On the matter of parental notification legislation the Nashua Telegraph, in reprinting (as a guest editorial) the left-wing blathering of the Concord Monitor, has just reassured sexual predators who want to abuse young girls in the state of New Hampshire that their secret is probably safe.
“But consider the rights of vulnerable teenage girls whose fear of confiding in a parent or a judge – perhaps misguided, perhaps chillingly justified – would keep them from seeking help at all.”
If this is a reasonable argument for a pregnancy derived from consensual sex between minors, then what are the odds the same vulnerable teenage girls will confide in anyone about non-consensual sex, or any form of sexual abuse or predation where fear of harm, if the abuse is revealed, is a given? Are liberals trying to tell us that vulnerable teenage girls can’t help but be chatty with strangers about being sexually abused but not with their parents when the pregnancy is from consensual sex?
This begs the question, does the current law (where consent is not required) hide the greater threat to the health and safety of vulnerable teenage girls, and what is the trade-off the Democrats have made at their expense?
Up to this point, the democrat/pro-abortion mantra has been that there is just too much at risk if an underage girl gets pregnant. But that’s clearly not the case.
As discussed here just a few weeks ago, the threat is not what the left and the media would have you believe.
..according to the CDC, from 2000 to 2007, (2007 is the last year data was available) among the top ten causes of death for girls age 13-17 in New Hampshire–those ages that would be affected by that horrible parental notification requirement–there are no recorded deaths due to pregnancy or complications from it.
So is there a greater threat to the health and safety (including mental health) of ‘vulnerable teenage girls’ from sexual predation? Yes.
According to the New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, there were 302 reported cases of sexual violence against children (Ages 0-17) in New Hampshire, in 2009. That’s “reported.” Given the “fear of confiding” rule set out by the liberal press how many more cases go unreported and how many of those result in pregnancies whose origin a vulnerable teenage girl is not required to reveal to anyone at all?
The risk and threat of abuse is hundreds of percentage points higher, every year, than the risk of death or severe injury from pregnancy alone.
So with little or no evidence of risk from actual pregnancy, and significant statistical risk that we would continue to hide sexual abuse of minors, a John Lynch veto of the parental notification bill (complete with exclusions and exceptions) will hide cases of sexual abuse of teenage girls, seeing as they are not always prepared to open up about that sort of thing.
I guess the Democrats would rather risk the very real problem of unreported serial sexual predation by putting the government between parents and children than to ask girls who make mistakes to first consult with parents about a pregnancy from which they have almost no need to fear, short of a lecture and perhaps some embarrassment.
So who is really looking out for vulnerable teenage girls again? It’s not democrats and it never was.
