Two cents: Let's be consistent here.

Let's face it: in this country, minors don't have a whole lot of rights. Sure, they're entitled to free speech and all, but aside from a few basic rights, minors just aren't considered adults. Instead of making their own lifestyle choices, whether it's choosing to accept aspirin from the school nurse or choosing to watch an R-rated film, parents are the ones making these decisions. Or at least consenting to these decisions. Or at least being notified of these decisions. From tattoos to piercings to just being allowed to go on a field trip to medical treatments-

Oops. Wait a second. Did I just say "medical treatments"? Yeah, kids can't make their own decisions about their health... except in the case of abortion.

Hold on there. It doesn't matter who you talk to: abortion is a sensitive issue. It's a controversial issue, with a lot of unknowns. That's not even acknowledging the overall seriousness of abortion itself. It's not about some school nurse being allowed to put on a band-aid for a student's cut without notifying the parents. Abortion is a surgically invasive treatment, with major physical, emotional, and psychological implications for the mother. As a nation, we can't even agree if the fetus inside the mother is just a fetus, or if it is indeed an unborn life. With all of these major factors in mind, I think we can agree that abortion is definitely a serious matter, as both a political and a personal issue.

And yet, the greater irony is that what with all of the slightly pettier activities that minors need permission/consent/notification for, whether it's just watching sexual congress on a television screen or punching a hole through an ear, teenage mothers are completely at liberty to decide as they will about abortion.

I'm sorry, but that is just plain inconsistent and hypocritical. I fully support the woman's right to choose, but considering the fact that teenage mothers really aren't considered adult "women" but are relegated the label of "minors," I really do think that abortion is another one of those things that should definitely be included under the "parental-notification" category.

Two Cents: Who is Affected?

All of this talk about girls having to come clean to their parents got me thinking... If I were certain that I didn't want to share something as life altering as a pregnancy with my parents, I don't think that a new law would change that. The most obvious way around this situation is, of course, to obtain an abortion in another state, a state with no age-oriented limitations on abortion. This is presumably what brings about the statistic that Blaise quoted, that with "the enactment of a parental notification statute in 1993, the ratio of teenage to adult abortions decreased 13%; however, this was offset by a 32% increase out-of-state." Certainly this suggests that the enactment of such laws does not achieve either of their proposed aims: to reduce the number of under-age abortions, and to involve parents in the abortion process of minors. So, if passed, who would this law truly affect?

Statistics show that teens account for nineteen percent of all abortions obtained in the United States. To emphasize how likely an outcome abortion is in the instance of teen pregnancy, consider that eight abortions are given for every live birth by a girl under the age of fifteen and four are given for every ten live births to girls between the ages of fifteen and nineteen, according to one abortion demographic study. Fifty-seven percent of women who obtain abortions are below the federal income standard. This could be due to the young median age of such women, or to the fact that the majority of these women are unmarried, or to some other fact entirely. Whatever the case, teenagers are no exception to this rule. The majority of teens hardly have the resources to afford abortion, much less to leave the state in order to do so or to avoid parental detection along the way. With Proposition 73 instituted, it would be the poorer and the younger and the less resourceful teens who would be left with no option other than to involve their parents. This does not scare me because I do not believe that parents should be involved. It scares me because once the parents are involved, it is much more likely that abortion will no longer be an option for these girls, and that an undesired pregnancy will be carried to term.

"Freakonomics" is a book that proposes a surprising but well supported explanation for the extreme and unexpected drop in crime rate across the United States during the 1990's. The book cites the legality and availabliity of abortion as the cause for this sudden improvement. With abortion as an option for women, many fewer unwanted children were born, and therefore many fewer children were born into adverse family circumstance. Basically, an entire generation of children prone to criminal activity simply never existed. It was unmarried, under privileged, teenage women like the women who would encounter the effects of Proposition 73, who are proven to produce the adverse households that tend to breed criminals. It is impossible to say if Proposition 73 has the potential to un-do the positive effects of Roe v. Wade on society. I, for one, think that it is too risky of an experiment to find out for sure.

Two Cents: What About the Boys?

Proposition 73, the initiative that would mandate a waiting period and parental notification before the termination of a minor's pregnancy, is obviously a very hot issue. It is an especially hot issue for young voters who are just barely adults and who have only recently aged-out of the jurisdiction of the proposed initiative. So, as a one of these young voters, I’d like to share a few thoughts about the madness of Prop. 73 and ask the question, ”What about the boys?”

It seems that all anyone can talk about over this issue is the young, soon-to-be mothers who would be forced to get support from their parents in order to have an abortion. Granted I am all for parents supporting their children, especially in cases like these where their daughters are extremely scared and vulnerable, but what about the young, soon-to-be fathers? Where do they fit into this calculation? If a girl is going to be forced to notify her parents, it is only fair that the boy who impregnated her should be forced to notify his parents as well. It takes two to tango and both partners are equally responsible for this dilemma.

Now, I know what you must be thinking. Does this mean that the adolescent girl would be forced to inform the father before having an abortion? In such a sticky situation, I think it is in the girl’s best interest to put some of the pressure on her male partner’s shoulders. Soon-to-be mothers should not be alone in such a situation and soon-to-be fathers should not run away from their responsibilities.

The conditions would be different in cases of rape. If the girl knows her offender, he should be notified and punished, which is already the case. If the girl does not know her offender, then this idea does not apply.

