I’m a big proponent of population control and I agree an adult woman should have the right to end her pregnancy if she so chooses, but a minor?...sorry, I just don’t see why parents should not be informed when their child is considering such a monumental decision.

“The initiative would change Oregon law to require mandatory written notification if older teens who are 15, 16, or 17 years of age seek an abortion.”

“Older teens”? I believe the law considers them “minors” who are still the responsibility of their parents. Are there any other medical procedures this serious that don’t require parental notification?

“Leading medical organizations ...oppose mandatory parental notification laws because they often have unintended, negative consequences for teenagers.”

Such as? And are these consequences anymore negative than those from a minor having an abortion?

The arguments put forth by Ms. Butler in this essay supporting her position seem awfully thin. It’s going to take better than this to convince me initiative #51 is as bad as the opponents claim.

And yet the Unions don't oppose this petition.

http://www.ouroregon.org/cgi-bin/display.cgi?page=OnTheStreet At the bottom of the list under "No Position."

Where is an opposition going to get the resources to fight without the unions?

Progvoice -

Our Oregon does not speak for "the unions."

Here's how progressives can raise the resources to win this fight: tonight's fundraiser. I'll be there. Hope you and all Blue Oregon supporters will be, too.

PW

Polls show Oregonians strongly support parental involvement laws on abortion.

A January 2005 Moore Information Poll found 74 percent favor parental notification on abortion while just 21 percent opposed the idea. That tracks with polls showing Americans favor the concept as well.

An April 2005 Fox News Poll also found that Americans agreed by a 78-17 percentage margin that parents should be notified about a minor's abortion. A March 2005 Quinnipiac University Poll found a 75-18 percent support for parental notification.

For more info see http://www.lifenews.com/state1741.html

Patty-

Well, if you are going to be supporting an opposition (I'll mail my check,) why then doesn't "Your Oregon?"

Let's see: your abusive anti-choice dad rapes you. You get pregnant. You're required to get have a certified letter delivered to him saying you're having an abortion. Hmmm... what would you choose to do? Have an illegal abortion? Run away? Gamble that rapist dad doesn't forcably stop you?

Good family communication is a great ideal, but can't be forced on bad families with legislation.

Let's see: your abusive anti-choice dad rapes you. You get pregnant. You're required to get have a certified letter delivered to him saying you're having an abortion. Hmmm... what would you choose to do?

Is this a realistic scenario? Wouldn't prosecution be the route? Once that starts, seems pretty easy to get a judge to deal with the notification. And who, exactly sues the doctor if notification isn't obtained? The dad? What, he's going to file suit alleging "I raped my daughter, and that baby's MINE! You had no right!"

To be clear, I'm pro-choice (on everything). But this type of scenario seems to be a little over the top if you're trying to convince someone to vote against the measure. If Plan B is available, maybe the whole parental consent for abortion thing becomes more innocuous. And is there ANY law or regulation on the abortion front that isn't considered a Christian toe-hold leading to the slippery slope?

Torridjoe's comments are prescient and worthy of careful scrutiny. My far less erudite reaction is; cut the paternalistic, we know God crap. Think about the future of the mother and fetus and not your own damn religious predilections. In short, live and let live. We don't seek to influence your religious views so stop trying to influence ours. Peace? - Not likely.

Actually, the dad's going to bring charges (as the parent, not the impregnator). Or the mother could. The girl won't admit she was raped. The doctor gets prosecuted, the daughter has a traumatic experience, etc.

Sure, this scenario is exaggerated. But how familiar are you with the reality of rape reporting? I think your scenario is less likely than mine.

Right now we have: - Teens who have a good relationship with their parents and can talk about it - Teens who have a bad relationship with their parents and can't talk about it

How does this ballot measure improve the situation? It adds stress to a bad situation. It puts more stress on unhealthy family relationships. And some people are going to react to that stress in less healthy ways (illegal abortions, self-aborting, family abuse, etc.)

My dad wasn't actually abusive, but he regularly went off the deep end where I was concerned. If I had found myself in this situation he would have called the boy's parents, insisted that the school keep us separated, and probably forced me to have the baby as punishment. He would have done everything possible to make it as horrible and public an experience as possible. Not wanting to wish this scenario on anyone, I am always against parental notification laws.

While I am solidly pro-choice, this is an issue that I think even pro-choice people have a twinge of doubt about. In the end, I think people decide where they stand on the issue, depending on whether they identify with (1) an attentive and concerned parent who would not want his/her daughter having an abortion without giving the parent notice, or (2) a young girl with an abusive parent who is scared to death about the possible or inevitable repurcussions of having an abortion. The former either support notification, or are sympathetic to it (even if they oppose it) and the latter would always oppose mandatory notification. The examples given in comments to this post have started to diverge along those lines, I think.

