the smedley log - suburban scrawl

Cross-border abortions regulated

Dragonballyee (again, yes) responds to last night’s passage of a bill that will “make it illegal to dodge parental-consent laws by taking minors across state lines for abortions.”

I understand there is opposition to parental-consent laws, but I don’t completely understand why. As indicated by an old blog entry, I have a little bit of a problem with the belief that this sort of decision (involving potentially complicated surgical procedures) should invariably be left to a minor. I guess I wouldn’t mind if someone wanted to offer a more detailed version of what’s wrong with parental-consent laws or this current legislation specifically.

Think of all the things that we don’t leave to minors to decide for themselves, and then think of all the incredibly valid reasons for not letting minors make such decisions. I guess, given all the potential for complication, I’ve always been uneasy with allowing a minor make what could amount to an incredibly permanent choice all by him/herself, whether or not that choice involves abortion.

Tom Carter also posted on this topic a couple days ago, and I tend to think he’s got a point in mentioning the full faith and credit clause as another valid reason why this type of legislation is almost implicit in the constitution.

i think it’s mainly the big picture for me. the big picture that this neo-con administration is taking on the issue of choice. they want zero abortions, but they are going about it in the wrong way. they want abstinence only. they want viagra to be covered under insurance plans, but the consequences of having a raging hard on for 4 hours, that’s not their problem. they love the baby, hate the fetus.

the bill makes exceptions for the physical well-being of the minor and incest, which is a start, but does not [to my reading] have anything to say on failed use of prophylactics nor rape nor medical malpractice [yes i watch a lot of law & order].

if a minor has a discussion with her parent/guardian stating that she was raped and just found out that she is pregnant and the parents forbid her from having an abortion, isn’t that unreasonable? shouldn’t she be able to go to a state allowing her to do so without their consent?

i’m all for getting rid of abortions, but that would entail lots of sex ed, eliminating rape, a 110% success rate with prophylactics among many other factors. lowering the number through education, access and choice is, in this guy’s opinion, a start.

I see where you’re coming from, which helps a bit.

I don’t, in most cases, think this type of decision is the domain of a minor. It’s not to say there aren’t extreme examples where the parents of a minor shouldn’t be excluded from weighing in—I’m fully aware (and worse, confident) that there are an abundant number of parents who simply don’t have their own childrens’ best interests at heart.

I don’t know if you read the old blog enty I linked in this post, but medical malpractice (which you mention in your comment) was very much a problem for a my friend’s sister, who actually crossed the PA-NJ border to obtain a legal abortion, and was subsequently (and literally) scarred for life. Her reasons for evading her parents’ consent turned out to be unfounded, and the consequences are something she deals with a decade later. My own feelings on abortion aside, I really feel for her, and I know she isn’t the only sad case out there.

But on the other hand, I really appreciate you expanding on your reaction to the bill. Thanks!

I think the biggest concern with parental consent is that if the parents find out the girl is pregnant, she could find herself thrown out into the gutter (MY parents would certainly have done just that), and now we have a minor girl who’s homeless, penniless, and pregnant, likely forced into prostitution to eat… when instead, she could quietly have an abortion and keep her life and the love of her family.