In the era of women’s rights and gender equality, there is obviously something wrong with Proposition 73 and the list of opponents proves it. How can such an initiative even be considered if it does not examine half of the problem?

A breach of civil liberties?

With courts in states such as Michigan, Arizona, and Idaho striking down abortion bans within these past few months, California's latest abortion initiative, Prop 73, seems a peculiar and unique piece of legislation to surface in the political arena. One of the major issues that have been raised in this ongoing fight is simply the question of women's rights - especially a minor's rights - and their rights to privacy. Currently, California law does not require minors to notify or consult their parents should she decide to get an abortion. In fact, according to Pro-Choice California:

The California Supreme Court has already ruled that parental notification laws are unconstitutional because they violate young women’s right to privacy and threaten their health.

Many feel that Prop 73 serves only to restrict women in their right to choose to have an abortion. Under this initiative, the minor in question would have to not only notify her parents about her abortion, but also wait forty-eight hours after said notification before proceeding with the abortion. Such a delay upon the abortive process may not only serve as an impingement on the minor's right to choose but even an endangerment to her safety.

In what ways and to what extent does a minor maintain rights, however? Minors are required to notify and/or gain the permission of their parents before proceeding with a variety of events, whether getting piercings, receiving tattoos, or even watching R-rated films in school. If a minor is restricted from the "freedom" of choice with such "smaller" issues involving her body, how is it justified that she have the freedom to engage in an abortion, a process potentially more harmful and with greater psychological implications than a tattoo or piercing? As much as we might wish, minors do not have all of the same rights available to them as do adults, and the very serious matter of abortion can arguably fall under the same category as do drinking, driving, voting, and, yes, tattooing.

Colorado Teen Abortion Laws

Though a new concept to the state of California, the issue of Parental Notification in reference to teen abortion has already been considered, or even instigated in the majority of states. As of 2004, forty-four states had passed some version of the law being proposed for this year's California election. The interesting component of the issue is the extreme variation of the laws from state to state. The largest separation is between "Parental notification" laws (requiring no consent, only notification) and "Parental consent" laws (requiring explicit permission). However, there are other inconsistencies between the states as well. Some of the details they address are: whether one parent or two must be consulted; whether there is a mandatory wait period between parental notification and the procedure; whether other family members or guardians are legal alternatives to parents; and whether "Judicial Bypass" is an option in the instance of extenuating circumstances. For a complete listing of the exact details of the laws in every state click here: http://www.coolnurse.com/abortion_laws.htm.
Since of these forty-four states, Colorado was the first to propose age-oriented restrictions on abortion, it is interesting to consider this state's interpretation of the law. Amendment 12, as proposed on the 1998 state election ballot, dictated the necessity of parental consent in order for minors to obtain an abortion. Though it passed by popular vote, it was soon struck down by the courts. Then, in May of 2003 a similar version of the same law was passed by Colorado state legislation. Judicial Bypass is offered as an option for minors (defined as under the age of 18 in Colorado) who believe that parental notification would put them at risk for violence, or if the minor declares herself as a victim of abuse, incest, or neglect. Also, a minor's reasonable request to inform only one parent is guaranteed to be granted. In order to obtain waiver of parental mandate, a court order is submitted to a judge for review. In order to avoid extreme time delays for the procedure to take place, when a decision has not been made after four days, the request is considered granted. For a complete detailed account of Colorado's laws on teen abortion restrictions, click here: http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/yourstate/whodecides/states/colorado/issue.cfm?issueid=2493. An interesting account of Colorado's adoption of this law from the other side of the issue is provided by Mary Beth Bonacci, a columnist and "frequent lecturer on chastity." To view her article, click here: http://www.catholicherald.com/bonacci/03mb/mb030522.htm.

Going Through the Courts

While the passage of Proposition 73 would make it harder for adolescent girls to secretly get abortions, it would not make the secret abortion impossible to attain. According to The Official Title and Summary of Proposition 73, if a girl receives a waiver approved by the California State Court, her parents would not have to be notified in order for her to get the abortion. The process of going to court is fairly simple and all an adolescent girl needs to do is show up to or call her local State Court and request to speak with a judge about getting the waiver.

However, do not be deceived by the apparent simplicity of this task. Getting a judge to grant a waiver would not be simple. In fact, just getting a judge to agree to hear the case could be near impossible. Within the last two weeks, judges in Tennessee, Alabama, and Pennsylvania have refused to hear cases involving parental notification of adolescent pregnancy abortion. These judges put their personal opinions ahead of their duty to serve the court system to make a statement, but they also caused many troubled girls to find themselves in even more trouble. The laws that were designed to protect these girls from dangerous abortions are instead hindering their legal right to an abortion.

Once an adolescent girl can convince a judge to hear her case, she must prove that she is “sufficiently mature and well-informed to decide whether to have an abortion or that notification would not be in [her] best interest,” according to the legislative analysis of this proposition. Doing so could prove very difficult for a young, scared girl.

Supporters of Proposition 73, like Yes on Proposition 73, argue that adolescent girls in this condition are too vulnerable to know what is best for them, while opponents of the proposition, like The Campaign for Teen Safety, argue that adolescent girls should not be forced to defend themselves in court and notifying parents should be a personal decision.

USEFUL LINKS

CALIFORNIA SECRETARY OF STATE