Teresa Collett

Parental consent laws protect underage girls, so why are abortionists opposed?

Teresa Collett
By Teresa Collett

April 20, 2012 (thePublicDiscourse.com) - On March 8, the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on the Constitution heard testimony on the proposed Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA). I was among those who testified in favor of the Act. CIANA would prohibit transporting a minor across state lines with the intent that she obtain an abortion without involving her parents as may be required by her home state. It also would require that abortion providers comply with the parental notification or consent laws of a minor’s home state when performing an abortion on a non-resident minor. More controversially, CIANA would require 24 hours’ notice to the girl’s parents if she was not a resident in the state where the abortion is being performed. All of these requirements would be waived in the event of a medical emergency threatening the girl’s life or if the girl certified that she was the victim of parental abuse.

The New York Times criticized the Act in an editorial titled “Yet Another Curb on Abortion.” The editors called CIANA “mean-spirited,” “constitutionally suspect,” and “callous.” It is none of these things. It is, in fact, a popular commonsense proposal that is fully constitutional.

There is a national consensus in favor of parental involvement laws, notwithstanding the controversial nature of abortion laws more generally. For more than three decades, polls have consistently reflected that over 70 percent of Americans support parental consent laws. Most recently a Gallup Poll released July 25, 2011, showed that 71 percent of Americans support a law requiring parental consent prior to performance of an abortion on a minor. According to a 2009 Pew Research Poll “Even among those who say abortion should be legal in most or all cases, 71% favor requiring parental consent.”

Forty-five states have passed laws requiring parental notice or consent, although only thirty-seven states’ laws are in effect at the moment due to constitutional challenges by abortion rights activists. And the weakest of these laws allow notice to or consent by other adult relatives of girls seeking abortion.

Click ‘like’ if you want to END ABORTION!

Various reasons underlie the popular support of these laws. As Justices O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter observed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, parental involvement laws for abortions “are based on the quite reasonable assumption that minors will benefit from consultation with their parents and that children will often not realize that their parents have their best interests at heart.”

The New York Times editorial disputed this claim, criticizing CIANA on the basis that teens “have reason to fear a violent reaction” and will “resort to unsafe alternatives.”

These objections are repeatedly voiced by abortion activists. Yet they ignore published studies, many of them by the Guttmacher Institute, a research institute founded by Planned Parenthood, demonstrating that less than half of pregnant teens tell their parents of their pregnancy and very few experience ill effects from the disclosure.

According to a national study conducted by researchers associated with Guttmacher, disappointment is the most common response of parents who learn that their teen daughter is pregnant, and almost no parent responds with violence. Teens reported an increase in parental stress as the most common consequence of disclosing their pregnancy. Less than half of one percent of the teens reported that they were “beaten.”

The claim that minors will resort to unsafe alternatives is equally bogus. A 2007 study of self-induced medical abortions reported no cases involving children or adolescents. Similarly, notwithstanding the fact that parental involvement laws have been on the books in various states for over thirty years, there has been no case in which it has been established that a minor was injured as the result of obtaining an illegal or self-induced abortion in an attempt to avoid parental involvement.

What has been established, however, is that many teen pregnancies are the result of coercion and statutory rape. National studies reveal that almost two thirds of adolescent mothers have partners older than twenty years of age. In a study of over 46,000 pregnancies by school-age girls in California, researchers found that 71 percent, or over 33,000, were fathered by adult post-high-school men who were an average of five years older than the mothers. Perhaps even more shocking was the finding that men aged twenty-five years or older father more births among California school-age girls than do boys under age eighteen. Parental involvement laws are just one way the law can attempt to protect young girls from the predatory practices of some men.

Mandatory reporting of statutory rape and other sex crimes is another. Yet as evidenced by recent news stories, some abortion providers refuse to comply with reporting laws. Instead of reporting underage sex to state authorities who can then investigate and protect a girl from future abuse, clinics intentionally remain ignorant of the circumstances giving rise to the pregnancy. Clinics in Kansas have even gone so far as to argue in federal court that twelve-year-old children have a right to keep their sexual activities private and thus reporting laws are unconstitutional. Thankfully this absurd claim was rejected, but only on appeal from a district court ruling embracing the clinics’ argument.

