some type of parental notice laws, though some are not enforced.

Senate Majority Leader Joseph Foster, a Democrat, said the issue before lawmakers was about an unconstitutional law, not abortion or parental rights. "This is about a bill that, when adopted, was known by the Legislature to be unconstitutional," he said.

The law was challenged by Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, and a federal judge declared it unconstitutional in late 2003 because it lacks a provision to forgo notification in emergencies where the health of the mother is at stake."
 
Parents are notified of almost everything else that minor children do. I don't see why an elective abortion should be any different. As long as they're living under my roof and I'm responsible for feeding and caring for them I should be informed if they are having surgery.

What I find completely hypocritical is the idea that boys over the age of 18 can go to freaking jail for sleeping with a girl under the age of consent and yet these same girls who are too young to consent to sex in many states are old enough to consent to an abortion in the very same state without parental notification. That's totally freaking ridiculous. You can't have it both ways. Either they're children or they're not.

In New Hampshire you can be jailed for 7 years if you're an adult having sex with a girl under 16. But this same girl, who is apparently too young to consent to sex, is perfectly capable of consenting to abortion? :roll:

This type of $hit is destroying our country.
 
I don't know much about the mechanics of abortions, but is it not a dangerous and potentially dangerous procedure? Doctors should have to get the OK from parents when performing an abortion on a minor.
 
I don't know much about the mechanics of abortions, but is it not a dangerous and potentially dangerous procedure? Doctors should have to get the OK from parents when performing an abortion on a minor.

It's approximately 8 times safer than gestation and childbirth (late term abortion is approx. 4 times safer).
What right do parents have to force their children to endure pregnancy, when it carries such grave potential risks and abortion is statistically so much safer?*




* actually, in the US, both are fairly safe; but I assume you get my point.
 
It's approximately 8 times safer than gestation and childbirth (late term abortion is approx. 4 times safer).
What right do parents have to force their children to endure pregnancy, when it carries such grave potential risks and abortion is statistically so much safer?*




* actually, in the US, both are fairly safe; but I assume you get my point.

Eight times safer huh? I did not know that, but even if its safer than pregnancy it is still a medical procedure that carries its own inherent risks performed by someone else. I would think the doctor would need to get a waiver signed by the child's parents for liability reasons.
 
Parents are notified of almost everything else that minor children do. I don't see why an elective abortion should be any different. As long as they're living under my roof and I'm responsible for feeding and caring for them I should be informed if they are having surgery.

What I find completely hypocritical is the idea that boys over the age of 18 can go to freaking jail for sleeping with a girl under the age of consent and yet these same girls who are too young to consent to sex in many states are old enough to consent to an abortion in the very same state without parental notification. That's totally freaking ridiculous. You can't have it both ways. Either they're children or they're not.

In New Hampshire you can be jailed for 7 years if you're an adult having sex with a girl under 16. But this same girl, who is apparently too young to consent to sex, is perfectly capable of consenting to abortion? :roll:

This type of $hit is destroying our country.
They can't get tattoos without parental consent! You are right on here talloulou!:applaud
 
I think the parents should know about it. Parents or Guardians are required to sign for any medical procedure and this shouldn't be any different.
 
I think the parents should know about it. Parents or Guardians are required to sign for any medical procedure and this shouldn't be any different.


The bill is unconstitutional because it fails to provide for emergencies. Do you want your daughter to have to wait for 48 hours when she is dying? If a young woman has a good relationship with her parents they will know about it without a law; if a young woman doesn't have a good relationship with her parents, no law will create a relationship. MOST young women do discuss their pregnancies with their parents.
 
The bill is unconstitutional because it fails to provide for emergencies. Do you want your daughter to have to wait for 48 hours when she is dying?


no, and I don't agree with that part of the law but since it is a medical procedure parents should sign something. Even if a child has a different medical emergency the hospitals do prefer to have some sort of guardian to sign for medical care. This should be no different as they should seek a parent or guardian to sign for it but if it is an absolute emergency they should go ahead with the procedure without it.
 
For those who think that there shouldn't even be parental notification (not even consent, but notification) for abortions, I'm curious as to why you think this medical procedure should be considered separate from every other medical procedure a minor goes through.
 
It's approximately 8 times safer than gestation and childbirth (late term abortion is approx. 4 times safer).
What right do parents have to force their children to endure pregnancy, when it carries such grave potential risks and abortion is statistically so much safer?*




* actually, in the US, both are fairly safe; but I assume you get my point.

