Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: MONDAY, July 2, 1990 TAG: 9007030359
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-7 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: PAMELA PATTON
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
Such legislation is said by its advocates to promote healthy familial relationships and good parent-child communication. Also, many parents may feel that their permission would be necessary for an appendectomy, so why not for an abortion?
But no parent ever threw a daughter out of the house for having appendicitis. No young woman ever died from taking out her own appendix, or from an unlicensed, back-alley appendectomy. But young women have died from self-induced and illegal abortions.
We must look behind the seeming good intentions of these bills to see the real intentions behind - and the true consequences of - parental-notification laws.
Fact is, these laws do not enhance - and can even harm - family integrity. Supporters of parental notification are less concerned with the health and welfare of families and teen-agers than with the use of such laws to promote their anti-abortion agenda, to place one more barrier between a woman and her right to choose medical care. These laws place a cruel and unusual burden on very young women already suffering from the enormous stress of unwanted pregnancy.
This is why I, and other opponents of parental notice, call such measures "teen endangerment" legislation.
National surveys have shown that more than 50 percent of teens seeking abortions inform at least one parent. This majority, therefore, does not need legislation requiring parental notification.
Young women who choose not to tell their parents are acting for good reason. They may feel deeply ashamed of the fact that they are pregnant, and do not want their parents to lose respect for them. If their families are troubled by mental illness, drugs, or physical or emotional abuse, state-mandated notification can worsen the situation.
Some parents may refuse to talk to their daughters after learning of their pregnancies. In severely dysfunctional families, involuntary notification may even bring about violence against the teen-ager. Is this the kind of family communication the state wants to promote?
Teen-endangerment laws try to get around such situations by providing for a judicial bypass, which allows the teen-ager to seek permission for an abortion from a court of law in lieu of her parents.
But anyone who has ever argued a parking ticket knows how intimidating a courtroom is. For a young woman who has to sneak out of school or work to make a court appearance and then relate intimate personal matters before a judge, the effect can be devastating.
When Minnesota's parental-notification law was challenged in federal district court, testimony revealed that some young women became physically ill in the courtroom; some required sedation upon returning to their health clinics. Counselors at the clinics found that patients concentrated on their fear and anger about the judicial procedure, rather than on their feelings about their pregnancies.
In addition, the judicial bypass takes time; delays could necessitate risky and expensive second-trimester abortions.
The judge's role is to decide whether the teen-ager is mature enough to make the abortion decision on her own. But the judge must also take into account the fact that a pregnant teen's choices are limited. If she is deemed not mature enough to choose to have an abortion, is she mature enough to carry her pregnancy to term and give up her baby for adoption? Is she mature enough to raise a child?
In the Minnesota testimony, none of the six judges who had heard 90 percent of the teen-agers' petitions saw any positive effects of the law. Health professional agreed, and found that the law had a negative, disruptive effect on families.
Current Virginia law protects confidential medical care for teen-agers seeking birth-control and family-planning services, and treatment for veneral diseases, substance abuse or mental illness. Why are advocates of parental notification not overly concerned about the lack of parental involvement in the treatment of these conditions?
Plainly, because most of us realize that if teens were forced to tell their parents about such sensitive matters, a number of them would avoid treatment altogether.
The social consequences would be a dangerous spread of disease and drug abuse. So we have acted wisely, protecting first and foremost our children's health and well-being.
The same applies for teens' abortion rights. We have all read the studies which show that sexually active teens do not, as a rule, use birth control. We know that a pregnant teen may have to drop out of high school. We know how hard it will be for her to raise her child. More teens will be forced into such straits, or will be injured by illegal or self-induced abortions if teen-endangerment laws are passed.
If those pushing for the passage of teen-endangerment laws truly wanted to help children and their parents communicate with each other, they would be lobbying their state legislators to increase funding for mental-health and social-service agencies. Programs would be set up to identify and counsel families in need.
The passage of teen-endangerment laws will be seen as a victory by some. Passing such laws may make us feel good about promoting family communication, or about reducing the number of abortions performed in the state. We may also feel we are entitled to know our daughters' personal decisions.
But if our assertion of our rights as parents would drive our young daughters to undergo the psychological trauma of pleading their cases in court, to travel to other states to obtain abortions, or to undergo illegal or self-induced abortions, what parents wouldn't make the small sacrifice of giving up their authority to ensure their children's health and even their lives?
by CNB