In addition to providing some protection against sexual exploitation of minors, the Supreme Court has identified three ways in which teens may benefit medically from parental involvement. First, parents are more likely to have greater experience in selecting medical providers and thus be able “to distinguish the competent and ethical from those that are incompetent or unethical.” This benefit should not be lightly ignored, as evidenced by the horrific practices engaged in by Kermit Gosnell in Philadelphia, an abortion provider currently being prosecuted for multiple murders in connection with his abortion practice.

Second, parents can provide additional information about the minor’s medical history—information a minor may not know, remember, or be willing to share. This can be particularly important where there is a history of depression or other mental disorder that may impact the minor’s post-abortion psychological health. While claims of “post-abortion trauma” are hotly disputed, no one questions that women with a history of depression may be more susceptible to post-abortion mental health problems.

Finally, parents who know their daughter has undergone an abortion can more readily identify any post-procedure problems such as infection or hemorrhaging—two of the most common post-abortion complications. If caught early, both infection and hemorrhaging can be dealt with easily, but if ignored, either can lead to other complications or even death.

Opponents of CIANA argue that the Act would endanger teen health, and they criticize the emergency exception to parental involvement, which is limited to the life of the minor. This objection, like the other objections, ignores reality and constitutional precedents. In the five years between 2005 and 2010, the Wisconsin Department of Health reported almost 3,200 abortions performed on minors. Not a single one involved a medical emergency. During the same five years in Alabama, where over 4,500 abortions were performed on minors, only two involved a medical emergency. In Nebraska, of the 13,596 abortions performed on all women from 2005 to 2010, only three involved a medical emergency.

Evidence shows that of all teens obtaining abortions, only a tiny fraction of one percent occur in emergency circumstances. In Gonzales v. Carhart, the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the federal partial-birth abortion ban that contained a similarly narrow emergency exception, in part because of evidence that no broader exception was necessary.

Independent of the fact that such emergencies are so rare, it is precisely in these circumstances, when a teen’s life or health is threatened by a pregnancy, that parental involvement is most needed and most helpful.

It is beyond dispute that young girls are being taken to out-of-state clinics in order to procure secret abortions. Abortion clinic operators in states without parental involvement laws routinely advertise in neighboring states where clinics must obtain parental consent or provide parental notice. For example, abortion providers in Granite City, Illinois have advertised Illinois’s absence of any parental involvement requirement to Missouri minors, which has a parental consent law, for decades.

Missouri legislators attempted to stop this practice by passing a law creating civil remedies for parents and their daughters against individuals who would “intentionally cause, aid, or assist a minor” in obtaining an abortion without parental consent or a judicial bypass. Abortion providers immediately attacked the law as unconstitutional, but it was upheld by the Missouri Supreme Court. The Court limited its opinion, however, by the observation that “Missouri simply does not have the authority to make lawful out-of-state conduct actionable here, for its laws do not have extraterritorial effect.”

The proposed Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act is an appropriate and measured response to the limitations on state powers in our federalist system. It is grounded by the reality that parents are nearly always the first to help a teen in trouble, and that fact does not change when the “trouble” is an unplanned pregnancy. There is no other elective surgery that minors can obtain while keeping their parents in the dark, and the controversy surrounding this Act shows just how severely the judicial creation of abortion rights has distorted American law.

Teresa Collett is Professor of Law at University of St. Thomas School of Law. Reprinted with permission from thePublicDiscourse.com.

Help us expose Planned Parenthood

$5 helps us reach 1,000 more people with the truth!


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Kim Davis refusing to issue marriage license to same-sex couple Frame from Times video
Mass Resistance

Kim Davis jailing only beginning of what is in store for America as revealed in June 27 “gay” magazine

Mass Resistance
By

September 4, 2015 (Mass Resistance) --The judge told her that she’ll stay in jail until she’s willing to change her mind -- and go against her conscience and faith. He said that he’d review the situation in a week. The judge said that he jailed her because fining her  “would not bring about the desired result of compliance”.

There are approximately 125 county officials throughout Kentucky who can issue “gay marriage” licenses. But the judge was adamant that every county official must be forced to do it and that religious freedom cannot be allowed, despite the First Amendment.  “The idea of natural law superseding this court’s authority would be a dangerous precedent indeed,” he said.

See video of Kim Davis, turning away very angry same-sex couple demanding a marriage license.

In 2004, 75% of Kentucky voters passed a State Constitutional Amendment restricting marriage to one man and one woman. On Thursday, Sept. 3, County Clerk Kim Davis was sent to jail by U.S. District Judge David Bunning because she refuses to issue “gay marriage” licenses, a decision which she says is rooted in her strong Christian faith.
 