They're the parents, they have that right.
 
The bill is unconstitutional because it fails to provide for emergencies. Do you want your daughter to have to wait for 48 hours when she is dying? If a young woman has a good relationship with her parents they will know about it without a law; if a young woman doesn't have a good relationship with her parents, no law will create a relationship. MOST young women do discuss their pregnancies with their parents.

Aright, so rewrite the law so that it accounts for the extremely rare need for an abortion for emergency medical reasons.
 
For those who think that there shouldn't even be parental notification (not even consent, but notification) for abortions, I'm curious as to why you think this medical procedure should be considered separate from every other medical procedure a minor goes through.

It's all apart of their cute lil teenager mentality rebellion against anything which makes them take responsibility for their **** ups. They don't care that they hurt others because their world concerns only themselves.
 
For those who think that there shouldn't even be parental notification (not even consent, but notification) for abortions, I'm curious as to why you think this medical procedure should be considered separate from every other medical procedure a minor goes through.

Because I don't think a parent should be able to force their child - minor or not - to suffer through a pregnancy and childbirth that they do not want.

And, I know that there are parents that would become violent with their child should they find out she's pregnant. A teen should not be forced to get "permission" from someone who's going to abuse her.

And the notification doesn't take emergencies into consideration.
 
Because I don't think a parent should be able to force their child - minor or not - to suffer through a pregnancy and childbirth that they do not want.
I'm not sure I see the distinction you draw. A child can be forced by their parents to go through any number of medical procedures. I've seen many kids who have to be forcibly restrained or sedated in order to get a CT scan or receive chemotherapy, etc. What is the distinction that makes abortion separate from these other procedures?

And, I know that there are parents that would become violent with their child should they find out she's pregnant. A teen should not be forced to get "permission" from someone who's going to abuse her.
If a child is caught by the police doing drugs, the police are obligated to inform the parents or guardians. There's clearly a risk that a parent would become abusive if they found out their kids was doing drugs? So should the parents not be informed because of this potential for abuse?

And the notification doesn't take emergencies into consideration.
I would agree with the emergencies aspect, but that could easily be written into the law.
 
For those who think that there shouldn't even be parental notification (not even consent, but notification) for abortions, I'm curious as to why you think this medical procedure should be considered separate from every other medical procedure a minor goes through.

This explains it very well:

Parental Consent and Notification Laws for Teen Abortions: Pro and Con

"Factors opposing mandatory parental involvement:
Religious support: Essentially all liberal religious groups are believed to oppose parental consent and notification laws.
Professional Societies: Parental consent laws are opposed by a number of professional medical groups, including: American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, and the American Medical Women's Association.
Birth Control: The National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association believes that if one service at a family planning clinic requires parental consent or notification, that some teens may be disinclined to seek other services at the clinic as well. If true, then young people might not obtain the counseling needed to help them avoid unwanted pregnancies. The total number of unwanted pregnancies and thus of abortions could increase as a result of parental notification laws. Other teens might not seek medical attention for a suspected HIV or other STD infection. This could threaten their life or health.
Health Risks: Delaying an abortion by only a few days, increases the possibility of complications arising from the procedure. Clinic and hospital abortions before the third trimester are far safer than childbirth. Teens are 24 times more likely to die from childbirth than from a legal abortion performed in the first trimester. However, the risk of death or major complications significantly increases for each week into pregnancy, particularly if the abortion is delayed until the third trimester.1,2 Judge Nixon of The District Court in Tennessee estimated "that even under the best of circumstances, the [judicial] waiver process would take twenty-two days to complete - a significant problem given the time-sensitive nature of pregnancy and the increased risk involved in later abortions." 3
The American Academy of Pediatrics stated that "Legislation mandating parental involvement does not achieve the intended benefit of promoting family communication, but it does increase the risk of harm to the adolescent by delaying access to appropriate medical care...[M]inors should not be compelled or required to involve their parents in their decisions to obtain abortions, although they should be encouraged to discuss their pregnancies with their parents and other responsible adults." 4
An American Medical Association study in 1992 showed that mandatory parental involvement laws "increase the gestational age at which the induced pregnancy termination occurs, thereby also increasing the risk associated with the procedure." 5
A study of abortions by researchers at Baruch College at City University of New York showed that Texas teens who were between 17 years, 6 months old and 18 years old were 34% more likely to have an abortion in the much riskier second trimester than young women who were 18 or older when they became pregnant.
Lawrence Finer, spokesperson for the Guttmacher Institute said: "It just shows how laws like this can lead to health risks for teens. Abortion is a safe procedure, but it's less safe later in the pregnancy." He suggest that parental involvement laws have a small effect on abortion rates compared with improved sexual education and birth control access and usage. 6


