
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: SUNDAY, April 24, 1994                   TAG: 9404260012
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: B2   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: LINDA A. WHITLOCK
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

A FAILED APPROACH TO PREGNANT TEENS

ONE HAS to wonder how Kathryn Haynie acquired her perfect understanding of the motives of proponents of a parental-notification law for Virginia. According to her, ``the proponents of this legislation have only one motive: to create barriers to access to abortion.'' From her April 4 commentary (``Parental notification law will endanger young lives''), one gathers that the proponents are mean people who want to prevent anyone from having an abortion. Certainly they couldn't be considering parents' rights to be involved in life-changing, potentially life-threatening, decisions made by their children. They couldn't possibly have the physical and emotional welfare of teen-agers in mind, or the welfare of their babies.

On the other hand, one would have to be a cynic indeed to ascribe anything other than altruistic motives to Ms. Haynie. After all, what possible interest could the executive director of our local Planned Parenthood - an organization that nationwide is one of the largest, if not the largest, providers of abortion services - have in seeing that parents stay out of their children's abortion decisions?

She presents a sweeping list of possible results of a parental-notification law: ``more second-trimester abortions; more teens driving long distances to North Carolina, the District of Columbia or New York to avoid disclosure of their pregnancy to their parents; more unwanted births; more teens without early prenatal care; more babies with health problems.'' She provides no evidence to back up these ``likely effect[s].'' What have other states experienced with similar laws?

One possible effect that she fails to mention is that the teen-pregnancy rate might drop. In his book, ``Inside American Education,'' Thomas Sowell said: ``When Utah passed a law requiring parental consent for minors to be given contraceptives, not only did teen-agers' use of family-planning clinics and teen-age abortions decline; so did pregnancy and birth rates.'' Perhaps having to obtain parental consent for an abortion would have a similar effect.

In 1972, prior to the widespread availability of abortions, the pregnancy rate for unmarried teens was 49.4 per 1,000, compared to a rate of 99.2 per 1,000 in 1990. (Sources: National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and the Alan Guttmacher Institute.) Since 1960, when sex education and abortion were basically nonexistent, the birth rate among unmarried teens climbed nearly 200 percent, from 15.3 births per 1,000 to 44.8 per 1,000 in 1991.

From these statistics, one would conclude that - despite Ms. Haynie's great ``love'' for ``our children'' - efforts of organizations like Planned Parenthood have had little success in reducing unwanted teen pregnancies. The time has come to try something different - perhaps even something as radical as allowing parents to be involved in their children's lives.

Linda A. Whitlock of Salem works as a branch manager for a local bank.

by CNB