In general, I believe in parental involvement in a child's life. My older sister had an abortion at 18; my mother and grandmother took her to the clinic themselves. It was a hard thing for them to do, but they recognized, as did my sister, that it was not a viable option for her, at that time, to be a single mother with no support.

What worries me about parental consent as a law may be what people consider the "exceptions." It is regrettable, but true, that there are young women who are abused by their parents. It is also true that there are young women carrying their father's, or their brother's, or some other male relative's baby. There are minors in homeless shelters, or in the foster care system, who have no parents who are able to consent. These girls may face further abuse in the face of their pregnancy, whether or not they wish to carry it to term. Who is going to advocate for the rights of these girls? How many of you, if you were in this position, would be willing to stand before a judge and tell him that you are unable to obtain parental consent, and tell him why? To force this upon such disadvantaged young women is to force them to carry a baby to term.

You may argue that these situations are rare, and I hope to God they are. I had more than one friend in high school who was routinely beaten. I worked at a pediatrics office that saw many girls in the foster care system or living in homeless shelters--the only care they received was from group home workers not much older than themselves. Should the workers contact their imprisoned, drug-addicted parents for consent?

I empathize with the caring, committed parents who have posted, wanting to know what their children are doing, and wanting to be able to offer support. I hope that you are willing to guide your daughters to make the right decision (whatever that decision may be), should they ever end up in this situation. I also hope that you would recognize, if not their sovereignty, then at least their personhood, and their stake in the matter. I hope that you would not declare your own feelings paramount and ignore theirs. I'm pretty sure, as good parents, that you wouldn't. Most of your children, if you have truly kept the lines of communication, will come to you for help, as my sister did with my mother. My sister was already a legal adult, in college, living halfway across the country. She didn't have to tell our family, especially since my mother and grandmother were Catholic and she may not have been sure about the reception she would receive. She came to them because my mother always told her, and all of us, that she was available if we needed help.

Don't sell your children short, I think is what I'm trying to say. Parental consent laws send a pretty clear message--"we don't trust you to come to us on your own, so we'll force you." And while you raise your children with all the care you can, try to think about other children who have not been so fortunate. Should you punish them because their parents are unavailable, or worse?

There is a major difference between consent (assumes parents have VETO power) and notification (assume parents have NO power) as it relates to WHO gets to decide the FINAL outcome.

I'm for notification laws but NOT consent laws. I'm sorry but after reading your post I cannot tell what you are for.

What about a a fair compromise with consent laws - a parent who will not consent to an abortion much take the baby (thier grandchild) and become legal guardians if their own child is unwilling/unable to keep that baby. That might have a few parents thinking twice about not allowing an abortion.

In all seriousness - I would hope that any woman would only have an abortion as a last result, and realize the full implications of the action. Whatever specific beliefs a person has about when life begins, that action still deprives life of coming to existance (or continueing to exist, as I believe). It is my belief that all humans will one day be held accountable for all their actions, good and bad, and on that day we will know the full realization of all our choices.

Jazzguitarman, I think the main point of my post is that I don't know how I feel about laws requiring parental consent or notification. I think in general, I believe that it's wrong and dangerous to assume that all parents who are notified are going to be good parents who will deal responsibly with their daughters' unplanned pregnancies. Not all parents have their children's best interests at heart, sadly. And not all parents are involved in their children's lives. In fact, parental involvement, along with responsible education about contraception, tends to LOWER teen pregnancy rates. If a parent is not a responsible figure in a teen's life, should the teen be forced to consult that parent in order to make this particular decision, when that parent has not helped her with any other?

In a nutshell, I believe that even parental notification may be a danger to some young women who need to have an abortion. I also believe that if a parent has done and continues to do his or her job effectively, their child will come to them for help. I think in the light of the danger parental notification and/or consent could put some young women in, it would do more harm than good to mandate it. I think it's dangerous for the state to mandate parent/child relationships, except of course when there is a clear danger to the health and safety of either the parent or the child.

Also, let's not forget that Palin didn't want to mandate notification; she wanted to force a pregnant teen to obtain her parent's consent. I would argue that a law like this is a political ploy to block access to abortion for underage girls, not a measure created out of concern for them.

illumiknitti:

Don't sell your children short, I think is what I'm trying to say. Parental consent laws send a pretty clear message--"we don't trust you to come to us on your own, so we'll force you."

"If we don't start trusting our children, how will they ever become trustworthy?"

- Footloose (1984)

It may be only a movie quote, but I think it sums things up pretty accurately.

With regards to parental notification a law is required to TAKE AWAY parental rights NOT the other way around. You appear to assume a law is necessary to MANDATE parental rights. AGAIN, you have it backwards.

For any and all medical procedures (I hope we can agree that an abortion is a medical procedure) a minor must get parental consent. So, do you see how you have it backwards. The left (which I'm a proud member of) needed a law to PREVENT parental notification and consent NOT the other way around.

So the state is NOT mandating parent/child relationship but PREVENTING parent/child relationships by having laws that allow adults to treat minors without parental notirication or consent.

I don't see how one can support a law that denies parental notification to ALL parents just because, as you note, there are SOME bad ones.

So I support notification (with some 'out' clauses a minor can use as long as they can show actual abuse) but NOT parental consent.

Now not for laws that prevent parental notification but I'm also NOT for any laws that mandate parental consent.

Anyhow, with regards to trust, laws that prevent parental notification are based on the assumption that PARENTS cannot be trusted. Well, If we don't start trusting our parents, how will they ever become trustworthy?"

I don't see how society can deny parents the right to be notified about events that impact their minor children.

OK, there can be some 'outs' where teens can use the courts (but they must show actual abuse not just mean parents), but society cannot take away a parent's right to be notified and call itself just.

Now, parental consent is a whole other story and something I'm against.

Your point on taking away parental rights is very well made.

I do find it interesting that this "taking of rights" is predicated on the exception rather than the rule. Because of a few potential cases of abuse all parental rights must be terminated.

The exception can be flipped around. The pedophile can now take the victim for an abortion without the parent's consent or knowledge and continue to abuse the victim. Why hasn't the discussion addressed this exception and why is the law not being written around this exception?

No law will every fully address or solve the problem it was meant to address. The law is a blunt instrument and human beings are so varied in their circumstances.

Isn't it a blessing that teenagers are so ignorant??!?? It's Gods gift to parents to let them know they are still unable to control the world or even the actions of their own children. If Sarah Palin loads the vote so her opinions are made into law, this is the same thing that happens in dictatorships everywhere.

This law of forcing teenagers to have children and parents having the right to veto abortion is something that kids have to come to terms with. Tough luck if you've become pregnant just as this law comes into action. The fact Mrs Palin has no idea how to tell her unmarried daughter about the consequences of sex should not detract from her fitness for the second highest office in the U.S.A. It's up to the people to decide if parents forcing every teenage child to continue with any pregnancy is rational policy.

This is a debate that needs to be seen by teenagers .

Teenagers are sure to make mistakes no matter what laws are passed .

This is a very important issue. It needs to be discussed in all families everywhere, especially including families without daughters.