The American Medical Association noted that because "the need for privacy may be compelling, minors may be driven to desperate measures to maintain the confidentiality of their pregnancies. They may run away from home, obtain a 'back alley' abortion, or resort to self-induced abortion. The desire to maintain secrecy has been one of the leading reasons for illegal abortion deaths since...1973." 7
Women who go out of state in order to avoid the parental involvement laws in their own state may place themselves at risk during the trip home. It may be a long distance during which medical attention might not be readily available.
Parents who are opposed to abortion might force their daughter to continue with the pregnancy against her wishes, even if remaining pregnant represents a significant risk to her health or life.
Some parents will become physically or emotionally abusive to their daughter, or throw her out on the street if they learn of the pregnancy.
A pregnant woman who is a few months short of her 18th birthday might decide to wait until she is 18 before having an abortion. A delay in scheduling an abortion increases the possibility of medical complications.
"Some young women fear the news will exacerbate a parent's psychiatric or physical illness, drug or alcohol abuse, or troubled relationships with other family members." 8

Respect for the woman's decision: Some people believe that if a young woman has decided to become sexually active, then she should be allowed to decide whether to have an abortion and whether to choose to involve her parents in the decision about an abortion.
Ineffectiveness of the Judicial Waiver: Young women who live in rural areas often have difficulty getting a judicial waiver; they have no easy access to a judge. Courthouses are often more easily accessible to women who live in cities. Confidentiality can not necessarily be assured. Some teens lack the knowledge and experience of court procedures to obtain a waiver. Some cannot attend court if their hearing occurs during school hours. Some judges are strongly pro-life. Although the Supreme Court requires judges to issue a waiver if the teen is mature or if an abortion is in her best interest, some judges routinely deny petitions.
Law contributes to family breakdown: Studies by the Alan Guttmacher Institute show that the vast majority of adolescents, particularly those 15 years of age or younger, involve their parents in an abortion decision. A group which successfully overturned a California consent law said: "The statute operates only on young women who do not consult their parents with the news of pregnancy because the family is unsupportive, in crisis, dysfunctional or abusive...For these young women, the statute tests the already difficult relationship between parent and child, undermining the very goals it purports to promote." Some teens risk physical abuse or abandonment if she tells a parent about her pregnancy.
Laws not needed and may be dangerous: A study conducted by Planned Parenthood found that 61 percent of minors who had abortions discussed their plans with at least one parent before undergoing the procedure. Of those minors who did not inform their parents of their abortions, 30 percent had histories of violence in their families, feared the occurrence of violence, or were afraid of being kicked out of their homes. "
 
I'm not sure I see the distinction you draw. A child can be forced by their parents to go through any number of medical procedures. I've seen many kids who have to be forcibly restrained or sedated in order to get a CT scan or receive chemotherapy, etc. What is the distinction that makes abortion separate from these other procedures?

I don't think a teen should be forced to undergo chemotherapy either. So there is no difference.

A CT scan? I hardly think a CT scan is comparable to chemotherapy or pregnancy/childbirth

If a child is caught by the police doing drugs, the police are obligated to inform the parents or guardians. There's clearly a risk that a parent would become abusive if they found out their kids was doing drugs? So should the parents not be informed because of this potential for abuse?

That's a little different situation in that the drugs you are speaking of are illegal (I presume). If the drugs were legal, then I'd say no - they shouldn't necessarily be informed. Course, if the drugs are legal, there's no reason for the police to be involved in the first place.
 
Because I don't think a parent should be able to force their child - minor or not - to suffer through a pregnancy and childbirth that they do not want.

And, I know that there are parents that would become violent with their child should they find out she's pregnant. A teen should not be forced to get "permission" from someone who's going to abuse her.

And the notification doesn't take emergencies into consideration.

The notification should take the extremely rare exceptions into consideration, but the general rule should be that the medical facility must acquire legal consent for medical treatment from a parent or legal guardian no different than if the facility were going to remove a tapeworm.