The post-“gay marriage” revolution

Most pro-family people didn’t see the chilling article that appeared in The Nation, a major left-wing magazine, the day before the U.S. Supreme Court “gay marriage” ruling came out. The article outlines where the LGBT movement is going after “gay marriage.”

The Nation article, “What’s Next for the LGBT Movement?”, quotes four high-profile LGBT activists who reveal that “gay marriage” was never their final goal. The LGBT movement will not be stopping to rest, they say. Their plan is to delegitimize and crush all opposition to their agenda everywhere in America – particularly in the churches -- no matter how small.

Some of the things the article outlines:

  • “Dis-establish marriage.”  “Gay marriage” was simply a stepping stone. Their actual goal is that there be no formal marriage rules at all. This means group marriages are next, then incestuous marriages, and later even marriages to minors. It would simply be up to the people directly involved to decide.
  • Pass strong LGBT “non-discrimination” laws across the US. These are the laws that force bakers to bake “gay marriage” cakes or face huge punishments. Such laws would also force schools to include LGBT indoctrination. Most states still do not have the onerous laws the LGBT movement demands. The activists refer to those states (mostly in the South and Midwest) as “zones without rights” in their propaganda.
  • Ban all “religious liberty” laws. They consider religious liberty to be a dangerous ploy to “undermine all civil rights laws” that must be stopped at all costs. All people must be forced to follow the LGBT agenda, with no exceptions.
  • Demonize pro-family conservatives and silence all dissent. They plan to direct “massive amounts of funds” to “expose and defeat the right wing” across America.
  • Push a radical political agenda. They plan to leverage their power to support Marxist economic policies, the right to “early term abortion,” and similar policies.


Starting to happen

Last month the Denver City Council moved to deny the Chick-fil-A restaurant chain permission to do business at the Denver Airport because the company’s president said he does not agree with “gay marriage.” One Council member labeled the president’s pro-marriage beliefs “discriminatory political rhetoric,” and must not be allowed to make profits from the city’s airport. (Chick-fil-A restaurants have never been accused of actually discriminating against anyone.)

The national homosexual group Human Rights Campaign is already raising millions of dollars to fight religious freedom laws around the country.

And of course, there’s the upswing of left-wing hate and demonization of religious people. The day after Kim Davis was jailed, the Boston Globe prominently published an op-ed article titled “Kim Davis follows the footsteps of George Wallace” which states, among other things, that “Davis is just the latest in a long, infernal line of fanatics to contort their so-called faith into an excuse for hatred and division.” The Left’s hatred of religious people is visceral, and now it’s coming to the forefront.
 

Lots of hypocrisy

The jailing of Kim Davis by Judge Bunning, like most of the Left’s actions, has more than a whiff of hypocrisy. When San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom began illegally ordering county clerks to issue “gay marriage” licenses in 2004, or in 2009 when California clerks (and the Governor) ignored the Prop 8 ruling against issuing “gay marriage” licenses, no judge intervened at all. 
 

Cowards and compromisers

It pains us to say it, but for decades the pro-family movement has been crippled from gaining ground by cowards and compromisers, from top to bottom. Don’t get us started on what led to the disastrous the Supreme Court “gay marriage” ruling.  And it continues with the Kim Davis issue.

While Kim Davis sits in jail, five of her six deputy clerks shamelessly have agreed to abide by the judge’s wishes and started issuing “gay marriage” licenses. (The one holdout is her son.) According to news reports, starting the very next day they were issuing them quite cheerfully, even shaking the hands of the newly “married” homosexual couples.

A disturbing number of pro-family and church leaders across the country have sided with the Federal Judge, saying that Kim Davis should go to jail for “not following the law.”  (Actually there is no “law” on the books – it is only a court ruling. Nor could the judge cite such a law.) 

Even the National Review has published an article saying “[R]eligious-liberty protections cannot act as a bar to gay couples: If the law permits a U.S. citizen to get a license, there must be a way for the gay couple to access it, with their dignity intact."
Wonderful. What a lame movement we're in!
 

What can good people do?

We can certainly see what’s coming up. It’s a hardcore take-no-prisoners approach. We must react accordingly. What most of our movement has tried hasn’t worked and isn’t going to work.

