Most women do not "love abortion."

Planned Parenthood attacks parental consent in the face of public support

Parental notification laws, where a minor is required to notify a parent before obtaining an abortion, are pretty popular. Most states have some form of them, requiring either that parents be given a heads-up first or that they are the ones to consent to the procedure. And it makes sense that voters would feel so strongly about these laws: pro-life or pro-abortion, most parents don’t want their children getting a medical procedure of any kind done without their knowledge and consent.

Minors, almost anywhere in the country, are extremely restricted with what they can do on their own. They can’t get their ears pierced, get a tattoo, or even go to a tanning bed without a parent’s approval first. Considering all that, it makes sense that parental notification/consent laws usually enjoy widespread voter support.

But for some reason, the abortion industry just cannot abide by them. They want your minor children to be able to come to them for abortions without you ever even knowing. A child can’t even go to the dentist without the parent’s approval, but getting an abortion, where a child will be a killed and the minor’s life will be at risk? Totally cool!

The latest group seeking to circumvent the wishes of parents and voters is Planned Parenthood of Montana, which recently filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn two pairs of parental notification laws.

The lawsuit filed in state District Court in Helena targets two recently passed laws:

• One passed by Montana voters in 2012 requiring any girl under 16 to notify a parent before obtaining an abortion. The law, passed as a referendum placed on the ballot by the 2011 Legislature, took effect in January. It passed with 70.5 percent of the voters in favor.

• A bill passed by the 2013 Legislature that would supersede the current law, requiring all girls under 18 to get notarized parental consent before having an abortion. The law is scheduled to take effect July 1.

The suit asked District Judge Mike Menahan to block enforcement of the second law as of July 1 and void both of them as unconstitutional.

Who cares that an overwhelming majority of voters approved the first law? Planned Parenthood doesn’t like it, so by golly, it needs to be gone. It’s not like Planned Parenthood has a history of putting girls at risk by violating statutory rape laws, or giving them inaccurate medical information. Oh, wait…

As per usual, the people at Planned Parenthood like to pretend that they want to overturn these bills for the good of the minor. They’re just a bunch of bighearted, caring folks looking out for the best interests of young girls everywhere, who might not be able to get an abortion because their parents are, like, abusive and stuff. Except, er, there are already judicial waivers present to avoid that very issue. Whoops. So what excuse do they really have, beyond that they want more young girls having abortions without their parents knowing about it, or caring about parental authority?

There is literally no other medical procedure that a minor can consent to on her own. Abortion is a purely elective procedure – a 16-year-old couldn’t decide to get breast implants without her parent’s permission first, or liposuction, or even non-elective procedures like, say, undergoing chemotherapy to treat cancer. Why, then, is abortion expected to be so different?

There is a reason why teenagers are not allowed to make virtually any major life decisions on their own. They are literally incapable of making long-term decisions and weighing risks the way adults are. Their brains are not formed for it yet. A teenager is not likely to know that she could be sending herself off to be butchered (just ask any number of LeRoy Carhart’s patients – or rather, their surviving families). A teenager is not likely to take the time to research fetal development and find out that the baby’s heart is already beating, or that he already has little fingers and toes.

A teenager is not likely to explore all of her options, like adoption or getting help in order to keep the baby through any number of charitable organizations, before going through with an irreversible action that, for many women, will haunt them the rest of their lives. This is why parental notification laws are needed, and are so popular. Voters like them. Parents like them. But scared teenage girls can bring in a lot of money to abortion centers, so who cares?

The only people against parental notification laws, it turns out, are pro-abortion radicals, to whom abortion is so sacred that nothing must stand in the way – not even common sense.

Learn more:

  • ldwendy

    By saying “abusive and stuff” you are minimizing extenuating circumstances that would cause a young 16 year old pregnant teen to seek a judicial bypass. Pregnant teens face the risk of becoming homeless or abused by their parents. There is also the chance that a family member or her father was the one who impregnated her. Not every teen live in an environment where they are free to go to their parents to talk about anything and everything.

    In addition, judicial bypasses are not always easy to obtain. See here:

    http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/02/11/wisconsin-public-defender-forces-teen-to-go-to-care-net-cpc-for-counseling/

    Open adoptions, by the way, are not legally enforceable in Wisconsin.

    Here’s another one:
    http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/09/26/we-don%E2%80%99t-give-anyone-permission-abortions-here-trying-to-obtain-judicial-bypass-i/

    • Basset_Hound

      No one is “minimizing” the girls’ extenuating circumstances, only the ridiculous arguments against parental consent laws. For the girls in said circumstances, the answer is to help them, by removing the girls from those circumstances and reporting their abusers to the police….NOT by vacuuming out the girls’ wombs (and wallets) and sending them packing right back to their abusers.

      As for “extenuating circumstances”….what about these….

      What about the father who had no clue his 17 year old had undergone a chemical abortion…until he was called by personnel in the ER to inform him his daughter was in intensive care. If he would have known, he would have been able to monitor her condition and get her to the hospital in time to treat the raging infection that claimed her life.

      http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/article/Monty-Patterson-learns-about-RU-486-the-hard-way-2345757.php#page-1

      What about the parents in Ohio who didn’t have a clue that a 22 year old soccer coach (whom they considered a family friend) was diddling their 14 year old daughter. When he impregnated her, he snuck her into a Planned Parenthood clinic where they were all too willing to get rid of the “little problem” by violating numerous laws and ethical standards, not the least of which involves reporting suspected sexual abuse of a minor. Who do you think dealt with the girl’s depression and post-traumatic stress…Santa Claus?

      http://www.lifenews.com/2011/04/27/planned-parenthood-quits-lawsuit-of-secret-abortion-on-raped-teen/

      There are all kinds of issues where kids can’t talk to their parents about anything and everything. Let’s take grades. By using your “logic”, schools would immediately get rid of progress reports, grade cards and parent-teacher conferences, because a handful of students live in “extenuating circumstances”. In actuality, schools would reach out and help those students, and if necessary find alternative placement and have the abuser arrested. They would not undermine the rights of every other parent to recognize the legitimate exception.

      As for your assertion about the difficulty of obtaining a judicial bypass….many clinics maintain contact lists of “rubber stamp” judges who will approve the request of basically any girl who can walk into their chambers.

      • Maureen

        Well said. We have lost so much common sense in our parenting. The point made here is accurate that it takes time, education, reflection, and growth into their twenties in order for our teens to develop the capacity to make well rounded decisions and life altering decisions. We often fail to see that and give them too much room for mistakes and this is significant when it comes to abortion which is undeniably a life altering decision. Removing the child and providing protections for the serious exceptions is the real solution. Also properly noted is that there are segments in our society that advocate for ‘blanket laws’ based on the rare exceptions. Those laws need to be geared only to the ‘exceptional circumstances’ in order to create the healthy balance our society needs.

  • JDC

    Ok, so is there ANY abortion restrictions that PP supports? It’s really disturbing that they oppose even the most common sense ones, such as this.