Quite the contenious issue, the Illinois Parental Notice of Abortion Act has never been enacted due to a court order. That is, until now.
The most recent version of the law, passed in 1995, would require a young woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy to inform a parent, step-parent living in the household, grandparent, or legal guardian of her decision, or navigate the judicial system for a waiver.
The law was scheduled to go into effect today, after a federal court lifted the injunction in July, but now remains in limbo pending a lawsuit by the ACLU of Illinois and considerations by the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation.
Today, the Chicago Tribune published a flawed editorial in favor of the law. Here are a couple of their claims:
It's a sensible, temperate law aimed at ensuring that parents will not be shut out of a decision that has such grave health and moral implications.
It took a long, long time for democracy to work in this instance, but we're glad it did, particularly for a measure that represents an intelligent middle ground on a deeply divisive issue. Abortion-rights supporters think pregnant girls should have unrestricted access to abortion, while abortion-rights opponents think abortion should be illegal for adults as well as teens in most or all circumstances. Neither got their way this time.
The law recognizes that the constitutional right to privacy encompasses a woman's right to have an abortion. But it reflects an understanding that most minors lack the maturity to handle a matter like this without the counsel of the people who care most about them. To most people, we suspect, this is just a matter of common sense.
Needless to say, the Tribune’s editorial oversimplifies a very complex social issue. Sadly, the piece employs many of the same worn-out arguments supporting such laws.
At first glance, parental involvement laws – either notification or consent – for abortion do seem like common sense measures in the best interest of young women. But, with a little more consideration and analysis, we know that’s hardly the case. Parental involvement laws affect the most helpless young women who can not inform a family member or legal guardian – those, for instance, who live in abusive households, are the victims of incest, or who face possible eviction.
What’s more, the Tribune’s charge that young women “lack the maturity” to make such a decision is belittling, to say the least. We have an obligation, first and foremost, to provide young women and men with information, skills, and resources to make responsible decisions about their sexual health. Then, we need to trust them – trust that they will inform a family member or close adult and, if not, that they have a compelling reason.
The Illinois Parental Notice of Abortion Act is certainly not a “sensible, temperate law” that offers an “intelligent middle ground” to the abortion debate, as the Tribune claims. Putting at-risk young women in harm’s way is not a political compromise.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Parental Notice Law Not a Political Compromise.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16971
From the editorial:
"In this state, after all, a nurse can't give a minor an aspirin without the permission of the parents. You can't get an ear pierced until age 18 or buy a gun until age 21 unless a parent consents. Abortion is at least as serious as those choices."
This is pretty sound logic.
SHOULD a nurse require parental permission to give a minor aspirin?
Does any teen risk violence or being abandoned by her family because she took aspirin without their permission?
The thing is, the aspirin and the ear piercing is more about controlling liability and the fear of being sued. It's not about health or the minor's safety. It's not the perfect comparison that the article makes it out to be.
I think parents have a right to decide what medical care their children get. I don't think it's fair to suspend that right on the assumption that the parents may be abusive, when that is not the case the vast majority of the time.
And if the parents decide their daughter shouldn't get medical care (i.e., abortion)? How does that work? Honestly, I'd consider even that abusive, considering what pregnancy and birth involve.
Children are not little adults. They're children. The decision making & judgment areas of their brains are not fully developed, hence why they have parents. Parents are not just walking, talking pocketbooks. They are supposed to provide love, support, and guidance. And in the case of abuse there are judges who can waive the notification requirement. Abortion providers can give guidance to children about how to navigate the judicial process.
While there is a legitimate argument against parental approval laws, its hard to argue against parental notification laws. Parents have a right...and obligation to know about the health & well being of their children.
I'm pro-choice and while this is certainly a transparent attempt to restrict abortion, parents have legitimate rights too.
The only reason why we confer rights of parents over their children is because the state does not want pay to take care of the child.
ehhh? The rights of parents over their children well preceded states...the economics of it are the least of the matter...Parents are presumed to be loving, caregivers until legally determined otherwise...as my mother used to say to me, "I brought you into this world & I can take you out of it." :-)
Children are not little adults. They're children. The decision making & judgment areas of their brains are not fully developed.
Ah yes, it makes perfect sense now. Children can't make good choices, therefor, force them to become parents who have to make choices for another human being.
What "force"? This is a parental notification law, not a parental approval law. There's no "force". Having conversations with parents or a judge is meant to result in a considered judgment, not a rash one, nor a fearful one.
Is your interest here in hiding the sexual activity & pregnancy from the parents???