If you can’t show that your parents are violent and if you don’t have a medical emergency, then you’ll have to actually communicate and have a relationship with those 2 pesky people who are legally required to pay all of your bills, give you food, clothes, a worm place to sleep at night and a bathroom to bathe in (oh, and they loved and raised you to) :eek:
 
If you can’t show that your parents are violent and if you don’t have a medical emergency
How do you "prove" what someone hasn't done yet?

then you’ll have to actually communicate and have a relationship with those 2 pesky people who are legally required to pay all of your bills, give you food, clothes, a worm place to sleep at night and a bathroom to bathe in
If the teen has such communication with her parents, she won't need a law to force her to communicate.

(oh, and they loved and raised you to) :eek:
That's an assumption.
 
How do you "prove" what someone hasn't done yet?

That's just it: If there's no history of abuse, then there's no reason to assume a future of abuse. Without supporting evidence the fear of violence is unreasonable; it is a phobia, which is why 'Liberalism is a mental disorder' ;)

If the teen has such communication with her parents, she won't need a law to force her to communicate.

Again with your mischaracterizations.

The medical facility does not have license to practice on anyone unless they consent. A minor child is not legally able to consent. Legal consent on the child's behalf must be obtained by a parent or other legal guardian.

As a Conservative it is my opinion that government involvement here should be kept to a minimum by only appointing a temporary legal guardian when the claim of abuse can be substantiated.

That's an assumption.
Unless and until it can be proved otherwise in court, it is the default.
 
I don't think a teen should be forced to undergo chemotherapy either. So there is no difference.

A CT scan? I hardly think a CT scan is comparable to chemotherapy or pregnancy/childbirth
Interesting. So where do you draw the line? There are many, many kids who need an MRI and refuse to get it because in all honestly, it's a pretty difficult thing to get through. The parents can force their kids to get one. Alternatively, they can refuse one for their child despite medical advice. You say no to chemo, but yes to the CT scan. How about surgery? What if it was just a procedure like a bronchoscopy. How about a blood draw, or antibiotics? The point was not that a CT scan = abortion, as you imply. The point is that medical procedures, ranging from the non-invasive to the invasive require parental notification and consent. Why is abortion different?


That's a little different situation in that the drugs you are speaking of are illegal (I presume). If the drugs were legal, then I'd say no - they shouldn't necessarily be informed. Course, if the drugs are legal, there's no reason for the police to be involved in the first place.
Now you're arguing legality. Your original point was that kids might get abused, so withhold the information from the parents. If it was illegal to get an abortion without parental consent, then drugs and abortion are analogous. The legality of the action has no bearing on whether a kid will get abused if her parents find out.
 
This explains it very well:

Parental Consent and Notification Laws for Teen Abortions: Pro and Con

"Factors opposing mandatory parental involvement:
<snip>
Health Risks: Delaying an abortion by only a few days, increases the possibility of complications arising from the procedure. Clinic and hospital abortions before the third trimester are far safer than childbirth. Teens are 24 times more likely to die from childbirth than from a legal abortion performed in the first trimester. However, the risk of death or major complications significantly increases for each week into pregnancy, particularly if the abortion is delayed until the third trimester.1,2 Judge Nixon of The District Court in Tennessee estimated "that even under the best of circumstances, the [judicial] waiver process would take twenty-two days to complete - a significant problem given the time-sensitive nature of pregnancy and the increased risk involved in later abortions." 3
<snip>
An American Medical Association study in 1992 showed that mandatory parental involvement laws "increase the gestational age at which the induced pregnancy termination occurs, thereby also increasing the risk associated with the procedure." 5
<snip>
Some parents will become physically or emotionally abusive to their daughter, or throw her out on the street if they learn of the pregnancy.

Thanks for the link. It was an interesting read. However, there are several glaring problems that I see with some of the information. I think the point that increased gestational age results in increased risk of abortion is a good one. However, the risk is not as catastrophic as the article implies. There is an significantly increased risk of first vs. second trimester abortions, no doubt about it, but it is not the ticking timebomb portrayed with every week "significantly" increasing risk of abortion. In fact In a study of abortions performed in the second trimester, "neither gestational age, the physician, nor the type of facility had a great effect on the relatively low risks of dilatation and evacuation."

