Kitca wrote:
I have a bunch of arguements against this.
Quote:
Prop. 73 would amend the state constitution prohibiting abortions for minors until parents are notified at least 48 hours beforehand, except in a medical emergency.
This will lead to young pregnant girls avoiding going to the doctor at all about it and doing some of the following:
Trying something that her friend said her friend's friend did (i.e. drink bleach or other toxin to get rid of the pregnancy)Look into getting a "backalley" procedureRunning awaySelf abuse/destructive behavior to try to end the pregnancyDelaying so long out of fear that she has to have the babyDumpster babySuicideOk. But what are we really talking about here? We're talking about the ability to treat your own body and its reproductive capability with maturity. After all, the entire arguement for allowing minors to "choose" to have an abortion (instead of requiring parental consent) is that minors are capable of making that choice based on logic and reason.
It's kinda hard to say that with one breath (which IMO is a perfectly legitimate pro-choice position to take), but then trying to argue that notification is wrong because most minors aren't mature enough to make the decision, inform their parents (who are still their legal guardians, right?), and go through with their "choice" on their own. It just doesn't make any sense. If you are truely making a mature, rational, and informed
choice to have an abortion, you darn well shouldn't be so flaky that you'd commit suicide rather then tell your legal guardians about it.
There's also a legal aspect to this. Guardians are responsible for the minors under their care. If little sally gets hurt, they are responsible for her medical care. Here we have a case where the state is essentially saying that the guardian is responsible for the cost of something (what if there are complications and Sally requires serious medical care as a result?), but not only are they not legally allowed to be part of the decision, they aren't even allowed to be informed of something? Abortion is a medical proceedure. And it can be a pretty rought one. There are numerous potential negative side effects from it. Don't you think the parents of a child at least have a right to know? Or should their first discovery that their 15 year old daughter got herself knocked up be when they get a call from an emergency room because she's been admitted for complications arising from an abortion proceedure?
I'm all for choice. But choice comes with responsibility. As long as parrents are legal guardians and hold the responsiblity for the health and wellbeing of a minor under their care, they really ought to have *some* involvement in issues involving that care, right? As someone else pointed out, how politicized does an issue have to be when a minor can't get a prescription for a minor illness without parental knowledge and consent, but she can get an abortion without either? That's nuts!
Quote:
Let's face it, most parents will freak out if told that their "little girl" is planning to have an abortion. In some cases the trust and relationship with the parents is healthy enough that she can go to them. In many other cases that just isn't an option. In these cases the girl will avoid the confrontation if possible. This would just make all of the above more frequent.
Perhaps. But it's about responsibility for choices. Being pro-choice is about more then just legalizing abortions. It's about establishing the power of a woman over her own body and reproductive system. That comes with responsiblity. If she can't inform her parents of her choice, how can we say she's being responsible about making it in the first place?
You're eithe pro-choice because you support individual human rights, or you are pro-choice because you believe that most people make poor choices, so let's give them an easy out to "fix" the mistakes they'll make. I happen to agree firmly with the first reason. I think the second one is totally bogus. It smacks of "for your own good" laws. "You're too immature and stupid to raise a child, so we'll make it easy for you to abort". Sorry. I don't buy that. That's not empowerment for women. It's an assumpion of stupidity and weakness in women.
Quote:
Let's think of one of the more extreme possibilities, which I am told is actually more common than I would think. What if daddy is the daddy?
How is this a valid argument? I'm sorry. But if "Daddy" is the daddy, and maybe that might come out as a result of this process, then what's the harm? Would you rather that the abused daughter quietly and anonymously get an abortion and continue being abused by her father? Not sure I'm seeing this one...
This part I find equally alarming:
Quote:
Quote:
Under Proposition 73, abortion is defined as causing "death of the unborn child, a child conceived but not yet born."
This would be a wet dream for the Christian Coalition. They would then have constitutional clout to argue that abortion is murder, by clear definition.
Yeah. That ones a bit annoying. Typical for this issue though. Both sides do that. It really depends on what legal status a "child" has. I'm betting that it will work in the pro-life folks favor though...
Slipperly slope, but just because that's logical fallacy doesn't mean it's a bad reason to oppose a law. This is one of those reasons why line item vetos are great ideas. It prevents implantation of a single silly bit like this from sinking an entire piece of legistlation that might otherwise be worthwhile.
Quote:
Here is something I have to agree with from the article:
Quote:
For Michele Hugin, an OBGYN at Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, this delay is unacceptable.
"They say it will be an expedited process. But even a week or two can make such a difference in the safety of a (patient)," she said. "The earlier the abortion is, the safer it is for the mother."
Hugin often sees youth who do not come from nuclear households, and believes these teens will be the most affected.
I think that speaks volumes. Let's face it, by the time the red tape, paperwork, and administrative BS is added, a 48 hour delay could easily equal a couple weeks. A couple weeks could make an abortion a much more difficult procedure, and in some cases, not possible at all.
It really does depend on what is required in the law. The problem is that if the "notification" must be validated (ie: the doctor must recieve the notification back, signed by a parent), then this is effectively the same as requiring parental consent, since the parent can prevent an abortion by not signing the notification paper. If it's just some other process (like the office calling the parent and telling them directly), then it may or may not involve too much red tape and delays.
Quote:
This is the most bizarre of the whole thing:
Quote:
Minors may obtain a court waiver to parental notification if they appear in person and convince the court of their maturity to make the decision.
In the rare case where the girl knew this would be an option and had the guts to go through a court procedure to obtain it; I'm betting that it would take longer than the gestation period to obtain.
That's not actually bizaare at all. No one's expecting that a pregnant teen will go to a court and get that waiver. What this means is that emancipated teens are immune to the parental notification requirement. I don't know about other states, but in CA there's a law where a teen of 15 or 16 (don't remember the age), can be emancipated, which effectively lifts them from guardianship by their parents. They are still a minor, but are no longer governed by laws that restrict them in terms of hours they can work, requirement to be in school, and a bunch of other stuff. It fits the "appears to be responsible" criteria, and I'll bet that's what that bit is refering too. If you've already gone through that process, you don't need to notify your parents to get an abortion.
Hah. Then again. Amusingly enough, those teens I knew back in the day were by far the least responsible people I ever knew. But then most of them were from homes where they were better off being troublemakers on their own then living under the roofs of their parents. Lots of kids who grow up in foster care systems take that route. Take a GED test, get emancipated, and go right on into the workforce and junior college at age 16. For some, it's not a bad thing...