As you had said, this is a transparent attempt to limit or restrict abortions. I had read the phrase I was responding to as being about decision making in general (as in: teenage girls aren't smart enough to decide to have abortions) rather than about this particular law.
I'm not trying to promote hiding sexual activity or pregnancy, but I'm not against it either. I don't believe that parents have any right to know about their children's sex lives.
Yes, you're right in your inference of what I was saying.
I suspected that the heart of this issue has as much to do with your views on parents' rights to know about their children's sex lives as it does to do with your views on abortion. FWIW, when I was younger I felt like you do, but the older I get I think the better informed parents must be about their children's sexual activity. It would make both parents & children grow up & acknowledge biology. I think *most* parents who have to confront it come to grips with it. Admittedly others do not.
The flip side of being for comprehensive sex ed is being for comprehensive parental involvement. That can't happen if the parents are willfully ignorant, or intentionally deceived. In my experience the overwhelming number of teenage pregnancies & unsafe sexual practices comes because parents were somehow uninvolved in the equation. How can feminists complain about parents & schools not being forthright about sex & then complain when parents are informed about their children's sexual activity?
If a parent wants to know about their child's sex life, then they should talk about it with their child. BEFORE IT GETS TO THE POINT OF PREGNANCY/ABORTION. It should be an ongoing conversation between a parent and their kid as soon as the child starts getting an inkling that sex exists, not a legal mandate 16 years down the line. A mandate is going to do nothing to help with effective parental involvement if it hasn't already been happening, and if there already has been comprehensive parental involvement and the kid still doesn't want to tell about the abortion? Well, maybe we trust her to know that she can't be pregnant right now.
Sorry, everyone else, I accidentally clicked "Like" rather than "Reply" initially.
It WILL be a fearful decision if the parents have to find out. INEVITABLY. What's more, the girls who will be afraid of their parents finding out about their abortions are very often the girls who need those abortions most. A lot of parents freak the fuck out when their daughters get pregnant, and there are many, MANY teenagers for whom an abortion WITHOUT parental notification is the only way they can deal with a pregnancy without getting kicked out of the house. This parental notification law will lead to more forced pregnancies, teen parenthood, abuse of teens, and teens being kicked out onto the streets.
Oh, and probably also more teen suicide, since it's unlikely that all teens will be able to face the idea of their parents finding out they're pregnant.
That would be a good argument if the law were intended to give people who are legally responsible for the child notice. That would at least make sense in terms of liability and parental rights.
But notice that the law DOES NOT say parent or legal guardian. Other "adult family members" who can be notified are "step-parents who live in the home" and grandparents. So how does that make sense? A grandparent or step-parent doesn't have any legal rights to a child, or ability to consent to other medical procedures on a minor's behalf.
This law is clearly designed solely to make it more difficult for teenagers to access abortion. And it is premised on the flawed and condescending assumption that young women can't make decisions about their own bodies. I think it is likely that most teenagers do seek out an adult's help in this situation, and the ones who don't are those that can't (because of abuse, violence, etc.).
I have also never understood the reasoning that teenagers are not "mature" enough to make decisions about abortion. The same teenager who cannot decide on her own to get an abortion will by default become a MOTHER. Legally responsible for another human life. And (in some states) upon the birth of that baby will become an emancipated minor, with all the rights and privileges of adulthood. So the pregnant girl wasn't mature enough to decide for herself, but as soon as that baby comes out, she is suddenly mature enough for two?
Your last paragraph is a very good question. Unfortunately, you ask that with the assumption that anti-choice people give two shits what happens once the baby's born. Just so long as no one comes to the state asking for help raising it.
Majorly agree with your last paragraph.
"In this state, after all, a nurse can't give a minor an aspirin without the permission of the parents. You can't get an ear pierced until age 18 or buy a gun until age 21 unless a parent consents. Abortion is at least as serious as those choices."
You're right, that does seem like sound logic, until you read the *very next paragraph*:
"Unlike laws in some states, the Illinois law doesn't give parents a veto over their daughter's decision to get an abortion. But it gives them the opportunity to be heard at a crucial moment, and to know what their child is going through."
So...you can get an abortion without your parents' permission, just not without their knowledge. The comparison to the gun and the earring is now invalid. If it is a given that a teenager can make her own decisions about abortion (and this is a given, according to Illinois law under this very act) then the act is in direct conflict with her autonomy.
Ideally, a teenager with a good relationship with her family will have at least one adult she trusts to confide in about her abortion. In that case, this law is unnecessary. If she doesn't have anyone she trusts, though, then that's likely because she knows she will be chastised or punished for this decision and if the parent is notified, it could result in abuse, abandonment or worse. In that case, this law is dangerous.