Here is another reason why we have to vote NO on everything in November. This is a mean spiritied and hurtful thing. And they call themselves 'Chistians'? Shame shame shame....

"Are there any other medical procedures this serious that don’t require parental notification?"

Yes. In fact, at age 15 and older people in Oregon make their own medical decisions.

As far as medical decisions goes, having an abortion is a pretty minor one. It's an outpatient procedure that involves much less risk than going forward with a pregnancy. even substantially less risk than having a root canal. The argument is not about medical risk.

Nor is it an argument about who gets to make the decision. There is no requirement for parental approval. This is about notifying parents of a specific choice and is designed to discourage young women from making prompt decisions to end an unwanted pregnancy. That alone can increase the medical risk.

Essentially a young woman who is pregnant will be told that if they want an abortion, the doctor has to send a notice to their parent. If the young woman decides to continue the pregnancy their parents aren't notified. It really has nothing to do with parental guidance and everything to do with discouraging abortions. We ought to be encouraging young women under 18 to have abortions, not discouraging them.

A January 2005 Moore Information Poll found 74 percent favor parental notification on abortion while just 21 percent opposed the idea. That tracks with polls showing Americans favor the concept as well.

That is not dissimilar to the situation in 1990 when parental approval was on the ballot. Polls are mostly people's unconsidered opinions. I am in favor of parental guidance, I think parents should be involved in their children's decisions. Its logical that I would then say notifying a parent sounds like a good idea.

When people develop a considered opinion, that can change. As it did in 1990 when Oregonians defeated parental approval. But getting them to consider it will require spending a lot of money in the context of all the other election noise.

According to Planned Parenthood 44 states have parental notification laws (though nine states are currently enjoined by courts from enforcing them).

Oregon is one of six states (along with Washington) that does not have a parental notification law.

It will be intersting watching both sides spin those numbers in support of or opposition to Measure 51.

• Wes

I think, as a pro-choice advocate, I'm pretty comfortable with this law. It really gives minors the opportunity to get an abortion regardless of what her parents wishes are, should she choose to do so. I'm a guy. I have no idea what that decision is like. I don't like the idea of making it any harder, but also, the idea that a minor can now get this procedure and hide it brings up a lot of issues for me, mostly the fact that if a teen is given the opportunity to conceal something, they will. I know a LOT about that aspect. But it weighs on them, and without knowing what's going on, parents can't support their daughter in what must be a horrible stretch.

That's the part that makes us think notification isn't the first step down the slippery slope. Consent, yes, notification, no.

With the growing Republican base in Oregon, greater restrictions on abortion will become part of state law eventually unless Democrats begin to take a stand <u>today</u> against these proposed fascist reforms.

Ross Williams said, “We ought to be encouraging young women under 18 to have abortions, not discouraging them.”

Forget the “slippery slope” argument, Ms. Butler would have more luck employing the “social Darwinism” angle when arguing against initiative 51.

She would be backed up by the authors “Freakonomics”, who point out that most young women who get abortions are unmarried, on the lower end of the socio-economic scale, and have little education. Hardly the best candidates for parenthood.

These young mothers demand more social services and are less likely to raise a well-adjusted child who will contribute to society.

Looking at it that way, Ross Williams has a point.

Why should abortion then be the ONLY medical decision that we don't let 15/16/17-year-olds make on their own? If they can approve their own brain surgery or wart removal, why not an abortion?

What's amazing is the argument that teens who are too immature to decide whether to have a child are mature enough to be responsible for a newborn baby, including making its medical decisions. We shouldn't be concerned about immature teens who have abortions, we should be concerned about the immature teens who don't.

Ms. Butler would have more luck employing the “social Darwinism” angle when arguing against initiative 51.

The issue from my perspective is not social darwinism. Most teenagers will be a lot better off if they delay having children. In fact, from an objective perspective, they all would be. Anyone asked for advice ought to support termination

But the decision is not an entirely objective one. For some people, including teens, it has some very strong religious and ethical components that might cause them to continue a pregnancy rather than end it. Of course those same components probably ought to have prevented them from having an unexpected pregnancy to begin with.

Jenni - How about providing some citations to some of your supposed facts? Your CDC stuff is fine, I could run it down (roughly) pretty easily. However, your last few paras are completely contradicted and run to what one can only surmise was aggrandized anecdotal evidence. Every time once of us utters a fact, we should appropriately cite to the appropriate record.

"Good point Ross! 15-17 year olds are too immature to have children."

