ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Wednesday, March 13, 1996 TAG: 9603140018
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-7 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: GRACE SPARKS
MOST PARENTS recognize that the final decision - to continue the pregnancy or to have an abortion - should be made by the pregnant teen, although few would want their daughters to act without their knowledge. Caring parents of pregnant teens want to be consulted and have a right to be a part of their daughter's decision-making process. Supportive parents worry that their teen-agers will be afraid to consult them and will act alone.
At first blush, a law about requiring parental notice or consent seems to be a good way to resolve parental fears. However, heavy-handed government interference in family life and the practice of medicine is not the solution.
Immediately after the 1989 Webster decision, in which the Supreme Court indicated it would accept state restrictions on abortion access, national anti-abortion groups announced they would lobby for parental notification and consent legislation as part of their goal to limit access to abortions for all women. These groups have promoted such measures in Virginia and other states as an effective way to foster family communication, support parental involvement, and even reduce teen sexual activity and unwanted pregnancies.
Some parents may see such laws as an insurance policy, a simple, sensible answer to their worries. It's easy to accept these claims if one does not carefully examine the actual effects of the laws in other states.
The truth of what happens to pregnant teens is quite different.
First, such laws are unnecessary for most families since the majority of pregnant teens do consult with at least one parent. Relationships built over time on trust, respect and love do not fall apart in most homes, even during the difficult teen years.
Second, these laws don't improve family communication in troubled situations. Families hurting from alcoholism, drug abuse, abandonment, domestic violence or severe mental or physical illness are not made whole by a notification-consent requirement. Teens in violent homes can be the object of new abuse. Teens in these families are further victimized by a law that provides only an illusion of involvement for worried parents.
Likewise, a judicial bypass is unrealistic for most teens from troubled or poor homes. Low-income teens are more likely to face physical abuse and less likely to seek judicial help because they have fewer resources. Meanwhile, teens who try to negotiate the judicial system are often humiliated and frightened by the need to appear before a stranger to explain their family situation and personal decisions.
Tragically, these laws don't ensure that teens receive better medical care. In fact, teens in states with such requirements typically have abortions later in term, when the procedure is riskier and more difficult.
Because of their lack of experience and their irregular menstrual cycles, teens are often later in their pregnancies before they seek help. Having to obtain proof of parental notification and consent - or seeking a judicial bypass - forces many into having a second-trimester procedure. Teens who are afraid to tell their parents may also travel out of state to seek abortions, increasing the risks to their health.
Based on the experience of other states, government-mandated parental notification and consent laws do not significantly increase the likelihood that a pregnant teen will confide in her parents. National surveys of the medical effect on pregnant teen-agers in states that have laws requiring parental consent or notification have shown no beneficial effect. In fact, the results are that these laws have proved to be medically harmful to pregnant teen-agers. For example, since 1981 when parental-notification laws went into effect in Minnesota and Massachusetts, late abortions to Minnesota minors have risen sharply (by 26.6 percent), increasing medical risks to the pregnant teen. The rate for pregnant Massachusetts teens going out of state for abortions rose 68 percent.
Is it then worth the health and personal costs to individual teen-agers and the community as a whole to require notification and consent in all cases, with or without judicial bypass?
At a time when eight out of 10 teen pregnancies are unintended, when 1 million teens become pregnant each year, when our country "leads " the industrialized world in teen pregnancy rates, we need to find better ways to strengthen families, provide adult support for all pregnant teens and help young teens postpone sexual involvement and act responsibly. None of these issues are addressed or solved by mandating parental involvement through notification-consent laws.
Let's demand real solutions for these problems - not punishment for vulnerable teens.
Grace Sparks is executive director of the Virginia League for Planned Parenthood in Richmond.
- Virginia Forum
LENGTH: Medium: 87 linesby CNB