Note: I'm not a disability expert, I do not mean to be offensive to disabled persons, I just wish to highlight how being a woman and being disabled intersect and what happens at that intersection. Perhaps someone else has a better perspective than me and I invite them to comment/post.

Upon reading portions of the Illinois Parental Notice of Abortion Act, I found some interesting ways in which the law and society views pregnant girls as well as disabled women. And it looks like in the case of women, you are guilty of a disability until proven abled (unless you're married, which magically makes you abled). Let's look at this closer.

The beginning of the Illinois Parental Notice of Abortion Act reads as such:
~
Sec. 5. Legislative findings and purpose. The General Assembly finds that notification of a family member as defined in this Act is in the best interest of an unemancipated minor, and the General Assembly's purpose in enacting this parental notice law is to further and protect the best interests of an unemancipated minor.
The medical, emotional, and psychological consequences of abortion are sometimes serious and long lasting, and immature minors often lack the ability to make fully informed choices that consider both the immediate and long range consequences.
Parental consultation is usually in the best interest of the minor and is desirable since the capacity to become pregnant and the capacity for mature judgment concerning the wisdom of an abortion are not necessarily related.

~

Basically, that means, as an unemancipated minor, you have a disability. But this disability doesn't apply to all minors. Male minors cannot bear children, therefore male minors do NOT and CANNOT have this disability . i.e. the disability to discern whether or not they should have an abortion.

But this law doesn't only apply to pregnant female minors, it applies to "incompetent" persons as well and who are "incompetent" persons?

~
"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.
~

Well, lookie there! Now we can see how abled-bodied women have privilege over their bodies in ways disabled women do not. It looks like a pregnant minor's "disability" magically goes away when she reaches a certain age, but women who are deemed "incompetent" have to compile with this law at ANY AGE. Damn. And I thought 8 years of child-bearing while minor and unmarried was bad.
And while we're on that, let's look at the definition of a minor:
~
"Minor" means any person under 18 years of age who is not or has not been married or who has not been emancipated under the Emancipation of Minors Act.
~
Whee! So if I got married when I was 10 years old, I'd no longer be a minor! And I would no longer have this disability! In fact, if I just bloody emancipated myself from my guardians, I wouldn't have this "disability" either! Good to know!

However, we get to the root of the problem: a minor or incompetent person is only deemed "non-disabled" if they can somehow prove it in a court proceeding:

~
(d) Notice shall be waived if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence either:
(1) that the minor or incompetent person is sufficiently mature and well enough informed to decide intelligently whether to have an abortion,
~
So, female minors/incompetent women are deemed "guilty" or "disabled" until they prove they are not? What is up with that?

Let me reiterate too-- men/boys and women/girls who cannot bear children will never been seen as having this "disability." Their abilities will never be scrutinized.

1

You recommended

4 Comments

November 5, 2009 10:32 AM

[0+]  rebekah said:

women/girls who cannot bear children will never been seen as having this "disability." Their abilities will never be scrutinized.

That is not true. Simply because we are female we are "disabled" and therefore need to have our every move scrutinized. In my state I cannot have a hysterectomy that I badly need until I turn twenty-one because of a state law saying that until that age I am incompetent and "too emotional about having my right to bear children taken away from me" that is exactly how the law reads. So don't try and say that women who cannot bear children have some privilege over those who can, in fact we are treated as completely inhuman by our patriarchal society, because our worth as human beings is tied up in our ability to have children. If we can't have children, then we have no worth as human beings. That is how I am treated by society every day of my life. Please remember that fact before you try and say that we are not scrutinized

I  Liked  Liked this comment  |  Reply |

November 5, 2009 12:09 PM

[0+]  Athenia replied to rebekah :

rebekah~
I'm sorry,I didn't mean to imply that child bearing women have privilge over non-child bearing women. I was just trying to cover all my bases, but as you say, just having a uterus are grounds of incompetency.

I  Liked  Liked this comment  |  Reply |

November 5, 2009 11:49 AM

[0+]  Jut Gory said:

I think you are making a fundamental error here.

"Disability" is a technical legal term.
Pregnancy could qualify as a "disability" (as could infertility, for that matter). Disability is often defined as anything that impairs an activity of life (I am paraphrasing the idea, because I am blanking on the typical statutory language). Pregnancy can do that; however, I do not recall whether Courts have interpreted "disability" to include pregnancy.

But, what you are talking about is "incapacity." Minors, unless they have been emancipated, are considered incapacitated, or incapable of certain things (entering into contracts, marrying, making a will, etc.). becoming a legal adult automatically removes that incapacity.

Likewise, someone judged to be incompetent lacks certain capacities as well (most, if not all, of the ones listed above).

So, if a minor becomes emancipated, they are then deemed to have the capacity to do those things mentioned (get married, sign contracts, etc.).

However, it appears that you can marry without being emancipated and that acts as a de facto or de jure emancipation. I am not familiar with Illinois law, but, on the face of it, it strikes me as unusual. I do not think most states are like that. It may depend on the age of consent for marriage. For instance, if you can marry at 16, but become an adult at 18, the act of marrying while a minor may automatically make you an adult for all purposes.

In any event, you are mixing up two significant, and technical, legal terms.

-Jut

I  Liked  Liked this comment  |  Reply |

November 5, 2009 12:24 PM

[0+]  Athenia replied to Jut Gory :

Thanks for your legal perspective Jut! :)

I suppose I'm just lamenting all those unjustified rights one gets when one gets married. :)

I  Liked  Liked this comment  |  Reply |

Leave a comment

Comments (You may use HTML tags for style)