Ironically, that's been the position of the U.S. Supreme Court since at least 1990, reaffirmed recently in the unanimous decision in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood.

Justice O'Conner, quoting Justice Stevens from his 1990 opinion, wrote:

"States unquestionably have the right to require parental involvement when a minor considers terminating her pregnancy, because of their 'strong and legitimate interest in the welfare of [their] young citizens, whose immaturity, inexperience, and lack of judgment may sometimes impair their ability to exercise their rights wisely' . . . Accordingly, we have long upheld state parental involvement statutes like the Act before us, and we cast no doubt on those holdings today."

The irony in that quote is that it was Justice Stevens, considered the most liberal of the justices, who wrote that minors essentailly lack the maturity, experience or good judgment to make the choice to terminate a pregnancy, thus legitimizing the state to require "parental involvment."

• Wes

Ironically, that's been the position of the U.S. Supreme Court since at least 1990, reaffirmed recently in the unanimous decision in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood.

Uh, no. The question of whether the state can prohibit minors from having children - i.e. require them to have an abortion - has never been tested and probably never will be. I assure you Justice Scalia would find some reason why that unanimous opinion doesn't mean that minors are too immature to have children. The court simply found that states could require parental involvement in their minor children's decisions. If they couldn't, this measure would be moot.

"The question of whether the state can prohibit minors from having children - i.e. require them to have an abortion - has never been tested and probably never will be."

Huh? Where'd that come from? Certainly not from me. Nor from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Earlier in this thread, the threshold question was asked: "Why should abortion then be the ONLY medical decision that we don't let 15/16/17-year-olds make on their own? If they can approve their own brain surgery or wart removal, why not an abortion?"

I merely pointed out that the Court, including its liberal and conservative factions, has for nearly three decades recognized that when it comes to a minor girl terminating her pregnancy, the state has a legitimate state interest to require parental involvment in that decision precisely because of what Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in 1990:

"First, the State has a strong and legitimate interest in the welfare of its young citizens, whose immaturity, inexperience, and lack of judgment may sometimes impair their ability to exercise their rights wisely. That interest justifies a state-imposed requirement that the minor notify and consult with a parent before terminating her pregnancy ...

"To the extent that the [Minnesota] statute requires that a minor wait 48 hours after notifying a single parent of her intention to obtain an abortion, it reasonably furthers the legitimate state interest in ensuring that the minor's decision is knowing and intelligent. The State may properly enact laws designed to aid a parent who has assumed "primary responsibility" for a minor's wellbeing in discharging that responsibility, and the 48-hour delay provides the parent the opportunity to consult with his or her spouse and a family physician, to inquire into the competency of the abortion doctor, and to discuss the decision's religious and moral implications with the minor and provide needed guidance and counsel as to how the decision will affect her future. The delay imposes only a minimal burden on the minor's rights. The statute does not impose any period of delay if the parents or a court, acting in loco parentis, provide consent to the procedure."

The Court recognized years ago in Bellotti II that the decision to abort or not is uniquely different from any other decision a minor girl faces.

I don't know if that answers Kari's and others' question, but I'm sure you'll (attempt to) correct me.

• Wes

Where'd that come from?

It came from here:

"Good point Ross! 15-17 year olds are too immature to have children."

Ironically, that's been the position of the U.S. Supreme Court since at least 1990, reaffirmed recently in the unanimous decision in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood.

The case in question has nothing to do with whether 15-17 years olds are too immature to have children. That case considered whether a state could protect immature minors by requiring either parental involvement or a judicial determination that they are able to make the decision to have an abortion themselves. As far as I know, no state requires parental consent or notice or a judicial determination of maturity if a minor decides to have a child.

The Bellotti decision recognized that parents should not be allowed to prevent a mature minor from exercising the right to an abortion. Thus it found a statute unconstitutional that did not allow a judicial review of the minor's maturity.

" 2. The abortion decision differs in important ways from other decisions facing minors, and the State is required to act with particular sensitivity when it legislates to foster parental involvement in this matter. Pp. 639-642.

1. If a State decides to require a pregnant minor to obtain one or both parents' consent to an abortion, it also must provide an alternative procedure whereby authorization for the abortion can be obtained. A pregnant minor is entitled in such a proceeding to show either that she is mature enough and well enough informed to make her abortion decision, in consultation with her physician, independently of her parents' wishes, or that even if she is not able to make this decision independently, the desired abortion would be in her best interests."

It is simply innaccurate to portray these decisions as determining the ability of minors to make these decisions. The court has simply allowed states to make the decision about how to protect immature minors so long as they don't remove the right of mature minors to make the decision for themselves.

Because of the parents religous beliefs they physically or emotionally abuse her.

Wow...are you saying all religious parents are abusive to their children? Thats kind-of a stretch isnt it?

"Why should abortion then be the ONLY medical decision that we don't let 15/16/17-year-olds make on their own? If they can approve their own brain surgery or wart removal, why not an abortion?"

My only problem here is one I had with my oldest daughter. She was rebelling a bit at 15-16, and one day she decided that she didnt want to tell us what the doctor said when she went in for a cold or something. Well, if she tells the doctor not to, they cannot give the parents information about the treatment. I find that very objectionable, especially if I am the one responsible for her until she is 18, and I am paying the bills.

How can you hold parents responsible for the child until 18, but keep you from what is happening to that child's life? It has to be one or the other, folks.

We don't know what other people's families are like, and it ought not be our place to say whether some family scenario is "believable" or not. We do know that there are families where daughters are raped, beaten and abused, and there are families where daughters cannot talk to their parents about sex or pregnancy or prosecution because it puts them in fear or in danger. That we would prefer to pretend that these families don't exist does not make it so. These are the daughters that are at serious risk if this parental notification measure passes.

In the vast majority of families, a daughter will seek her parents advice and assistance without a legal mandate. In the small number of cases where an enforced legal mandate is necessary to make a daughter seek her parents consent, ask why and wonder whether that is really in the best interests of the daughter.

How can you hold parents responsible for the child until 18, but keep you from what is happening to that child's life? It has to be one or the other, folks.

No one is holding you responsible for your daughter being pregnant.

Ross, Go to law school or read the cases themselves (and not just the synopsis/summaries). You are way the hell out there. Planned Parenthood would hide from your 20,000 foot analysis.

and YES - a parent IS reposponsible for, not only their own minor children (and frequently through university years financially), but also the children of their minor children. You're not even trying, Ross.

One of the problems with The State making inquiries into the circumstances of a woman's pregnancy is that it can create an incentive for lies; including lies that land people in prison. Concerning abortion rights, when the right to have an abortion--or, in this case, to hide an abortion/pregnancy from a parent--becomes contingent on whether the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest a terrible incentive has been created for teenage girls to assert rape or incest. DNA can help prove incest, but rape is both notoriously hard to presecute or also to defend against once a charge is made public.

Better not to create incentives for such behavior. Keep medical histories between the individual and her doctor.

No one is holding you responsible for your daughter being pregnant.

Thats BS....if my daughter had gotten pregnant, who gets to pay the bills if she keeps it, or decides to abort? Me & my insurance.

And if I didnt allow my insurance to cover it, I would bet the state would come after me financially to cover the bills paid by the Oregon Health Plan (if she even qualified, most likely she wouldnt, because of being a minor child).

"As far as I know, no state requires parental consent or notice or a judicial determination of maturity if a minor decides to have a child."

Sorry, Ross. Wrong again.

Actually, there are 44 states, not including Oregon, that requires parental consent or notice prior to a minor's abortion. A "judicial determination of maturity" is what is known as a judicial bypass provision, which allows the minor girl to "bypass" notifying her parent(s) and may apply to a special court instead. Every state's law (except Utah) has such a provision.

Measure 51 also contains a judicial bypass provision in which the Administrative Law Judge shall authorize the abortion if the judge finds:

"(A) The applicant is mature and capable of giving informed consent to the abortion; or

(B) Obtaining an abortion without the notice required by [the Act] is in the best interest of the applicant."

Really, man, you're 0-44 on this one. But somehow, I get the feeling you'll reply anyway.

• Wes

Ross:

Now I am munching on stale crow. Your statement referred to child birth, not abortion.

You're 1-1 on that one.

I would blame the heat, but I'm saving that excuse for later this weekend.

• Wes

Now I am munching on stale crow. Your statement referred to child birth, not abortion.

That was my point in fact. Can you imagine the reaction to a parent forcing their 17 year old daughter to have an abortion because they don't approve of her boyfriend?

Thats BS....if my daughter had gotten pregnant, who gets to pay the bills if she keeps it, or decides to abort? Me & my insurance.

Its a bit tough for you or your insurance to pay the bill for your daughter's abortion without knowing she had one isn't it? And if she chooses to have the child nothing in the initiative would require anyone to ever inform you she was pregnant.

Salem JD -

What are you talking about? Do you know?

Now, please tell me where in my statement I said ALL religous parents are abusive?

I know you didnt say "all". I was asking if that was your underlying point. By phrasing it the way you did, as the "more likely situation", it sure seems that way.