ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1997, Roanoke Times
DATE: Friday, January 24, 1997 TAG: 9701240025
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-11 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: DAVID NOVA
GOV. GEORGE Allen has renewed his call for passage of a parental-notification measure in Virginia. During this month's State of the Commonwealth address, Allen said, "The people of Virginia are patient, but on this issue their will has been too long delayed and too long denied."
The governor's words are highly understated. During the past 18 years, more than 40 parental-notification measures have been introduced in Virginia. None has been signed into law. In that time, most other states have passed some form of notification law.
Virginia's resistance to do likewise may say less about the resilience of the pro-choice movement than about the power of Virginia conservatism.
Our quintessentially conservative commonwealth has always been less apt to change existing law unless there is a demonstrable need for change. We respect the wise countenance of our forefathers.
A 1990 Commonwealth Poll by Virginia Commonwealth University bears this out. When asked if they favor or oppose a law "that required minors seeking an abortion to notify their parents," Virginians favor such a law by more than a 2 to 1 margin.
However, when told that "Virginia law currently allows a minor girl to obtain an abortion without the knowledge of her parents," and asked, "Should this law be changed, or should it not be changed?" fewer than half favored changing the law. Virginians may say "yes" to the concept of parental notification. But they are tightfisted about enacting new government mandates to force communication within families.
This resistance to blithely changing Virginia laws is centuries old. It is a well-founded brand of conservatism that has served Virginia honorably. Unlike other conservative states, such as Utah or Mississippi, Virginia has rarely allowed itself to be a laboratory for the latest legislative fad. As a result, it avoids wasting millions of dollars litigating the constitutionality of questionable laws. It also sidesteps the unforeseen consequences inherent in freshly conceived legislation.
The most notable consequence of parental-notification laws has been the large migration of pregnant teen-agers who travel out-of-state for abortions. In 1996, Planned Parenthood of the Blue Ridge performed abortions for minors from Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and elsewhere. All of these young women were fugitives of their home states' parental-notification laws.
The use of false identification to feign adulthood and, to a lesser degree, self-inducement of abortion, are also consequences of such laws. In many cases, notification laws cause minors to delay seeking medical care until late in pregnancy.
These unforeseen consequences of parental notification have made abortions more hazardous for pregnant minors. That is why the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics and more than a dozen other health associations now oppose these laws.
An approach to parental notification more consistent with Virginia's conservative tradition would be to have parents, not the government, determining whether a minor confides in them about an unplanned pregnancy.
Virginians agree that the responsibility of family communication should fall on the parents. The government is a poor substitute. Parents must create an environment in their home that enables their children to confide in them when they need their parents most.
Fortunately, more than 60 percent of pregnant minors in Virginia voluntarily confide in their mother or father before seeking an abortion. The most critical factor determining whether they do so is the atmosphere within the home.
The ability of a mother and father to openly communicate their values about sexuality to their children most determines whether their children will be prepared to do likewise. If parents are reticent about discussing sexuality issues with their children, their children will be reticent about approaching their parents about a sexual matter.
Forty years ago, saying little or nothing was the pre-eminent conservative approach to sexuality education in the home. Life in the '90s is different. Those who do not openly express their values to their children, early and often, abandon them to learning about sex from sitcoms and locker-room chatter. Our children deserve better.
It is every parent's duty to prepare his or her children to become healthy, independent adults. That does not mean giving them the answers. It means inculcating them with the values and good judgment that will enable them to make responsible decisions in a dangerous world.
This includes keeping an unimpeded line of communication open about sexuality. Sexuality education in school or church are important supplements. However, it is the parents' ability to initiate and maintain open communication that will best enable minors to seek their parents' support before they ever suffer the despair of an unwanted pregnancy. Open communication leads to fewer unintended pregnancies and stronger, healthier families.
For parents expecting a government guarantee that minors will come to them when pregnant, a notification law will be a huge disappointment. The truth is, parents earn the right to have their children trust and confide in them about sex. No quick-fix government mandate will change that. And any law that attempts to shift responsibility for family communication from the parents to the government is a step in the wrong direction.
For 18 years, the commonwealth of Virginia has resisted attempts to give the government a say in dictating family communication. It is a tradition of which all Virginians should be proud.
David Nova is public affairs director for Planned Parenthood of the Blue Ridge. He has one daughter and three stepdaughters.
LENGTH: Long : 103 lines ILLUSTRATION: GRAPHIC: Gary Viskupic/Newsdayby CNB