High court hears abortion notification case

[Capitalist Pig]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/11/30/scotus.abortion.ap/

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court wrestled Wednesday with a New Hampshire law that requires a parent to be told before a daughter ends her pregnancy, with no hint the justices were ready for a dramatic retreat on abortion rights under their new chief. The court is dealing with its first abortion case in five years, as well as the first in the brief tenure of Chief Justice John Roberts. The case does not challenge the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that declared abortion a fundamental constitutional right, and the justices seemed to be seeking a compromise that would avoid breaking new ground.

[ericsp23]

I am pro-choice, and I personally have no problem with this law. I thought that a doctor couldn't perform any invasive medical procedures on a minor without the consent of the parent or legal guardian except in emergencies. I don't see why abortion should be any different. I can also say that, if I had a daughter, I would want to know about it if she was pregnant and especially if she is seeking an abortion.
As a society we have always denied certain rights to children for their own protection, and I think rightfully so. They do not have the experience or knowledge to deal with certain situations. So forcing minors to get parental consent for an abortion would not be a defeat for the pro-choice movement because the legal precedent would not extend to adults.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: ericsp23 I am pro-choice, and I personally have no problem with this law. I thought that a doctor couldn't perform any invasive medical procedures on a minor without the consent of the parent or legal guardian except in emergencies. I don't see why abortion should be any different. I can also say that, if I had a daughter, I would want to know about it if she was pregnant and especially if she is seeking an abortion. As a society we have always denied certain rights to children for their own protection, and I think rightfully so. They do not have the experience or knowledge to deal with certain situations. So forcing minors to get parental consent for an abortion would not be a defeat for the pro-choice movement because the legal precedent would not extend to adults.

You'd be ok with your daughter dying because the doctor was not legally allowed to operate and you were not able to be reached for consent?

I hope that the doctor would make the right choice and proceed with the operation.

[SteveA]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 You'd be ok with your daughter dying because the doctor was not legally allowed to operate and you were not able to be reached for consent? I hope that the doctor would make the right choice and proceed with the operation.

I believe he already included such a consideration in his post, Tman.

Here's part of what he posted:

"I thought that a doctor couldn't perform any invasive medical procedures on a minor without the consent of the parent or legal guardian except in emergencies. I don't see why abortion should be any different."

I added the italics.

I agree with this law. I have 5 children so am likely biased but it seems like a no-brainer to me. It's a simple matter of property rights - you can't do mechanical work on someones car without their permission. A school or teacher doesn't take your children on a fieldtrip without parental consent and if we as a society, recognize the wrong of sterilizing someone elses pet without their consent you'd assume most people would recognize the interest parents would naturally have in what medical procedures are being administered to their children. It's more than a simple courtesy, it's a parental prerogative.

A question people should be asking also is, if it truly is a child that got pregnant, there might be other concerns around how the pregnancy occured that should be more than simply quietly aborted.

[Roberto]

Quote by: SteveA It's a simple matter of property rights - you can't do mechanical work on someones car without their permission.

Were it only that simple. You don’t own your daughters, so they aren’t your property.
She may be technically a minor, but biologically she is a woman. I would hope a child could consult with her parents, but if she chooses not to, that’s her business.

[CoffeeSaint]

The issue with this law is that it does not allow for emergencies. Most states have a parental notification law with abortion, but in the case of an emergency, the doctor needs to be able to proceed without consent. That is the question with this case, and what the Justices seem to be shooting for is a way to keep the notification law, and yet allow for emergency procedures without notification if the doctor deems it necessary. Or so said the news last night.

[SteveA]

Quote by: Roberto Were it only that simple. You don’t own your daughters, so they aren’t your property.

We already have a legal method of removing parental relationships for a child but it requires a court to divorce custody of the child from the parents. It's not a whimsically defined situation. I agree children aren't identical to property like a car or bank account, but it's safest for those outside this relationship to view things in that manner. When in doubt, ask the "owner"/guardian or parents.

Simply because a 12 year old child might be fascinated by a strangers story of how beautiful a foreign country is, doesn't mean that person wouldn't face consequences if they loaded the child into their car and took them overseas.

We expect adults to have some care when interacting with children, in general, you can't get a kid drunk and have sex with them or put them behind the wheel of a car or have surgical procedures etc., even if you can convince the child it would be fun to do.

This is why we have many laws that differ for children or adults. I don't believe a child should be able to sign up for surgery in a hospital without parental involvement though I can understand exceptions being made for emergency circumstances.

She may be technically a minor, but biologically she is a woman.

No, biologically she's still 14 or 16 or whatever. Simply because a child can get pregnant doesn't entitle others outside the family a right to intrude on how this pregnancy should be handled.

For example, a child might have a sore throat but a school nurse can't send a child to a hospital to have their tonsels removed without parental involvement or knowledge of what's happening.

I would hope a child could consult with her parents, but if she chooses not to, that’s her business.

I'd agree but this applies to the surgeon as well. Children can't legally give consent to many things and a surgeon should remain uninvolved until he has legal consent to perform the operation on the child.

[SteveA]

My last post was too long, as usual. Let's simpify it:

She may be technically a minor, but biologically she is a woman.

And a child might biologically be able to drink alcohol, but this doesn't mean an adult is free to give children alcohol.

Even someones pet we wouldn't take and perform some medical procedures on them without getting their permission. It would seem obvious this same respect should be extended to parents.

[Roberto]

Quote by: SteveA My last post was too long, as usual. Let's simpify it: And a child might biologically be able to drink alcohol, but this doesn't mean an adult is free to give children alcohol. Even someones pet we wouldn't take and perform some medical procedures on them without getting their permission. It would seem obvious this same respect should be extended to parents.

Going through the courts is clearly is not an option when a girl is in trouble. She need an abortion fast, and apart from the fact that the baby may well be born by the time the courts rule, her parents will find out about the pregnancy which is what she is terrified of.

I hear what you say though, and agree in principle. But I think the right approach is the pragmatic one which makes an exception for abortion in the case of parental notification.
Fewer dead girls from back alley abortions must be the higher objective.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: SteveA I believe he already included such a consideration in his post, Tman. Here's part of what he posted: "I thought that a doctor couldn't perform any invasive medical procedures on a minor without the consent of the parent or legal guardian except in emergencies. I don't see why abortion should be any different."

Ok.

It's a simple matter of property rights - you can't do mechanical work on someones car without their permission. A school or teacher doesn't take your children on a fieldtrip without parental consent and if we as a society, recognize the wrong of sterilizing someone elses pet without their consent you'd assume most people would recognize the interest parents would naturally have in what medical procedures are being administered to their children. It's more than a simple courtesy, it's a parental prerogative.

Humans can't be property. I'm pretty sure this was established after the Civil War.