7.26.2006

Saving America, one scared pregnant teen at a time

I hope you all missed me, ‘cause this one’s going to be long and ranty!

Today, the Senate passed the Child Custody Protection Act, a bill that, you will note, has more interest in protecting parents’ property (i.e., children) than actually, you know, protecting kids. The CCPA would make it a federal crime for anyone other than a custodial parent to transport a minor child across state lines to obtain an abortion in contravention of laws of the minor’s home state. That means that if Grandma Joannie takes Little Susie from Michigan to Illinois, perhaps because Susie’s Daddy also happens to be her Baby Daddy, Joannie can look forward to an all-expense paid trip to Leavenworth.

Currently, thirty-four states require some kind of parental involvement in a minor’s abortion, either notification or consent, and fifteen states have no such requirements.* It seems to me, for a movement that is so keen on arguing that individual states should get to make decisions about whether to allow abortion, the Republicans are quite content with forcing liberal states like Oregon and New York to live by the more restrictive legislation of other states. Law enforcement will be required to treat young women differently based on their permanent address and not the laws of the state where the procedure took place. Imagine if gun laws worked like this—if Michigan had to acquiesce to California’s more restrictive handgun laws. Do you think the Freepers would be behind that legislation? And do you think CCPA is a two-way street? What if a vacationing New York teenager seeks an abortion in Ohio? Do her parents need to provide consent? After all, in her home state, she is free to terminate her pregnancy without involving her parents.

And more importantly, in nearly every jurisdiction in this country, a minor girl who carries a pregnancy to term is considered medically emancipated; doctors and hospitals are not required to seek out her parents’ permission in order to administer medication, treat pregnancy related illnesses or even perform a C-section. When a young girl is pregnant she is, for all intents and purposes, an adult. Why is it that a thirteen-year-old girl is adult enough to consent to a major surgery like C-section, but not a safe out-patient procedure like abortion? And if a thirteen-year-old girl is not adult enough to decide to terminate a pregnancy, how in the world can she be adult enough to continue it?

Parental consent and notification laws often seem to have their heart in the right place. No one wants a scared teenager to be faced with a major life decision without a support system in place. People genuinely believe that parents should be made aware of their daughter’s intention to have an abortion, because they believe that girls will need parental support, love and guidance. It is that reasoning that makes these laws so popular, even with people who otherwise identify as pro-choice. My sister and I had a conversation once about this very issue, and she looked at her young daughter and said, “I would want to know.**” And I get that. But you can’t legislate healthy families. You can’t force families to function in an ideal manner. And what is most disturbing about CCPA is that it actually prevents young women from seeking a healthy, familial support system by threatening grandparents, aunts, uncles, older siblings, cousins, etc. with jail time for doing what good families should do: care for their most vulnerable members.

There is a part of me that hopes that the law gets enacted, if for no other reason than to see the Grandma Joannies of the world carted off to jail, and the shamefaced looks of sixty-four Senators when they realize what they’ve done.


* 34 plus 15 = South Dakota is a misogynist hell hole which doesn’t allow anyone to get an abortion.
**This is the same sister that once dreamt that I called her in the middle of the night, crying, sixteen and pregnant, and she made plans to drive to Michigan, take me to her home in Chicago, and get me to an abortion clinic. Ironic, huh?

Labels: Feminism, Keep Your Rosaries Off My Ovaries

annamaria at 12:01 PM

20 spoke

20 Comments

at Thursday, July 27, 2006 1:28:00 PM  Wake of the Flood said...

Poor Annamaria, having me as the first to comment on your eloquent "long" rant. You are very right when you say that a lot of the appeal in this legislation is because "parents want to know." But I'm not sure your analogy of Gramma Joannie hustling the kid across the state line in secret is the image of a healthy family. Do I want to criminalize this type of gramma's love? No. Do I want to make sure that young scared women are not pushed by partisans into taking an action they may not be committed to, nor fully understand, and to do so while the ones who are not just biologically and emotionally committed to them, but legally as well, are willfully kept out of the loop? You betcha. Believe me, this stuff raises a lot of empathy within me when for women who want everyone to quit playing politics with their bodies!

 

at Thursday, July 27, 2006 1:43:00 PM  Dane meets Simone said...

Who are these partisans running abortion services? I don't know about 'em. I do know that empathy is a poor substitute for reproductive choice.

