“Based on a victim rate of 11.9 per 1,000 children, an estimated 872,000 children were found to be victims [of abuse]. …17.5 percent were physically abused … Nearly 84 percent (83.4%) of victims were abused by a parent acting alone or with another person.”

Just for reference, that’s roughly 127,268 children physically abused by at least one of their parents.

Now, imagine telling one of those parents something they won’t like. (Such as, for example, “I’m getting an abortion” / “I’ve been having sex.”)

The logic you’re using here seems to break down to “It’s in their interest to be able to provide these abortions, so that they can get the funding to provide these abortions.” It’s a bit circular.

And yes, I realize that the measure is about notification, not consent, and Olly is right, the “no other option” scenario is less prevalent in notification than it is in requiring consent, but it still exists to endanger a portion of the girls involved.

Just because they don’t have to give their consent does not mean that abusive parents won’t express their displeasure on the girl. (That’s where the no other option scenario does still exist.)

You say this: “The revenue relation for 501(c)3s does not go more services..” but then say this, “as all money brought into a 501(c)3 must be spent on providing services to the community.”

Is abortion not a “service to the community?” If their goal is to provide more services, they must have more money to do so. Gee, even non-profits can have a revenue agenda.

Again, this ballot measure is about notification, not consent.

Replace the word “notification” with “consent” and I can more or less go along with this. As written, I think your “no other option” is overblown.

“The “mature minor” doctrine provides for minors to give consent to medical procedures if they can show that they are mature enough to make a decision on their own.”

This is interesting stuff, and thank you for the links.

“It would be great if everyone had loving supporting families, but that simply is not the case.”

Agreed. However, your opposition to parental-notification laws seems pretty close to a presumption of guilt as far as the (hypothetical) parents are concerned. Like I say, it’s a delicate balance of rights.

I’m going to avoid delving too deeply into my background credentials as I believe that will only result in this debate degrading into personal attacks. But I did work for several years as part of a 501(c)3.

The revenue relation for 501(c)3s does not go more services => more revenue as that is the model of a for profit business. (And it is illegal for a 501(c)3 to turn a profit) rather the model goes more funding => more services, as all money brought into a 501(c)3 must be spent on providing services to the community. (And yes, this does include paying for staffing, though a majority of most 501(c)3 staff members are so on a volunteer basis.)

You’re right, the aid and support of parents would be a great thing. But in a significant number of cases, that’s won’t be the outcome. And of those cases it’s not, a portion of them will have quite the opposite effect. (IE: being disowned and kicked out.)

It would be great if everyone had loving supporting families, but that simply is not the case.

This is not entirely true.

Taken from “Treatment Of Minors: Encyclopedia of Everyday Law”

States that allow minors to consent to certain medical procedures often provide for confidentiality from parents in regard to those medical procedures. However, this is not always the case. Many states allow the doctor to inform parents of medical procedures, and some states require parental notifications about specific medical procedures done on minors even when the minor has given consent.

When confidentiality is provided for, California’s statute is typical of the requirements. It states that except as provided by law or if the minor authorizes it in writing, physicians are prohibited from telling the minor’s parents or legal guardian about medical care the minor was legally able to authorize. The physician is required to discuss with the minor the advantages of disclosing the proposed treatment to the minor’s parents or legal guardian before services are rendered.

And just incase theres a question about “legally able to authorize” this is mostly based on the “mature minor doctorine” which (quoting from the same source) goes as such:

The “mature minor” doctrine provides for minors to give consent to medical procedures if they can show that they are mature enough to make a decision on their own. It is a relatively new legal concept, and as of 2002 only a few states such as Arkansas and Nevada have enacted the doctrine into STATUTE. In several other states, including Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Illinois, Maine and Massachusetts, state high courts have adopted the doctrine as law.

Uhm, don’t you think an abortion puts the child at risk? What about the reactions a child will have to such a tramatic medical procedure? If you think asprin has a potential risk, then you must agree that abortions have a substantial risk - and at the minimum parents should be *notified*.

I do think abortion puts the child at risk, which is why they should only be preformed by trained, licensed professionals. Requiring parental notification makes it so that a portion of girls have no other option than to turn to unlicensed/untrained “back alley” abortionists. This is where it gets dangerous.

A trained licensed professional (ie: doctor) can issue medication (such as, per your example, asprin) without parental consent.

As much as I felt like discussing it…

I have a hard time keeping up with you, Andy. I like your conspiracy theories better: at least they read coherently.

I can see it now: parents sitting down with their daughter giving her the talk, showing her how to put a condom on properly while she is months pregnant.

Good show!

My whole point is that parents need to talk to their children before they become sexually active, not only so that avenue of communication is open if anything does happen, but also as a way to prevent unplanned pregnancies from happening. Let’s just put it this way: when I was attending Junction City High School, about 6 girls had already had children by the time they got to classes where we discussed safe sex. Too little too late.

First of all, no one is forcing girls to have an abortion or not have one.

Olly,
The current system in place is a violation of property right of the parents over the child. Parents should have the right to know everything they want to about their childrens lives, and current laws prevent this.

“f we can arm our teenagers with education and have enough respect to talk to them like adults on this topic, we could do much more to curb abortions of girls 15-17 than by dictating parent involvement on this issue to them.”

And you think unnotified parents is a good thing? You’re right, you don’t have a solid argument. But if you think sex education is a good thing, maybe if a parent is notified they can educated their children somewhat so the girls, so notification can bring about education and maybe even support. Who’s to say that the girl who wanted an abortion didn’t tell her parents because she felt they would be unsupportive, but then the parents were which reassured the child? Maybe a girl wanted to have an abortion because she felt her parents wouldn’t be able to help her care for the child, but then they talked about it because of this notification, and told her they would.

