House Bill 329. A law that will require the notification of parents for unemancipated minors prior to the performance of an abortion procedure, will get it’s public hearing tomorrow before the Senate Judiciary committee. Most certainly, that public hearing will segue the militant hit-parade decrying this often-called, “anti-choice” legislation.
Planned Parenthood, making quick use of our tax dollars to lobby against this piece of legislation, gives us indicia that should the bill pass the Judiciary and Senate, Planned Parenthood might sue to block its implementation as they did in Alaska. In fact, Planned Parenthood has made concerted efforts all over the Country to block such legislation with various court challenges. Planned Parenthood shows their resolve and that they will not be deterred. In 2005, for example, A Minnesota court ruled that St. Paul Planned Parenthood violated a parental notification law when an abortion was performed on a 17-year-old girl without prior notice to her parents. History instructs us that Planned Parenthood not only actively opposes these laws, but that they are willing to simply disregard them.
In today’s Union Leader story, Gary Rayno reports that opponents of the bill say, “(This bill) will needlessly put the lives and health of young women at risk…” Seriously? opponents all say this, but they never tell you exactly how. Or if opponents tell how, they give anecdotal examples of extreme abuse, rape or incest. If one accepts that logic, one also has to first admit that all of the other systems and precious safety nets they so ardently champion and advocate for have failed. In cases of abuse, where was DCYF? and why did they not intervene?
In the case of incest, (which is a serious crime, as is rape) is it not a fair? albeit a morbid assumption that such girls are at substantially more at risk long before any pregnancy occurred? Accepting that notion, Where was the intervention? If a pregnancy resulted from an incestuous sexual assault, does not the state remove the child from the home for alternative placement? If we accept that premise, with or without this law, is it not crystal clear that such a pregnancy becomes an issue for the judicial review?
Pilar Olivo, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice NH, tells the Union Leader, “The exemption only applies if the life of a young woman is at risk, Olivo said, not if a young woman is in danger of serious harm. There are no exemptions for victims of rape, incest or neglect..” So despite the layers, the duplicity and overlap of the various legal twists and turns of the Child Protection Act, Olivo continues to hang her hat on that single empty and fallacious assertion.
An abortion is, an invasive surgical procedure where an anesthesia may be administered, irrespective of where one stands, for or against. A physician treating a minor child with any other medical procedure, will bog a parent down for 25 minutes reading and filling out a whole host of HIPAA documents that also must be signed by that parent or guardian. While it is asserted that abortion is safe, the fact lingers, that abortion is an invasive medical procedure. And, as with any other surgery, complications sometimes do occur. This is the only invasive surgical procedure where rules and tenets of HIPAA are bypassed and a parent may not be involved, which runs counter to any other medical procedure sought.
Opposition to parental notification turns on its head conventions we all know and accept, regardless of whether we are liberal, conservative, pro-life or pro-choice. We as a society collectively accept the paradigm that as parents of teens, parents are charged with shepherding and guiding teens through the often tumultuous path of adolescence. Parents do this because, not only is it their “parental obligation and responsibility,” but because these hormonal teens are predisposed to sometimes making less-than-rational decisions, all of which is part of their emotional development.
For the few who are in, “at risk” situations where the almighty nanny-state has failed to render effective protection, we are now going to accept the premise that others outside the family unit can offer the highest, best and most-informed guidance for the teen who finds herself, “in the family way?” Even if such advice might run counter to a family’s particular set of values?
These do-gooder anti-family feminists gloss over the realities we all live in. Many of us know, (or perhaps have) a teen who is pregnant, or has had a child. Alternatively, perhaps that might include parents who have guided a teen through the process of an abortion. In either case, families faced those tough issues together and got thought it without these agenda-pushy pro-abortionists.
MTV hosts a show called, “Sixteen and Pregnant,” and, “Teen Moms” showcasing a number of youngsters who are pregnant and have had their babies. The majority of the teen moms shown have involved their parents and for the most part, the parents have taken proactive roles in supporting, guiding and helping their teen daughters. Such anecdotal evidence suggests that the majority of the stated objections to parental notification laws are couched in more sinister, unstated motives.
All things considered, the anti-parental notification template for opposition to Parental Notification laws appears to be less about women’s reproductive rights and choices and more about the promotion of abortion, and bypassing the influence of families, seeking to make an end-run around values that might likely promote not having an abortion.
On the website, Change.org, in December 2010, Roxanne MtJoy, in blogging her opposition to Alaska’s Parental Notification law writes, “The law unfairly favors pregnant teens who plan to continue their pregnancy and places those who wish to obtain an abortion in a potentially dangerous situation, violating their constitutional right to equal protection…” Joy pits teens who choose to have their babies against those who might choose otherwise. So it’s not really about choice, now is it?
