• 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 laws (1 Viewer)

F

FallingPianos

Oregon has a parental notification law on the november ballot, and I was curious what you guys would think. The details of Measure 43 are here.

this measure is very similar to ones that other states have passed. it would require that notification be sent to the parents of a minor 15-17 in person or via certified mail. the parent has to show photo ID to prove they are the parent when recieving the mail. (14 year olds and under already need parental consent to obtail medical treatment)

like other states, this measure has a judicial bypass option. It requires the minor to send an application to the Department of Human Services which shall assign an administrative law judge, i.e. not a real judge. There can then be a confidential hearing. If the judge does not make a ruling in a timly manner the appeal is granted.

in oregon, minors 15 and older can consent to their own medical treatment:

ORS 109.640 Right to medical or dental treatment without parental consent; provision of birth control information and services to any person. Any physician or nurse practitioner may provide birth control information and services to any person without regard to the age of the person. A minor 15 years of age or older may give consent to hospital care, medical or surgical diagnosis or treatment by a physician licensed by the Board of Medical Examiners for the State of Oregon, and dental or surgical diagnosis or treatment by a dentist licensed by the Oregon Board of Dentistry, without the consent of a parent or guardian, except as may be provided by ORS 109.660. A minor 15 years of age or older may give consent to diagnosis and treatment by a nurse practitioner who is licensed by the Oregon State Board of Nursing under ORS 678.375 and who is acting within the scope of practice for a nurse practitioner, without the consent of a parent or guardian of the minor.

A minor 14 years and older can also consent to their own outpatient psychiatric services and chemical dependency services, though in both cases a parent must be notified before the end of the treatment unless its not within the minors best interest to do so as determained by the doctor. a minor 15 years and older can consent to their own sterilization services, and a minor 16 and older can consent to donating blood. (source)

I don't know whether the ability for a minor to consent to their own treatment is typical, or unique to oregon. what are the laws in other states?

what I'm wondering is why should abortion be the only exception? proponants say that they are looking out for the best interests of the minor, but given that minors can consent to much more dangerous medical treatments, psychiatric care, and drug rehab, I am skeptical, especially sinse virtually all the push is coming from pro-life organizations.

thoughts?
 
Here in NJ, minors under the age of 18 must have parental consent for most medical and dental proceedures. There are some exceptions, however. All of the following are regardless of age.

Outpatient psychiatric services are a grey area; outpatient chmeical dependancy services do not require parental consent. Since this, in many cases, includes outpatient counseling, an argument could be made for outpatient mental health services to be included in not needing parental consent.

Medical treatment for STD's, sexual assault, and pregnacy/prenatal care do not require parental consent.

Contraceptives can be obtained without parental consent.

An abortion can be obtained without parental consent.
 
I'm voting against this law, personally. If the people want to make parental consent necessary for medical procedures, that's fine; I'd be willing to discuss it and probably vote for it. But I see no reason to make abortion a special case -- I agree that the argument that it is somehow more damaging than the procedures that a teen can get without consent doesn't hold water.
 
I'm in Seattle, and i could do anything like that without parental consent or knowledge.
 
CoffeeSaint said:
I'm voting against this law, personally. If the people want to make parental consent necessary for medical procedures, that's fine; I'd be willing to discuss it and probably vote for it. But I see no reason to make abortion a special case -- I agree that the argument that it is somehow more damaging than the procedures that a teen can get without consent doesn't hold water.

thats exactly how I see it, but you're one of the only people I've seen make this argument. the main opposition argument I hear is that it will put abused teens at greater risk.
 
star2589 said:
Oregon has a parental notification law on the november ballot, and I was curious what you guys would think. The details of Measure 43 are here.
You know, I'm a big fan of consistency....so if a 16 y/o can consent to medical procedures, then just lower the legal age of adulthood to 16 and let them vote and be in a jury.

If the legal age is to stay at 18, then in the spirit of said consistency anyone under 18 y/o shouldn’t be able to consent to a single thing.

Without parental consent you can get an abortion but you can not get your ears pierced......wtf?
 
Jerry said:
You know, I'm a big fan of consistency....so if a 16 y/o can consent to medical procedures, then just lower the legal age of adulthood to 16 and let them vote and be in a jury.

If the legal age is to stay at 18, then in the spirit of said consistency anyone under 18 y/o shouldn’t be able to consent to a single thing.

Without parental consent you can get an abortion but you can not get your ears pierced......wtf?

I am also a fan of consistency. why should a minor be able to consent to heart surgury but not abortion, as would be the case in oregon if measure 43 passes?

I dont know what the laws are about getting ones ears pierced in oregon for cosmetic purposes, but theoretically speaking if it were done by a doctor or nurse practitioner for medical reasons it would be completely legal.
 
star2589 said:
I am also a fan of consistency. why should a minor be able to consent to heart surgury but not abortion, as would be the case in oregon if measure 43 passes?

I dont know what the laws are about getting ones ears pierced in oregon for cosmetic purposes, but theoretically speaking if it were done by a doctor or nurse practitioner for medical reasons it would be completely legal.
IMO a miner shouldn't be able to consent to either, but I would rather there be consistency in the law then to have my way on the abortion issue.

Is that weird?
 
Jerry said:
IMO a miner shouldn't be able to consent to either

I disagree. I think that 15 year olds are old enough to make their own medical decisions. (in oregon, minors under 14 require parental consent) Ideally, I think that whether a minor should be able to consent to a procedure or medication should be proportional to how safe that prodecure or medication is.

for example:
minors over 12 should be able to buy over the counter drugs if they cant already
minors over 14 should be able to consent to low risk medical procedures and medications
minors over 16 should be able to consent to moderate risk medical prodecures and medications
and one would have to be 18 to consent to something high risk.

of course, any law would have to find a consistent way of defining what is high risk and what isnt. for drugs, the scheduling of the drug would make sense. for medical procedurs it would be more tricky.

Jerry said:
but I would rather there be consistency in the law then to have my way on the abortion issue.

Is that weird?

unfortunaly, it is unusual, but I think its a good thing.
 
Here's the thing with Oregon's current law: Physicians do not need parental consent for medical treatment of minors 15 and up however they also do not need the patients permission to inform parents and guardians of said treatment in relation to minors. So the overwhelming vast majority of surgeries done on minors are done with the parents being informed and knowledgable about what's going on. Abortion is more "secretive." And I personally don't give a ratz arse about consistency I think if a doc is gonna do surgery on my kid I wanna freaking know about it.

Abortion will never be consistent with other surgeries regarding minors in any case. If it were anything but "abortion" I would know about it. My kid isn't going to have an appendectomy, a tonsilectomy, cancer treatment ect.... in secret. Nor is there any law saying an oregon dr. must withhold info from parents regarding any surgery. Will that be the case with abortion?

Abortion is different 'cause it's probably the only surgical procedure that would be done in secrecy. I just feel as long as I'm in the business of loving, feeding, clothing, and housing my kid then any dr. that treats my kid should have the common decency to make me aware of what is going on.
 
Last edited:
so say a girl, aged 14 got pregnant, and she wanted to get an abortion. now her parents are right wing, christian people who do not belive in abortion. does this mean that the girl HAS to go through with the pregnancy and have a child she clearly does not want and cannot handle? just because her narrow parents make her?

i thaught we had moved on from the days of shotgun weddings...
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom