Some Things Are Beyond Parental Consent, Or Don't Mix Apples And Oranges

Posted by Kevin_Clarkson

Posted: November 4, 2009 - 8:05 am

Every time the issue of passing a law requiring parental involvement in a minor girl's abortion decison making comes up, and it has been 12 years now that it has been coming up as folks have been trying to bring Alaska into line with the vast majority of other states that have such a law (40 states), someone raises the argument: "If you don't require parental consent for giving birth and pre-natal care, why would you require parental consent for abortion?" Sigh. Some silly notions just never go away.

Okay, lets think about this one step-by-step. First, which minor teenage girls is it who would either want to get prenatal-care and give birth to their baby, or get an abortion? Answer: those who are pregnant. Alright, so pregnancy is a prerequisite to any teenage girl being in a position to require parental consent for either of these options.

Second, how exactly does a parent with a pregnant teenage daughter not consent to the young girl giving birth to her baby? What is the parent supposed to do, wag their finger at their daughter and say "No, you will not have a baby"? I'm not a doctor, but I'm thinking that no matter how strenuously that parent might insist, if that pregnant daughter says she wants to give birth to her baby, consent or no consent, she is having the baby. That is, unless someone is thinking forced abortion, because short of a spontaneous miscarriage, that is the only thing that would stop that pregnant young girl from having her baby. I can't imagine a court allowing a parent to force a young girl to have an abortion (unless her life is in danger or some such thing). So, parental consent is a non-issue when it comes to a pregnant teenage girl who wants to give birth to her baby.

Third, it just isn't necessary to legislate to require parental involvement in a young girl's pre-natal care. When a teenage girl is pregnant and wants to give birth, eventually her parents will know -- it just becomes self-evident (except in those one-in-a-million cases we read about in the news). When a parent sees their daughter changing physically, they will ask questions, they will learn of her state, and then the parent and daughter will talk and move toward pre-natal care.

Fourth, if parents do not want to consent to their daughter's necessary pre-natal health care, do we really want those parents to be able to refuse necessary medical care for their child? Pre-natal care is necessary. If a young girl is pregnant and plans to give birth, she is going to need pre-natal care. Are we going to let that young pregnant girl be put into a position where she cannot receive this necessary pre-natal medical care if mom and dad say "No." Now, it is hard for me to fathom a parent doing such a thing, but if a parent were to take that position, I'd want that girl to be able to get the necessary medical care anyway. See, usually, we call it "neglect" when a parent refuses necessary medical care for their children. And, as a society we have decided that we won't tolerate parents neglecting their children.

Okay, finally, unless we are in a life and death (or serious health risk situation), an abortion is not necessary medical care -- it is optional. So, when we are talking about parental consent, giving birth and pre-natal care are just not the same as abortion -- apples and oranges.

In any event, all of the parental involvement laws (consent or notice) have a release valve in them (have to, the United States Supreme Court has said so) -- girls who can convince a judge that they are mature enough to make their own decisions, who have unfit abusive parents, or for whom an abortion without parental involvement is in their best interests, can get an abortion with only a judge's approval (by law, her parents won't even know it is happening).

So, let's cut with the comparrisons of child birth and pre-natal care to abortion. Square pegs don't fit in round holes.