 

at Thursday, July 27, 2006 2:03:00 PM  annamaria said...

Wake, I agree that perhaps Grandma secreting her young, pregnant granddaughter across the border is not the best example of a healthy family structure. But my argument is that in some cases, it is simply the best a family can do. If a minor girl’s parents are unable to provide the kind of support she needs when making a major decision, it is irresponsible for society, and ultimately damaging to that girl, to forbid the involvement of other caring adults who are capable of lending support in her time of need.

You say:

Do I want to make sure that young scared women are not pushed by partisans into taking an action they may not be committed to, nor fully understand, and to do so while the ones who are not just biologically and emotionally committed to them, but legally as well, are willfully kept out of the loop? You betcha.

And, I say: I get that. And that’s why 34 states have consent and/or notification laws*, and most of those states have a judicial bypass process for young women who cannot confront their parents, for whatever reason, with their decision. But by centering its focus on adults who transport minors across states lines for an abortion, the CCPA sets up an even worse situation—young women traveling by themselves, with no adult to guide them, no family (of any kind) to support them, to another state to undergo a medical procedure. My biggest concern is that in an effort to encourage (some might say force!) young women to communicate with their parents, the law will only manage to isolate already vulnerable young women.

I guess what I’m asking for is consistency. If young women can be trusted with making all of the medical decisions pertaining to the continuation of a pregnancy, and be trusted with caring for a child for eighteen years, they must be trusted with the decision of whether they actually bear that child. Society can’t have it both ways—either children are always children, in which we can’t possibly expect them to have children themselves, or they are adult enough to make decisions about their bodies.

(*This is merely a reiteration of fact and not an endorsement of these laws—I’m sure you can figure out my opinion on the matter!)

 

at Thursday, July 27, 2006 2:05:00 PM  annamaria said...

Dane meets Simone said...
Who are these partisans running abortion services? I don't know about 'em.

I originally took that to mean the non-parent adults, not the abortion providers. Now I'm not sure what the means. Wake--elucidate!

 

at Thursday, July 27, 2006 4:15:00 PM  Kurt said...

omg did you just ask wake to speak in more depth???!!
"Forgive her for she knows not what she has done...."

 

at Monday, July 31, 2006 11:38:00 AM  Wake of the Flood said...

I'm gonna be black and blue. Partisans is a loaded term. But it fits those who put their beliefs ahead of the beliefs of those they are counseling. And don't give me any crap; it happens on BOTH sides, and I've had to deal with the fallout from it. And it makes me angry.

 

at Monday, July 31, 2006 12:39:00 PM  annamaria said...

Hey, it makes me angry, too. Of course, I wouldn't be me if I didn't point out that your definition of partisan could also include the parents of those teenage girls... ;)

 

at Tuesday, August 01, 2006 8:31:00 AM  Wake of the Flood said...

Parents can be heavy handed in their dealings with their offspring, but they still have to be the adult, and whether they abbrogate that role on their own, or have it taken from them by other adults assisting their children to evade them, they still are the parents and still have the responsibility.

 

at Tuesday, August 01, 2006 10:12:00 AM  Dane meets Simone said...

Well...just to be all anecdotal, my ex-g-friend got pregnant after being raped by her father. She wasn't the first, won't be the last. Parents do worse than abrogate responsibility all the time. I'm sure there must be people offering malevolent assistance to pregnant teens, but if they're evading an abusive parent, then parental responsibility is a whole different game.

But admittedly, parents, for me, is a dubious category. Having them seems like a child's first stage of victimization, unless you count the trauma of being born.

 

at Tuesday, August 01, 2006 4:12:00 PM  Wake of the Flood said...

I'll offer forgiveness and absolution to the anecdotal father, but can I castrate him first? With a very, very dull and very very dirty knife? Without anesthisia? Not even a stick in his mouth to bite on....

 

at Tuesday, August 01, 2006 8:30:00 PM  Dane meets Simone said...

Well, yes, but first you'd have to hunt down an accountant in his mid 70s, living a white bread middle class existence in Massachusetts, with standing in the community and not even a parking ticket as far as I know. The child of course went totally nuts and ended up powerless and, oddly, craving a child of her own for her whole life. The only mercy I can imagine is that she was not allowed to *mother*, though I can understand that if one never had one, one may desire to be one instead.