MassResistance believes that their whole program must be confronted. Using what resources we have, we believe in taking the offensive. This means challenging that movement everywhere we can. First and foremost means not holding back on telling the unabashed truth, no matter what the consequences. (For example, most conservatives are squeamish about talking about the well-documented medical and psychological destructiveness of homosexual behavior.)

The LGBT movement wins when we become afraid to confront them. 

This article was originally published on the website of Mass Resistance and is re-published with permission.

Advertisement
Hillary Clinton
Shutterstock
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

, ,

Obama and Hillary support Christian clerk’s arrest over gay ‘marriage’

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

ROWAN COUNTY, KY, September 4, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- The front runner for the Democratic presidential nomination believes that Kim Davis deserved to be jailed.

Shortly following Kim Davis' arrest on Thursday afternoon, Hillary Clinton retweeted a story about Davis' arrest for refusing to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples, saying all elected officials "should be held to their duty to uphold the law - end of story."

The White House seconded that assessment. The punishment - jail time, rather than a fine - was "appropriate," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said during his daily press briefing on Thursday.

The Obama administration spokesperson went on to say that "the principle of the rule of law is central to our democracy."

Calls to imprison Christians who refuse to participate in same-sex "marriage" have intensified on the Left since the late June Supreme Court decision that imposed same-sex "marriage" on the nation.

As Davis was taken out of the federal court room to her jail cell, gay activists yelled, "Love won! Love won!"

Shortly after her arrest, opinion writer E.J. Montini wrote that Davis "was found in contempt of court and sent to jail. Good."

Their position could hardly contrast more sharply with those of some Republican presidential contenders.

Mike Huckabee is holding a #ImWithKim rally in Kentucky on Tuesday to support Davis, who remains in jail today.

Sen. Ted Cruz has said the arrest - which was ordered by a Republican-appointed federal judge - constituted "judicial tyranny."

Not all Republicans agree, though. Chris Christie said that he would demand that clerks participate in the public recognition of same-sex "marriage" regardless of their religious convictions. Lindsey Graham and Carly Fiorina have had similar sentiments.

Advertisement
Featured Image
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

, ,

Ted Cruz: Kim Davis’ arrest is ‘tyranny’ intended to drive Christians from office

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

ROWAN COUNTY, KY, September 4, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) - The arrest of Kim Davis has sent shock waves throughout the nation - and a clear message: Christians have no place in the public square, according to Sen. Ted Cruz.

When the deeply religious clerk was hauled off to jail Thursday afternoon, "judicial lawlessness crossed into judicial tyranny," Cruz said.

Same-sex "marriage" was imposed on the nation by a 5-4 Supreme Court judgment authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy. The arrest of Kim Davis on "contempt of court" charges was ordered by U.S. District Court Judge David Bunning, a George W. Bush appointment who is the son of former moderate Republican senator and baseball great Jim Bunning of Kentucky.

"Those who are persecuting Kim Davis believe that Christians should not serve in public office," Cruz said.

His analysis is shared by former Sen. Rick Santorum. He warned, "More and more people of faith will face the penalties Ms. Davis is now encountering if we do not make the necessary accommodations so people can not just worship but live out their faith in their lives."

Santorum called for passing the First Amendment Defense Act to prevent scenes of clerks being arrested, florists being fined, and bakers being forced out of business.

"This is wrong. This is not America," said Cruz, who recently hosted a Rally for Religious Liberty that featured many of those whose businesses have suffered for following their faith on the issue of sexuality. "I stand with Kim Davis. Unequivocally."

"I stand with every American that the Obama administration is trying to force to choose between honoring his or her faith or complying with a lawless court opinion," Cruz said. “I call upon every believer, every Constitutionalist, every lover of liberty to stand with Kim Davis."

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee will literally do that, as he hosts an #ImWithKim rally in Kentucky on Tuesday to support Davis.

Cruz joins other Republican presidential candidates who support the Kentucky Christian clerk.

"I think it's absurd to put someone in jail for exercising their religious liberty," Sen. Paul, R-KY, told CNN on Thursday afternoon. "I think it's a real mistake to be doing this."

Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida agreed, “There should be a way to protect the religious freedom and conscience rights of individuals working in the office.”

However, other candidates disagreed. Chris Christie said on Fox News Sunday that laws should be enforced against Christians who decline to participate in gay "marriages."

Sen. Lindsey Graham and Carly Fiorina similarly agree Davis should have issued the marriage licenses, regardless of her faith.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton tweeted that laws should be enforced, as she shared a story of Davis' arrest on Twitter.

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook