The basic logic at play here is that someone's life depends on someone else's "choice." As long as you have laws that do not extend legal protection to the unborn, you will continue to have laws that seem to send contradictory messages as Saletan's article so aptly puts it. The primary purpose behind parental consent laws is not to over-ride a mother's judgment and belittle her, but to reduce abortion. The Republicans believe that the best way to reduce abortions is to make it harder to get one, and parental consent is just one obstacle they they use.

The real question is not whether the choice belongs to the mother or to someone else, but is rather when should a human being

The whole reason behind parental consent is to reduce the number of abortions. For the most part, conservatives, particulary religious conservatives, hate abortion and will approve any laws that will make it harder to get one. The most logical way to attack abortion would be to pass legislation recognizing legal rights for unborn babies, but Democrats will do everything in their power to prevent that.

Jan18: WOW, some balanced thinking. I have been chillin' all day on these blogs and have seen very little of that. Yes, we conservatives hate abortion and will do whatever we can to make it harder to get one. By the way, many liberals take the same stance, that we should do whatever we can to reduce the numbers. Parental consent is a differant matter though. At child needs the direct intervention of the parents up to a certain age. Some say 18, others 16, whatever. But without a consent law abortion can be performed on a 13 years old without the parents even being notified. Abortion is not a risk free medical procedure, even with modern methods healthy women have died in the process, others suffered permanant damage. But some seem to operate under the notion that if a girl is old enough to get pregnant that she should be treated as an adult woman (the side conotations of this are frightening), her body is her own and she has the right to chose what to do with it. A parent might object, maybe even abuse the girl mentally or physically if they found out she was pregnant. Even the possability of one case of said abuse, in their argument, should deprive all parents of the right to be informed and agree to this procedure being performed on their child.

For now the issue of Roe is settled and it is unlikely that even a conservative court will overturn it. It is even more unlikely that we will ever pass a law confering rights to the unborn at any stage of development. The matter is just to ethereal to be taken up in a legal/political sense. So we are left to deal with it in as best a common sense approach as we can come up with. I believe parental consent up to a defined age is common sense.

All I can think whenever I hear someone opposed to parental consent laws is that they don't have kids.

What kind of parent would actually support the idea of their kids being able to get medical procedures performed on them behind their parents back?

The notion that a parent should not direct a minor's medical procedures makes no sense whatsoever. And I say this as someone who is not and (alas) willnever be a parent.

As a parent of three...and pregnant with #4...I can tell you that no one, let alone a child, should be making life altering decisions alone during the first trimester of a pregnancy. It's like a bad case of PMS on steroids.

I'm in in my 30's, in a stable marriage, with great friends, and adorable kids...a great support system. I still would NEVER make a life altering decision during my 1st trimester...or at any time during a pregnancy. Because, I know...from experience, and the way my husband cowers in fear before me, that I am insane during that initial surge of hormones. There's no calm, logical thinking. These are children we're talking about, who already have enough hormones surging, and who should NOT be making these kinds of decisions alone. They need a support system...and that should be their parents. Whatever the decision in the end...they shouldn't go through it alone.

Yes, of course a pregnant teenager needs the support of her parents. Under normal circumstances she will run to them to ask for help and advice. However, there are some very bad parents out there. Some parents will kick a teenager out of their home in case of pregnancy (or if finding out the own son is gay!). And then, in case of abuse and incest, the victim must be able to make a decision without letting the perpetrator know about it. In some state, a judge can help the victim make the decision without notifying the parents. Remember the people most keen on parent notification are also those advocating a law that would forbid abortion even in case of rape and incest. In effect they plan on eliminating all parental input from the decision...

MaxAmoeba: pregnancy is much more dangerous than an abortion, particularly if it's a child who is pregnant. Please educate yourself about the risks of pregnancy and giving birth (I'm a mother and grandmother so I know what I'm talking about).

Excuse me but I am not against abortion and I do believe that a child should have parental consent not only for an abortion but for any medical procedure.

If the age of consent is 17 then I have no say in whether or not said child has sex nor do I have any say in whether said child has an abortion but if they are under the age of consent then I should have a say in the matter.

Any medical procedure carries inherent risks and that includes an abortion. I certainly don't want to get a phone call telling me that my 14 year old who was supposed to be in school bled to death on the table during an abortion, or was in the hospital due to complications from an abortion. I wouldn't want to hear that about any child of mine but once they are of age of consent I respectfully have to allow them to make their own decisions.