|
|
|
Jewish World Review Nov. 3, 2005 / 1 Mar-Cheshvan, 5766 Parents should be notified By Debra J. Saunders
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
The logic doesn't work. By definition, minors who get pregnant
are less mature than those who do not — in general, they belong to the
subset of teens who have sex but don't use birth control at all or
correctly, as opposed to teens who either use birth control consistently or
abstain from having sex. So it doesn't make sense to have laws, like those
in California, that give the least responsible teens more rights than are
accorded a responsible teen who wants a tattoo.
Still, I seriously considered voting against Proposition 73, a
constitutional amendment that would require parental notification or a
judge's waiver before a minor has an abortion.
I would not support an initiative that made a pregnant teen
carry an unwanted child. Proposition 73 does not require parental consent.
An earlier law requiring parental consent was overturned by the California
Supreme Court, thus this measure requires only that doctors notify a parent
of a pending abortion, without requiring parental consent, unless a judge
grants a waiver.
As it is, countless teens are having sex without parental
knowledge or consent. That's why we don't want laws that would deny minors
access to birth control — and Proposition 73 explicitly states that it
would not apply to "any contraceptive drug or device."
The pivotal question is: Should California law be based on
families in which parents are abusive, or should it address the majority of
parents who are responsible and only want what is best for their children? I
have to come down on the side of the majority of good parents, especially
when the judicial bypass exists for daughters of abusive parents.
Why wouldn't a parent vote for this measure? Becky Morgan, a
former GOP state senator and mother of an obstetrician-gynecologist, told me
she will vote "no" because of teens who don't have the type of relationship
that makes them feel they can tell their parents. Morgan is a founder of
Planned Parenthood's Teen Success program — which helps teenage mothers
stay in school without getting pregnant again — and has seen "mothering
teenagers who have been kicked out of their homes." These are girls who
cannot go to a parent.
"I will always remember the teenager who said, 'My father gave
my boyfriend a key to the house, and when I got pregnant, he threw me out,'"
Morgan noted.
I'm with Morgan on that: I don't want laws that would result in
a pregnant teen getting thrown out of the house. That's why the judicial
bypass is so important.
But the other side of the argument deals with teens who could
tell their parents, but simply don't want to — just as they wouldn't want
to tell their folks if they cracked up the family SUV. Savvy teens know that
they can avoid telling their parents they're pregnant and get a tax-funded
abortion by pleading poverty — whether they are poor or not. Their parents
will never be the wiser. That represents, in the truest sense, government
intrusion into families' lives.
It is the parents, after all, who will have to pick up the
pieces if there are any problems, rare though that may be, following a
minor's abortion.
In my mind, this measure is not about abortion, but parental
rights. I agree with those proponents and opponents who have predicted that
if Proposition 73 passes, there will be little change in either the number
of abortions or teen pregnancies in California.
As I see it, Planned Parenthood can help those teens who need a
judicial waiver negotiate the legal system. On the other hand, pregnant
teens from good homes who don't want to take on that hassle of going to
court might be more likely to tell their folks. One hopes that their parents
will ensure that they use birth control thereafter, and thus prevent repeat
teen pregnancies.
It is true: Some teens might be afraid to go to court. Morgan
tells me Planned Parenthood won't have enough volunteers to usher teens
throughout California to local courts. I say: then Planned Parenthood will
have to choose which cases seem worthy.
Allowing minors to have surgery without their parents' knowledge
should be the exception, not the rule. As the late and liberal Justice
Stanley Mosk wrote in a 1996 decision that upheld a parental consent law —
later overturned — legal restrictions on minors "are premised on a
fundamental social tenet that children require protection against their own
immaturity and vulnerability in making decisions that may have serious
consequences for their health and well-being."
Instead, California law presumes that parents are less mature
or sensitive than their children, if their daughters are pregnant. If the
law won't trust parents of pregnant teens, then it can withhold
decision-making in other areas, like education.
If someone wants to devise a better way to write a law that
protects parents' rights — say, one that separates the kids who just don't
want to tell their parents from those who dare not — I am all ears.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
Comment JWR contributor Debra J. Saunders's column by clicking here. © 2005, Creators Syndicate |
Mitch Albom | |||||||||||