I'm actually not even sure those things you listed are based on 100% sound logic. Consider, for example, that you're free to join the military (which often involves using a gun) at 18 with no parental permission required.
I still say the best way to ensure you're involved in your child's reproductive decisions is to make sure s/he feels safe approaching you about it. Passing laws like this just isn't the answer.
Notify but not get consent from your parents? If you are old enough to sign the consent forms for a medical procedure, then you also have a right to patient confideniality that comes with that ability.
Notify but not get consent from your parents? If you are old enough to sign the consent forms for a medical procedure, then you also have a right to patient confideniality that comes with that ability.
The truth is that this law isn't about medical decisions, it's about controlling the behavior of teenage girls. The people behind this law don't want teens to "get away" with pregnancy by terminating it behind their parents' backs. The fact that most teens who have good relationships with their parents will tell them, and the fact that most teens who don't tell their parents have good reasons not to has completely gotten past those who push this law. I'm not actually sure if this means that a teen can get an abortion against her parents' wishes as long as they are notified. No one, NO ONE, should be forced to bear a child they do not want. It's not just nine months, it's your entire life--parenthood changes you, whether you keep the child or not. And your body is changed also. And if it's about a medical decision, abortions are a lot safer than childbirth, especially for teenagers. Denying a teen an abortion because it's medically dangerous is shortsighted and stupid--it's not "abortion vs no abortion" it's "abortion vs childbirth."
Two things:
1) "adult family member" So, I could get my older bro or sister to sign off for me? And why does it have to be a family member? If the problem is that pregnant girls are "incompetent" than why not only just any ol' adult to sign off?
2).... her agent has given at least 48 hours notice to an adult family member of the pregnant minor or incompetent person.
pregnant minor = incompetent person? For reals? Who writes this crap?
According to the law, the adult family member -- a parent, grandparent, step-parent living in the household, or legal guardian -- must be at least 21 years of age.
One More Thing:
"Incompetent" means any person who has been adjudged as mentally ill or developmentally disabled and who, because of her mental illness or developmental disability, is not fully able to manage her person and for whom a guardian of the person has been appointed under Section 11a?3(a)(1) of the Probate Act of 1975.
I'm not well versed in disability rights, but this sounds like a unnecesary provision--this notification law applies to a disabled woman throughout her child bearing years, no matter her age while the non-disabled women is free of this law once she turns 18 (or whichever age).
Well, that *might* make sense, since some mentally disabled women can have very limited mental capacity, equivalent to a young child, that is not sufficient to enable them to make medical decisions, while still being able to get pregnant. Of course, in that case it should be regarded as rape anyway.
If she's able to consent to sex, she should be trusted to handle the consequences. That should be the DEFINITION of ability to consent to sex-- the mental capacity/age to understand sexual intercourse, desire it, understand the risks and use protection, chose to abort or be able to raise a child, and handle any STD treatment that may be needed. If you aren't mature enough to make the decision to have an abortion or keep a baby, how can you be mature enough to consent to sex?
And if she's too young to consent to sex, it's the result of rape, and she should have the right to request an advocate on her behalf to make the decisions for her if she feels her parents might punish her for being raped (yes, including punishing her by making her keep the child).
Don't forget about the situation where both parents are under the age of consent.
If she's able to consent to sex, she should be trusted to handle the consequences.
This is an excellent point.
For the vast majority of states, minors can't legally consent to sex. If they're within 3 years of age of one another there is generally (but not always) a "Romeo and Juliet clause" written into the law saying they & their partner can't be prosecuted for statutory rape. But the R&J clause doesn't grant the legal right of consent, it merely prevents prosecution for 'kids being kids'.
So, no, they cannot consent to sex.
Problem is, many age of consent laws do not reflect the age at which teenagers begin choosing to have sex of their own free will, because they are actually intended as a tool to prevent teens from having sex whether they want to or not.
I'm curious as to why parents need to be informed if their daughter is having an abortion (or that their consent is needed for that) because it is in the best interest of protecting the vulnerable teen, but there are no laws mandating that a teen get parental consent to have a baby. I guess you can always be mature enough to choose to stay pregnant and give birth, but not to have an abortion. Hmmmmm.....
Just to add: logically speaking I cannot argue that it is inconsistent to say that a kid needs parental consent for one medical procedure but not for another. Emotional arguments aside, abortion is (most of the time) an invasive medical procedure.
@Crumpet; I agree with your point, and quite honestly maybe minors should have to have consent from someone prior to deciding to raise a child.
That being said, my understanding of this law is that parental consent is not needed, just notification. I don't see why that's so terrible really.
