ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1997, Roanoke Times
DATE: Saturday, February 22, 1997 TAG: 9702240040
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-9 EDITION: METRO
VIRGINIA'S lawmakers have passed a parental-notification bill after 18 years of debate, a powerful long time for an argument in which all sides, presumably, have the same interest at heart: the well-being of minors.
The measure, passed Thursday by the House of Delegates, will be signed by Gov. George Allen, who enthused that it will ensure "fewer pregnancies, fewer abortions and better families."
The notification law will require any unmarried girl under 18 to notify a parent or, if she chooses, a judge before having an abortion. Opponents predict the consequences for Virginia families will be as dire as Allen thinks they will be rosy.
A Planned Parenthood lobbyist said the restriction will cause some girls to induce their own abortions, travel outside of Virginia for abortions, or simply delay confronting their situations - and their parents - until they are in the second trimester of pregnancy, when abortion is more difficult.
The time to argue about what the effect will be is over. The law is passed. Its consequences will follow. The state now must monitor the result, and act according to what it finds.
In the months and years ahead, Virginia officials need to gather data to test the assumptions that have been made in this debate. Will there be fewer teen pregnancies? Will fewer abortions be performed, not just in Virginia but on Virginians in this and nearby states? Will girls suffer the effects of botched abortions that were self-induced, or performed by someone illegally? Will more second-trimester abortions be performed on teen-agers? Will there be more physical complications, even deaths, as a result? Will teens be abused by notified parents? Will there be more teen mothers? More complaints of child abuse or neglect against teen mothers? More children living in poverty?
Notification proponents have argued that, sure, they hope fewer pregnancies and abortions will occur because fewer girls will have sex knowing their parents might "catch" them - as absurd as this proposition is. But the main reason the law is needed, they've said, is to ensure that parents are involved in making a potentially risky decision involving their child, one that certainly will have long-range consequences.
Such an argument resonates with parents who, even if they support legal abortions, want to be sure they are aware of and have some influence over such a major event in such a young life.
Support derived from such considerations may evaporate, however, if - whatever the intent - the law's consequences include deaths and injuries and trauma that could have been avoided if abortions had been performed earlier or closer to home, where complications might have been recognized and treated more quickly.
Will the law create "better families," as Allen predicts? Not likely. It's one expectation, in any event, that can't be measured objectively. To the extent possible, though, it would be nice if the issue could be judged now less on ideology than on the reality of results.
LENGTH: Medium: 57 lines KEYWORDS: GENERAL ASSEMBLY 1997by CNB