I fear this law because we won't hear these stories. We've barely even touched the surface of these stories as it is. But I don't know the stories of people who try to force abortions on unwitting minors. I'm taking your word for it that they exist. But they're not the people, or the circumstances, I fear most. Maybe it just comes down to that.

 

at Tuesday, August 01, 2006 8:53:00 PM  annamaria said...

But I don't know the stories of people who try to force abortions on unwitting minors. I'm taking your word for it that they exist. But they're not the people, or the circumstances, I fear most. Maybe it just comes down to that.

And I think that's entirely the point. I'm sure there are people who would coerce young women into having abortions--men trying to evade statutory rape charges come to mind. And I know there are people that would prevent young women from having abortions. But having worked at an abortion clinic, let me assure you that the former will have a much more difficult task ahead of them. No doctor or clinic is in the business of promoting unwanted abortions. In Michigan (and many other states), patients are required to undergo counseling for 24-hours prior to the procedure, and if there is any evidence that she is not sure an abortion is in her best interests, most doctors simply will not perform the procedure. If one wants to put themselves between a young girl and her reproductive choices, you'll have a much easier time if you side with the protesters outside the clinic doors.

I take issue with any parental involvement legislation because they blithely ignore stories like Kerri's above. It's like Tolstoy said, all happy families resemble one another, but each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way. If a young girl already has the kind of relationship with her parents where she can confide in them, these laws are irrelevant. If she does not have that kind of family structure, these laws are cruel and potentially dangerous.

 

at Wednesday, August 02, 2006 11:26:00 AM  Wake of the Flood said...

Dane: I'm sorry that this injustice -- no, too weak a word -- this perverse evil has gone unpunished. and if I could take away all the pain and injustice and devastation instantaneously I would. I can't. But I guess this is one of the reasons I've ended up in pastoral ministry, because though I can't, I've seen how God can heal even these wounds. In ways I could never imagine. And I suspect you won't be very convinced by my saying that. But I hope you do recognize that my heart longs for healing for you and your friend. I believe that ultimately there will be justice, though I don't imagine that is very comforting to you right now. I can only guess that it comes across as just more church sh**.

Annamaria wrote: If a young girl already has the kind of relationship with her parents where she can confide in them, these laws are irrelevant. If she does not have that kind of family structure, these laws are cruel and potentially dangerous.

I wish that were totally true. I am concerned that we do not have some form of parental notification laws across the board. There are plenty of teens who have solid relationships with their parents, but who for many different reasons would hesitate confiding right away in their parent, and who in those moments of hesitation may be guided by others into decisions that aren't necessarily "in their best interests." Many are testing a victimhood persona, and who find willing collaborators on the net and in person, who don't know the circumstances in any depth, and are who, thinking they are helping a poor unfortunate kid, are willing to assist in some acts with major consequences.

I know you all have expressed some very low opinions of parents, but consider, who has more at stake than parents in making sure that the best is done for the child? Yes, some parents act based upon other reasons. But why should we assume that others will more naturally act in the best interests of the child while the parents will act in the child's worst interests?

I'm glad to hear that the clinics and doctors you know are unwilling to perform abortions "if there is any evidence that she is not sure an abortion is in her best interests." But who is determining what is her best interests and what is the criteria for determining that?

Some of the fallout I've dealt with is when the woman has a great deal of ambivilence about whether or not to go ahead and end her pregnancy, and folks who think it's in her best interests convince her to do so. Does this happen all the time? No. Does every clinic or doctor act this way? No. Do some anti-abortion folks railroad women into taking a pregnancy to term? Yes?

I don't think we should be shaping our legislation solely on less common occurrences. We need to consider the ramifications. Rather than reasoned, rational efforts to provide best resolutions, we tend to engage in anger politics here. And paint the whole discussion with the colors of the extremes.

Yes, there are some really rotten family situations out there. And there are some absolutely despicable and evil men clothed in respectability. (There are women like that too folks, but for the most part they aren't germane to this discussion). The stats I've seen, from sources on both sides of the abortion debate, show that abortion for incest is a very, very small percentage of the total number of teen abortions. We adults have already failed those children once. Let's not fail them again. But let's not do it at the expense of an even larger number of vulnerable young women.

 

at Wednesday, August 02, 2006 11:48:00 AM  Dane meets Simone said...

But, Wake, be blunt: you're saying these occurrences we've mentioned are less common and the predators on the net facilitating abortions are more common. In the case of my friend, she won't show up in those statistics because she never reported it, which seems very common.