This ticking timebomb concept is not utilized in other medical situations which are time sensitive. If a kid shows up with a cancer and demands treatment, the doctor is not allowed to start treatment without parental consent. The longer the kid goes without treatment, the less likely the cure rate. Even so, parental consent is needed. The same can be said for an infection which can progress if time goes on. Treatment cannot be given without parental consent.

And we've already addressed the concept that parental notification is waived for fear of abuse. Notification of parents for a number of things is mandatory even if it raises the possibility of abuse from the parent.
 
This ticking timebomb concept is not utilized in other medical situations which are time sensitive. If a kid shows up with a cancer and demands treatment, the doctor is not allowed to start treatment without parental consent. The longer the kid goes without treatment, the less likely the cure rate. Even so, parental consent is needed. The same can be said for an infection which can progress if time goes on. Treatment cannot be given without parental consent.

Treatment for cancer or infections are not likely to be delayed by a teen's fear of telling his parents.


And we've already addressed the concept that parental notification is waived for fear of abuse. Notification of parents for a number of things is mandatory even if it raises the possibility of abuse from the parent.

A waiver for fear of abuse not only delays the abortion, many teens don't know how to negotiate the legal system. They need transportation and knowledge to obtain a waiver. Notification and consent laws were passed with the plain purpose of allowing parents to interfere with a teen's choice of abortion, but what if the result is parents' requiring teens to have abortions against their will? If parents have the authority to refuse their child an abortion, they should have the right to require one.
 
Treatment for cancer or infections are not likely to be delayed by a teen's fear of telling his parents.
No, but the point of the article was that any delay would threaten the health of the girl getting the abortion. If that was the yardstick by which parental notification is needed, than any kid with cancer or an infection should be able to request treatment without parental consent, because no matter what, it would take time to bring the parents in to get that consent.

A waiver for fear of abuse not only delays the abortion, many teens don't know how to negotiate the legal system. They need transportation and knowledge to obtain a waiver.
Does the teen not need transportation and knowledge to make the decision to have an abortion? If so, then why is it a unreasonable burden to get the waiver but not so to the get the abortion?

Notification and consent laws were passed with the plain purpose of allowing parents to interfere with a teen's choice of abortion, but what if the result is parents' requiring teens to have abortions against their will? If parents have the authority to refuse their child an abortion, they should have the right to require one.
I would actually agree with you regarding the motive behind these laws. I'm actually arguing it from a bit different perspective, which is, we have determined that minors are not capable of giving their own consent for any other medical procedure. If that is what our society has determined, then why they exception for abortions? As long as abortions are legal, then legally, a parent should have the right to force their child to have an abortion, just like they can force their child to have surgery. My solution to that is simple. Make abortions illegal.
 
No, but the point of the article was that any delay would threaten the health of the girl getting the abortion. If that was the yardstick by which parental notification is needed, than any kid with cancer or an infection should be able to request treatment without parental consent, because no matter what, it would take time to bring the parents in to get that consent.
"Judge Nixon of The District Court in Tennessee estimated "that even under the best of circumstances, the [judicial] waiver process would take twenty-two days to complete - a significant problem given the time-sensitive nature of pregnancy and the increased risk involved in later abortions.""

In the case of getting parental consent for cancer or infection treatment causing a delay of 22 days or longer, I would support the child being able to receive treatment without consent.



Does the teen not need transportation and knowledge to make the decision to have an abortion? If so, then why is it a unreasonable burden to get the waiver but not so to the get the abortion?

Because of all the controversy surrounding abortion, teens are usually much better informed about abortion than they are about the legal system. Keep in mind that in rural areas a teen could not count on confidentiality from the court system. Getting a waiver adds an additional step to the process, the young woman still has to get the abortion.



I would actually agree with you regarding the motive behind these laws. I'm actually arguing it from a bit different perspective, which is, we have determined that minors are not capable of giving their own consent for any other medical procedure. If that is what our society has determined, then why they exception for abortions? As long as abortions are legal, then legally, a parent should have the right to force their child to have an abortion, just like they can force their child to have surgery. My solution to that is simple. Make abortions illegal.

The exception for abortion is because the lack of abortion affects the young woman's entire life. She should be able to make that determination. Some other medical procedures may also affect the rest of her life, and she certainly should be able to make those decisions as well. Making abortion illegal is a simple solution, but it is not effective. It doesn't stop abortion at all, but it puts women at risk of incompetent abortionists.
 
Back
Top Bottom