Yes, there are teens who may be at risk of experiencing abuse or lack of support, etc. But I think it's short sighted to assume that every teen in this situation that didn't or wouldn't choose to tell parents chose or would not choose to because they were at risk of abuse. I was in the same situation and I was not at risk of being abused by notifying a parent of my decision at the time; I just didn't want to because we weren't used to talking about that in my family. I almost wish that there had been something requiring me to at least notify a parent or adult but not have to get permission.
I would never suggest that someone would be an unfit mother simply based on their age alone, but the fact of the matter is that just because women can be sexually active and get pregnant under the age of eighteen it doesn't mean they necessarily should be or are mature enough to handle it. Nor does it mean they are mature enough to handle all the decisions that could have to be made as a result.
I agree with you that it is short-sighted to make assumptions about WHY a girl wouldn't want her family to know. At that age, I also would have gone to any lenghts possible to avoid telling my single hard working mother that I was pregnant and wanted an abortion (even though I know she certainly would have supported an abortion if I were that young). The world looks different when you are a teenager. Everything tends to feel more intense than it really is, more hopeless than it really is,like the end of the world when it really is not. It's one of the things that makes kids at risk for suicide: lack of life experience and maturity to see that things can change, that there will be other boyfriends, and that 20 years from now no one will care about that stupid thing you said in class that made everyone laugh at you. I was very mature beyond my years as a teen but the thought of breaking my mom's heart by telling her I was pregnant and that we needed several hundred dollars for an abortion would have caused me so much dread and guilt that I would have done anything to avoid it, even doing something risky like get an unsafe non-medical termination if I thought I had to. This is coming from a kid that was very much loved. It is not always fear of abuse, that's true.
I agree with you that it is short-sighted to make assumptions about WHY a girl wouldn't want her family to know. At that age, I also would have gone to any lenghts possible to avoid telling my single hard working mother that I was pregnant and wanted an abortion (even though I know she certainly would have supported an abortion if I were that young). The world looks different when you are a teenager. Everything tends to feel more intense than it really is, more hopeless than it really is,like the end of the world when it really is not. It's one of the things that makes kids at risk for suicide: lack of life experience and maturity to see that things can change, that there will be other boyfriends, and that 20 years from now no one will care about that stupid thing you said in class that made everyone laugh at you. I was very mature beyond my years as a teen but the thought of breaking my mom's heart by telling her I was pregnant and that we needed several hundred dollars for an abortion would have caused me so much dread and guilt that I would have done anything to avoid it, even doing something risky like get an unsafe non-medical termination if I thought I had to. This is coming from a kid that was very much loved. It is not always fear of abuse, that's true.
Gosh, no offense people, but does ANYONE do research around here? Please, go to the Guttmacher Institute website and look up the research they have done on this parental consent stuff, as well as their references to find out even more information.
Through their report and/or the references they use at the end of the report, they mention the following findings (I'm speaking in non-specifics, as I already did hours of research on this two months ago, and am not going to dig through all of it again for specific numbers/percentages, etc; y'all can do the hours I already did on your own):
That teen minors, in fact, are more than capable of making these kinds of decisions on their own. They have been found to understand the risks and potential consequences of their medical decisions fully.
The vast majority of teens do inform their parents, and that a large percentage of those who do not inform their parents lack to do so for very good/important reasons, including abusive households.
1/3 of teens who have abortions from states with parental notification/consent laws travel outside of state to have the abortion.
And as mentioned in the comments by one or two others, teens are allowed to make the decision to carry a pregnancy to term without any parental notice or consent. Sometimes teens are even allowed to make any other medical decision if a parent is not present, or if it is an emergency, or if the teen is "emancipated" by marriage etc.
If a teen is deemed sufficiently mature to carry a pregnancy to term and care for a child, why would she be deemed insufficiently mature for an abortion, a much safer procedure??
And I think the most important point is: if most teens inform their parents, and most who do not lack to do so because of a real concern/good reason/whatever, then can't we all see how this law only hurts teens and really doesn't help anyone?? And only affects the female/reproductive kind of teen...I don't see how this affects the un-reproductive teen (read: male).
It's just one more way that society is trying to tell women that they don't have a choice, they don't have autonomy...you must inform someone who "knows better" even when they may not...
Unless that teen plans on moving out, getting a job and caring for and raising that child without requiring their parents act as parents to theri own offspring, then no, they were nto ready to be parents themselves.
While I do think bodily autonomy plays a huge role here, I think its unfair to not say anything about a pregnancy and then BAM bring your apretns another child to take care of. That's forcing parenthood on someone else.