I'm not engaging in anger politics. I'm saying it's naive to act as if parents mostly do right by their children. They don't.

But I do think this is why women get angry. Because we're told to be reasonable, as if negotiating the choices we make w/our bodies were not absurd. As if these decisions are best made, more calmly, by others who are more disinterested (read: less invested).

It makes me not want to reason with anyone. Mount the ramparts instead.

 

at Thursday, August 03, 2006 11:06:00 AM  Wake of the Flood said...

Dane, I wasn't saying that surreptiously facilitating abortions was occurring more often than incestial pregnancies. What I was saying was that both are not the most common circumstances in which teens get abortions.

As an aside, do you hear how elitist your comment about parents sounds? It suggests that only "the experts" -- and only those experts whose ideology is correct -- have the best interests of children at heart. Do you really believe that the majority of parents do not wish the best for their children and act accordingly?

 

at Thursday, August 03, 2006 12:59:00 PM  annamaria said...

Dane hasn't answered yet, so let me tackle this for her (she'll let me know if I get it complete wrong, I'm sure!)

Wake says:
As an aside, do you hear how elitist your comment about parents sounds? It suggests that only "the experts" -- and only those experts whose ideology is correct -- have the best interests of children at heart. Do you really believe that the majority of parents do not wish the best for their children and act accordingly?

I think her point (and mine) is that whether parents want the best for their children and act accordingly, what they are acting on is their belief of what is best. This is fine when it comes to bedtimes and what's for dinner, but when the question is one of bodily autonomy, when a young woman's life will be irrevocably changed due to either a continuation of pregnancy, or its termination, the decision absolutely must be left in the hands of the one who is most invested--the young woman who is pregnant.

The larger point I'm trying to make is that our laws do not treat all pregnant teens equally. If she chooses to carry the pregnancy to term, she alone makes all of the medical decisions concerning that pregnancy. The one choice we do not allow her to make is to terminate. It's ridiculous to assume that a young woman is mature enough to be a mother, but not mature enough to decide that she doesn't want to be one.

And I think Dane is arguing more broadly that any attempt to introduce the opinions of anyone but a pregnant woman is an assault on our rights as woman to make decisions about our lives, our bodies and our futures. Even if these laws seem innocuous or necessary, their effect is to, as Dane says, force us to negotiate our choices WRT our bodies. That's something that men will rarely (if ever) face, and it's offensive to women to be told to be reasonable and moderate when our very lives are at stake.

The only "expert" Dane and I want involved in this decision is the only one that counts--the woman who is pregnant.

 

at Thursday, August 03, 2006 1:49:00 PM  Wake of the Flood said...

If you read Dane's statement regarding parents, it is an incredibly cynical view. I was asking if that was what she really intended. And if that was what she intended, did she recognize the tangential effects, and how they would sound elitist to many ears?

If parents are assumed to be acting against their child's best interest they are not to be trusted to properly care for them. Therefore, either children are to be given autonomy, or someone else is to be entrusted with the responsibility of making decisions on their behalf. In my opinion it is absolutely assinine to extend autonomy to children considering all the studies regarding decision making skills and the like, unless we're ready to return to an agrarian feudal society. So if children are under the care of another, and that other is not the parents (in normal circumstances), then who is given that authority? The state? Academia? How about we give them over to some religious group chosen by the spin of a wheel? It sounds great to talk about respecting personal choices, but it's not that simple.

I concur that our laws are inconsistent in regards to the rights of minor women. So do we look at remedying the inconsistencies, or do we further confuse things?

As regards the argument concerning the autonomy of a woman's body. Your stance disregards the other being involved. So much of the problem in our political discourse concerning abortion is that we are unwilling to make a clear determination legally as to when life begins. Also missing from this discussion is that we legally sanction circumstances in which a life is ended. At the core of the issue is when is a fetus alive, and under what circumstances is it acceptable to take a life (assuming that we declare an unborn person as alive at some point in pregnancy). And if we decide that life does not begin until birth, then we need to deal with that in our legal decisions concerning injury to pregnant women which cause the loss of the unborn child (notice I did not say death, since under that legal understanding there would be no death since there was not any life).