I bet a lot of parents would rather know about it so they could help their child. Why would we want girls to undergo this tramatic procedure without the aid and support of her parents? I think everyone can agree to support notification.

Look, you are probably right in that there is not a solid enough argument to stop notification from happening. But all I’m saying is that this nofitication in many cases would probably amount to other people making the final decision other than the person who has to carry the baby. In a perfect world, women would get knocked up when they are good and ready, and they would want the child, care for the child, and would give it a good home.

But that is not our world. Abortion is a horrible thing, and I do think that many people abuse this procedure. But instead of arguing who should be able to get it and what channels they should have to go through, we should instead be arguing about teaching these kids how to protect themselves from this situation in the first place, so they do not have to be confronted by it. If we can arm our teenagers with education and have enough respect to talk to them like adults on this topic, we could do much more to curb abortions of girls 15-17 than by dictating parent involvement on this issue to them. Believe me, when teens know how to use condoms, they would choose them any day of the week over an unwanted pregnancy, but the problem is that many don’t know.

It may be easy for us to scoff at that remark, but many kids these days are told that condoms don’t cut it, and are given misleading stats as to lead them to abstinence, aka God’s way. Many of these same parents who want parental notification are the same parents that teach their children that sex is only for married couples, man and woman, and that abstinence is the only protection from disease. As we all know, marriage is a crumbling institution, sex isn’t just between man and woman, and there are many ways to protect ones self from disease.

Freedom of choice is what makes America a great place; instead of trying to narrow down what freedoms are available to whom, we should be focused on reproductive health, teaching our teens how to take some personal responsibility and protect themselves. Instead of focusing on abortion, we need to focus on preventing our children from getting to this point with comprehensive sex eduation.

Which is exactly why it’s so important that this hypothetical person make this hypothetical decision by herself, and why her hypothetical parents have no business knowing about it!

“If she can’t make this basic decision, can she care for a child?”

Probably not, no. Very few fifteen-year-olds can, even the hypothetical ones.

“Do we trust them to make the right decision for themselves in such an incredibly difficult time?”

The fact that it’s such an incredibly difficult time is precisely why it’s important to notify the parents, even though - especially though - the kid understandably might not want to do so.

These things are always a delicate balance of rights, but I still haven’t seen a single argument that says that the legal guardian of a child doesn’t have the right to be informed in this case. You seem to be arguing that legal majority should come with loss of virginity, which has a nice ancient-Greek feel to it but would probably not go over terribly well with the electorate.

Let’s stick to reality. Even if there were large nembers of girls sexually active, let alone getting pregnant at such a young age (which at that age is almost physically impossible), she probably wouldn’t even know she was pregnant, let alone know what an abortion was. I know it sounds good to argue about if these theoretical 10 year olds are adults are not, but it’s just not a sound argument.

Andy, one could say that bringing ten year olds into an argument about sex is just about as fanatical as it gets!

This seems to be saying that PP is necessarily going to be coercing people into having abortions, which I think is a) untrue and b) irrelevant.

“The crime here is that these providers might be engaging in some pretty incredible child abuse by hiding the procedure from the parents.”

Again, the picture you’re painting of sinister providers-of-abortions seems fairly bizarre to me. Child abuse? Seriously?

“This government intervention protecting abortion providers must be ended, and it will be in a few weeks time.”

Actually, a parental notification law is government intervention; not requiring parental notification is the more laissez-faire approach. You’re arguing the statist side on this one, dude.

MMM …. let’s see here. Having a child that you will be responsible for for the rest of your life vs. appendectomy. No dice.

“Basically, I see this as a family issue. If there is a problem within the family, then the girl can ask the court to be emancipated and then she can get any procedure she wants. Parental rights must be allowed to be maintained.”

Yeah, because emancipations are such a judicially swift process that you can waltz in, get your application stamped, and walk out before the end of the first trimester!

“It’s not communication between the parent and the child; it’s communication between a medical professional and the child’s legal guardian. Again, I am somewhat surprised that you don’t see the ethical issue here.”

And what you don’t get is that she is about to be a guardian herself. If she can’t make this basic decision, can she care for a child? What about HER rights to privacy? The belief that in this situation it is her choice alone does not mean that I do not understand the ethical issues involved. But can you see that the ethics can also be questioned if parents begin to make this decision for their children? What if her father was a senator, and for the sake of his image he forced her to have an abortion that she didn’t want?

See, we can all play the game of hypotheticals, but at the end of the day it comes down to the question: do we trust our daughters to involve us in this process? Do we trust them to make the right decision for themselves in such an incredibly difficult time? If we can’t trust them, we have some serious issues to address beyond the obvious.

“You’re arguing that children are (or rather should be) equivalent to adults before the law.”

In many cases children are seen as adults in the eyes of the law: how many times have you seen a teenager being sentanced as an adult in the court of law? And how has this come along? Because he/she has proven that they are already commencing in adult behavior before they are of age. There are always exceptions to the rule, Olly, as no one person fits into a nice category where we can act accordingly. Life is full of grey, and I think as we all know solutions are not one size fits all. Parents should have and need parental rights for most all situations, but I feel that this is something that an individual need to do on their own if need be so they can make the best decision they possibly can.

Uhm, don’t you think an abortion puts the child at risk? What about the reactions a child will have to such a tramatic medical procedure? If you think asprin has a potential risk, then you must agree that abortions have a substantial risk - and at the minimum parents should be *notified*.

“Planned Parenthood is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization, with a policy of providing services irrespective of income.”

Sure, but that says nothing about their revenue motives. The more services they provide, the greater their “need” for a larger budget. It seems that you have been fortune enough not to deal with government funding politics. There is a clear incentive for planned parenthood to provide abortions.