I personally know of a teen mom who was kicked out for deciding to keep a baby and NOT get an abortion. While I think teh decision should eb totally up to the teens, the parents (if they are living with their parents and depend on their parents for food shelter and water) should known that a pregnancy occured.
Wow, this reply is really not even a reply to my comments at all. I just said that the majority of teens DO inform their parents, with or without the law, point being: why make a law out of this? And for those who do not inform their parents, the majority don't for very very good reason. So what is your point about teens moving out or something?? This is a notification law about abortion, NOT a consent law about pregnancy. It seems you are talking about something completely different than the rest of us.
And if the teen isn't ready to be a parent themselves, then aren't you basically saying that you support teens having an abortion?? Your logic makes no sense. This notification law is notification about ABORTION, not pregnancy. No one is talking about forcing a pregnancy on a teens parents, they are talking about notifying a parent of a future LACK of pregnancy! And what good does that do? It simply sounds like fear-mongering to me. If the teen becomes pregnant and terminates the pregnancy, and never informs the parent, what exactly are you saying is the burden on the parent? Sounds to me like...nothing.
This is obviously a guise to intimidate young women from getting abortions by hanging the threat of their parents knowledge over them. Its no ones business if a girl decides to get an abortion (except for probably health care providers), its downright wrong for parents to think that they have the right to know about their child's sex life. I think that people really have trouble keeping the concept of parenting and being a dictator separate. If parents really care about their child's safety, they can open a dialogue well before things happen and give their child appropriate resources and support, instead of shaming their child when they didn't have the proper birth control to prevent a pregnancy. Of course we can't forget that boys don't have to sign a notification waiver to their parents saying that they knocked their significant other up and now she's getting an abortion. This law is squarely placing the 'burden' or 'punishment' on women once again, blaming her for her own pregnancy (It takes two people to make a baby you know).
If parents have no right to know of their child's life then they have no responsibility for the consequences correct?
If it was none of their business that Sam was having sex it's none of their business that Sam has a child and none of their business what Sam's child needs.
If it was none of their business that Samantha was having se then its none of their business that Samantha is pregnant and none of their business that she needs a few hundred dollars to get an abortion.
If Sam and Samantha has sex and its none of their parent's business that they are having sex then its none of their parent's business when Sam and Samantha discover that they have incurable STDs/STIs.
Parents are not wallets, they are people. If my son thinks he got someone pregnant or my daughter was pregnant I'd want to know before a baby was brought home for ME to pay childcare for while he/she finishes school OR see that I'm being billed for an abortion I know damn well I didn't have. It shouldn't be a law because those mature enough to actually engage in sex should be mature enough to talk to their parents (the people who take care of THEM) about their decision to engage in sex considering the consequences of it would have a direct monetary effect on them.
The ACLU of Illinois just won a temporary restraining order blocking enforcement of the parental Notice of Abortion Act. You can read about it at www.aclu-il.org.
This article, from the Phoenix New Times, isn't new; but the points Gloria Feldt makes in it are cogent and valid:
"The reason they come up with these particular bills has nothing to do with protecting children and everything to do with trying to make abortion more difficult to obtain," says Gloria Feldt, executive director of Planned Parenthood.[ ... ]
Planned Parenthood caseworkers claim that 90 percent of the girls under 16 tell their parents they're pregnant, as do 60 percent of the 16- and 17-year-olds. And of the remaining girls, at least half come to the abortion clinics with a trusted adult, aunt or uncle, teacher or counselor, older brother or sister, or boyfriend."The reality is that most teens do talk to their parents--one or both," Feldt says. "And for those, you don't need a law. For those who won't or can't [talk to their parents], the law won't help them to assure that they get some kind of passionate attention or counseling or support or whatever they need."
[ ... ]
"A law that mandates parental consent is way after the fact. It's way too late to fix any parent-child communication problems."It's a standard anti-choice bill in league with the parent's rights / father's rights agenda. The only supporters I've seen for it is from evangelicals and staunch anti-choice activists, and MRA's of course.
I found this bit of odd wording when searching for more info on who sponsored this bill:
Synopsis As Introduced:
Provides that a person may not intentionally perform an abortion on a minor or on an incompetent person unless 48 hours' notice has been given to a specified adult family member or a member of the clergy.
Member of the clergy? Oh hell no.
let's not kid around, notification and consent for many teens end up meaning the same thing. what if a young woman's parents tell her no? i don't know about many of you, but when i was 15 (and started having intercourse with men), i would have done what my parents told me, especially having almost no information, money or a way to go most places. if i did get up the courage and i had to notify them, i would be scared shitless.