THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, March 24, 1996 TAG: 9603230022
SECTION: COMMENTARY PAGE: J5 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Opinion
SOURCE: GLENN ALLEN SCOTT
LENGTH: Medium: 78 lines
The number of second-trimester abortions has increased in the many states that mandate notification of parents or other adults when teens want abortions. Second-trimester abortions are riskier than first-trimester abortions, although both are less risky than childbirth. State-mandated notification also causes many pregnant teens to have their abortions in states without such laws.
And there are occasions when pregnant teens who tell parents of their condition - or whose parents learn of their pregnancies in some other way - are subjected to rejection or physical (including murderous) abuse.
By a lopsided majority, pregnant teens do turn to parents for guidance and support, which is what most of us would want them to do. The younger the teen, the more likely the parent will become involved. Among the minority that doesn't confide in at least one parent are teens with warranted fear of punitive parental responses. The judicial-bypass provision in notification laws authorizes pregnant teens to turn to courts to clear the path to abortion but adds to pregnant teens' stress and delays the abortions. These are not desirable side effects.
Considering the documentation of the counterproductive consequences of parental-notification mandates, you might think that the Virginia General Assembly would just say no. But parental-notification has twice passed the legislature - only to be vetoed each time.
In 1989, Democratic Gov. L. Douglas Wilder, who had said he favored a parental-notification law, vetoed the legislation that reached his desk. He said it was flawed.
In 1994, Republican Gov. George F. Allen, who still appears to be hot for such a law, vetoed the bill he got because, he said, the provision allowing teens to skip past parents and turn to grandparents and other adults, such as clergy, made it meaningless.
Only House Speaker Thomas W. Moss Jr.'s ruling that parental notification had been improperly attached to another bill prevented legislation this year. The Norfolk Democrat's constituents exhibit no enthusiasm for parental notification, which is largely a fraud because it fails of its purpose.
But it's a fraud that most Virginia lawmakers embrace, some zealously, others simply to get it off the table. Explaining to the electorate why one would be against a bill that its proponents say would improve communication among family members isn't easy. So what if there will be more second-trimester abortions? So what if Virginia teens travel to Washington, D.C., for quiet abortions? Better to go along, end the controversy and get on to other matters.
But if fostering communication between parents and their children in the hope of preventing some abortions is the legislature's purpose, why shouldn't the law mandate communication much earlier? Why have the law kick in only when a teen seeks an abortion? Why shouldn't Virginia pioneer with legislation commanding teenagers - male no less than female - to notify their parents before engaging in sexual intercourse which, as everyone knows, can be hazardous to your health and costly to society?
Who isn't acquainted with the multiple personal and societal catastrophes that teens (and free-ranging adults, too) court by catting around; among them, pregnancy, venereal disease (now including AIDS), abortion - or childbirth, which imposes endless expense and obligations upon somebody, parents usually, but also the public, which picks up the tab for welfare and institutions.
This isn't a new notion. In 1977, then-Associate Justice Lewis F. Powell of Virginia articulated it in his opinion partly concurring with a U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down a New York State law prohibiting distribution of contraceptives to minors. Powell asserted that a parental-notification-before-teen-intercourse law would be constitutionally permissible. For doesn't the state have a compelling interest in discouraging behavior that spreads disease, leads to out-of-wedlock births and damages many young people emotionally and diminishes their life chances?
A notification-before-sex law would also be a sham, of course, but it would be less harmful than demanding notification only when an abortion is in prospect. At that point, heart-to-heart parent-child discussions about the perils of teen sexual activity are a tad late. MEMO: Mr. Scott is associate editor of the editorial page. by CNB