I don't expect that any of these thoughts will persuade you to change your position. Nor are they aimed at achieving some "victory", however that is defined. Nor do I seek to discount the validity of your reasoning. They are offered for our mutual understanding, so that we may wrestle with the pieces of a very complex issue and work towards resolution that encompasses not just the legal dimensions, nor simply the biological, nor the moral only, but each of these spheres, and others as they arise. And this is not done naively, without an understanding that there will be irreconcilable differences.

 

at Thursday, August 03, 2006 2:22:00 PM  Dane meets Simone said...

If you read Dane's statement regarding parents, it is an incredibly cynical view. I was asking if that was what she really intended. And if that was what she intended, did she recognize the tangential effects, and how they would sound elitist to many ears?

Cynicism is in the eye of the beholder (or would that be the ear?). So no, not only do i not recognize tangential effects and elitist overtones, I don't even recognize as fact that my take on parents is overly cynical, unless of course it serves another's person's argument to paint it as such.

I never mentioned experts, autonomy, or any such crap (i think you call it). What I suggested is that the world and humans are a much darker place than your version of "parental responsibility" will accede. We disagree on this, fundamentally. Religiously even. And I double majored in English and theology so "church shit" is for kids. Though I certainly do not mix up church and religion. That much a double major did give me.

I stick with the naivete argument because you went off in a direction I neither suggested nor promote, but which does reveal the underlying fundamental difference in values and perspectives that drive this discussion. The middle of the road--critiquing the rhetoric of both sides--is certainly a safe place to be. But I just can't stand there.

And I don't know about annamaria, but I do not disregard the other "being" involved. This being is utterly dependent for its survival on the woman who carries it. The discontinuation of that pregnancy can be found utterly tragic by you, Wake, and others. You can have that interpretation and rack it up as an irreconcilable difference or even an unremedied inconsistency. But I don't think you or others have the right to negotiate its occurrence. Surely the church can live with this fact like it lives with casualties of war, child poverty, and sexual abuse. It just is.

 

at Thursday, August 03, 2006 10:01:00 PM  Kurt said...

i'm just a simple guy that happens to have 2 daugthers. i can't understand the cavalier attitude shown by other (divorced or non-parental)men when it comes to their kids and seeing them. I know men that become upset if they are asked to spend an extra weekend with their own child (supposing the mother is primary caregiver and needs the dad to step in for whatever reason).
My life is fast approaching the empty-nest stage (my youngest starts college in 3 weeks). My oldest is moving into her second apartment (she rented a house in between) and only called for advice, not "how do i do this?" assistance. i celebrate their independence and growth into responsible human adults. but i know it isn't complete yet, just as i wasn't done growing at 21, much less 18. that said, our community recognizes them as adults. should they encounter legal troubles, they will be the ones held accountable for their actions. this was not the case until a couple months ago. my wife and i were "on the hook" so to speak. when young people are allowed the priviledge of driving an automobile, for the most part the parents are held responible for their actions through their insurance policies. until a child passes their 16th birthday and officially quits school, a parent can be jailed for the child's truancy. that probably happens more often than an abortion being needed due to incestal rape.
and that all means what in this argument? not much, other than pointing out that as parents, we are supposed to be responsible for our children's behavior. aren't we told that it is our responsibility to monitor our kids TV and web viewing habits if we want to "protect" them?

Parental notification is a VERY difficult question that extends into far more areas than just the "simple" question of autonomy over a woman's body. in fact, the flaw in the argument lies in the phrase used to frame it. is anyone ready to aver that a `13, 14 or 15 year old can be called a "woman"? if so, that removes much of the revulsion that surrounds the crude phrase "old enough to bleed, old enough to breed." THAT disgusts me as much as the story of "father" rape. that man was no more a father to that girl than i am.
if we are prepared to remove the role of the parent for looking out for the best interests of the child, then we are ready to allow that 14 year old to make the decision? what about tattoos? that is also a life changing decision.
i have been to the clinic, on the paying side of the counter. only a callous heart could classify the decisions surrounding it as anything less than life changing for all parties involved. unfortunately there are many that qualify for that.

 

at Thursday, August 03, 2006 10:07:00 PM  Kurt said...

wait. that was the preview button i clicked on....oh well. told you i was simple.
while it is important to protect the rights of the minority and that is one of the things i cherish most about the US gov't (as envisioned by the founders, not the current established powers), i fear throwing out the baby with the bathwater when we take such absolute stances, without room for differences. the middle of the road generally gets you run over by trucks heading in both directions....

 

Post a Comment