Letters to the Editor
-
Read Between The Lines
This has nothing to do with parental notification and everything to do with chipping away at Roe V. Wade.
First, they require parental notification. Then, ooh, maybe they'll boost the age up to 21. Hm. Okay, that went through. Let's try getting the husband's consent in the case of a married woman needing an abortion. Good! Now, let's go for the consent of the boyfriend in the case of an unmarried woman needing an abortion. Yippee! Break out the beers for "men's rights". Now, let's see if we can force the woman to get three doctor's notes and pass it through a committee to get permission to get an abortion. Hee hee. Pulled a fast one on them. Let's require them to do a blood screening, get a permit, pass the committee, count backwards from 1,000, get the sperm provider's permission, get their parents' permission, have the Governor notarize it....
You see where this is going, right?
-
"parent or guardian" how about another trusted adult?
True - it is helpful to have a parent or guardian or other adult involved if you are a minor and are considering an abortion. Sadly, Prop 85 says a minor can ONLY notify her parents or guardian. The trusted school counselor or teacher aren't enough. Minors who can't go to their parents or guardians(and yes, that's mainly because of abuse or the very legitimate fear of getting thrown out on the street), usually go to a another adult such as a teacher or counselor. The statistic I've been hearing says 80-90% of minors go to their parents or another adult before having an abortion. I'd hate to think why the other 10% don't talk to someone. Actually, I may know. They have no one to go to. I don't know about you all, but I come from a culture and community where most of those 10% of girls probably came from (or somewhere like it). Where I come from, girls would rather have their boyfriends punch them in the stomach or find other ways to "get an abortion" than talk to their parents. Bottom line, the state can't mandate family communication. Those 10% of girls who can't talk to their parents aren't gonna just 'cause Prop 85 passes. Instead, they'll find other ways to get end a pregnancy - probably to their own detriment. Anyone who believes differently, is naive.
And as for the judicial bypass written into the law... If you think it's realistic for a girl to a) find a court b) navigate the court system c) get out of school to navigate that system and/or d)find her way down to a court without people finding out why (which would likely incur whatever wrath she was trying to escape in the first place), well, you probably haven't been involved with the justice system. And I'm sure a girl will see the choice of going to her abusive parents or a strange man/woman in a black robe up behind a bench as perfectly reasonable. I'm sure she'll do one or the other because the State tells her to. Even if it's easier to poison herself (and her fetus) with alcohol or find some person willing to "try" aborting the fetus, I'm sure she'll go to her parents or take advantage of that judicial bypass.
Apologies for my sarcasm. But we seem to forget that if a girl can't go to her parents, there is usually a dman good reason for that and we seem to think making a law that affects 10% of the population is a good idea - even if it results in more harm than good because there might be a few girls in that 10% who really could go to their parents without facing danger.
And if we think the evangelicals and pro-life folks who spent $500,000 on Prop 85 REALLY care about a minor's safety and family communication and have NO ulterior motive (say, like, I don't know, eroding abortion rights) well, we need to open our eyes. (Just a refresher, Prop 85 was Prop 73 last year - Prop 73 included an amendment to the State constitution saying that life begins at conception. But I'm SURE Prop 85 is all about family communication...)
-
DOES every other surgical procedure require notification?
"The fact is that every other surgical procedure requires parental notification..."
I do not believe this is true, and at the very least it varies from state to state. The issue of doctor-patient confidentiality vis-a-vis children and adolescents is the subject of much debate in both political and bioethical arenas, but predominantly in matters pertaining to sexuality or mental health. Procedures other that abortion may be even more of a gray area since it seems less likely that they would provoke controversy; why would a teenager be concerned if her parents knew she had a broken bone set or an abscess lanced?
I know that where I live, in Seattle, I can have access to my children's medical records until they are 13. After that, I must have their consent.
-
Everything You Say Works Against You
The fact is that every other surgical procedure requires parental notification, and I don't see a good reason to make an exception in this case, especially since abortion carries unique emotional risks in addition to the physical ones attendant on every medical procedure.
Way to shoot your argument in the foot. Abortion isn't like other procedures - that's why it needs to be confidential.
If abortion is to be treated differently than other medical procedures, it should be in the form of more protections, rather than fewer, particularly when it comes to minors.
Absolutely, but YOU'RE the one advocating LESS protection for the minors so afflicted. Confidentiallity IS protection, period. Arguing that it's "less" protection when the results are clearly not in the minors' interests is insane.
...or that the government has the right to interfere with how families run themselves.
This is more insanity. YOU'RE the one advocating government interference. There's so much utterly delusional thinking here I don't know where to stop.
And in cases of teenagers coping with abuse, a court can permit a minor to get an abortion without parental notification.
I'm sure that works out great occasionally, but meanwhile the delays are not in the minor's favor (abortion is least dangerous when performed soonest), and the odds of a typical kid being able to pull that off without their over-controlling parents finding out are pretty slim anyway.
At its heart, however, California's Proposition 85 protects the interests of minors by preserving the role of parents or guardians in their lives.
Taking people's right to protect themselves away is not in their interest.
Whether a minor decides to continue her pregnancy or not, she should have a parent or trusted guardian beside her.
It's not the trusted parent/guardians who are the problem. It's not the trusted parent/guardians that are at all involved in this issue. Just forget about them, this law won't have any effect either way.
The only people you're siding with are abusive parents and the anti-choice crowd.