Never-Enforced Abortion Law

[canoestripper]

Court to Weigh Never-Enforced Abortion Law
By HOLLY RAMER
Associated Press Writer

To some, a never-enforced New Hampshire law requiring parental notification before a minor has an abortion is a backward step for women's rights. To others, it protects parents' right to know if their child is having an abortion.

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider those arguments Wednesday as it begins to weigh whether to reinstate a law that requires parental notification 48 hours before an abortion can be performed on a minor.

The 2003 law was struck down, days before it was to take effect, for failing to provide an exception to protect a minor's health. Under the law, parents or guardians must be notified either in person or by certified mail.

Supporters of the law say a provision that allows a girl to go to a judge instead of a parent provides needed protection if her health is in danger.

Opponents, however, say the law's requirements could lead to dangerous delays and result in judges making medical decisions instead of doctors. They also view the law as an ill-disguised attempt by abortion opponents to chip away at Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision that legalized abortion.

"Women are going to get abortions no matter what, whether it's legal or illegal, whether they're 13 or whether they're 50. ... Any limitations put on it is heading backward in time," said Becca Pawling, 35, who leads Annie's Forum, a weekly program that brings together teenage girls and older women for snacks, support, crafts and conversation in Portsmouth.

The issue sparked a lively debate among the eight women at one recent meeting. One teen said she would tell her father but she'd more likely to turn to an older sibling for support. Another said she might tell her parents, but afterward.

Some older participants said they would support requiring girls to get some kind of adult counseling before getting abortions, but not necessarily from parents.

"I don't think I agree with the legislation, but I don't like the idea of young girls having to go through this by themselves," said Emily Morgan. "I'm 27 and I don't know if I could handle it."

Nearly all states have laws requiring some kind of parental involvement when minors have abortions. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit group that researches reproductive health issues, 21 states require parental consent and 13 require parental notification. Nine other states, including New Hampshire, have laws that aren't in effect because they've been blocked by court orders.

In its last major abortion decision, the Supreme Court ruled in 2000 that state abortion laws must provide an exception to protect a girl's health in case her parents don't agree. It passed up several other abortion cases this year before agreeing in May to take up New Hampshire's law. Some legal experts suggested the surprising decision was the court's way of reminding President Bush what could be at stake in filling a Supreme Court vacancy.

It's unclear how many women would be affected by New Hampshire's law because the state's abortion providers, unlike those in almost every other state, do not submit annual statistics to the federal government. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, which sued to block the law, said it performed 550 abortions in New Hampshire in 2004. Fifty-two were on girls.

Teens also are divided on the issue. Molly Cummings, 17, of Nashua, said she wasn't aware of the law and thought abortions were illegal for teenagers. Despite having a close relationship with her parents, she doubted she would tell them if she ended up pregnant and had an abortion.

"I don't think I'd be able to tell my parents," she said. "They'd be disappointed in me."

Jess Henderson, 17, of Concord, said she thinks the law is reasonable and might make teens think more about the consequences of their actions.

"There are a lot of people who look on abortion pretty lightly," she said.

[oberon]

Hmm... makes me think about the flip-side of this issue. What if the girl wishes to have her baby, but the parents want her to have an abortion? Shouldn't the final say be the person whose body is in question?

[Brandye]

Interesting post, Canoe, and very interesting issue you raise, oberon. In jurisdictions where abortion is on demand at 16, exactly the point you raise does come up. There are, in Europe, clinics that deal with the parents wanting an abortion for their daughter while she does not.

There is extensive "couselling" but I am happy to say that once I make a referral, I am out of it. I am not proud of that feeling but I cannot deny it.

[canoestripper]

Laws should be fair, absolute, and pertain to everyone equally. Our government should make laws, with our approval, and then enforce them.

Questions of morality should be dealt with personally, or with the guidance of family, friends, or church, but YOU should decide whether you want that advice.

The law SHOULD NOT determine questions of morality. The government has no business in matters of morality.

Many people seem to think the government is there to safeguard our morality. Laws need not be moral. People do. Laws should regulate the public's behavior, morals should regulate personal behavior. If people were as moral as they portray themselves to be, we wouldn't need half of the laws that we have.

Here is the flip side of this story, from a European perspective:

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ]Liechtenstein Rejects Anti-Abortion Measure
By HARRY ROSENBAUM
Associated Press Writer

Voters in this tiny Alpine principality on Sunday soundly rejected an initiative that critics said would have prevented abortion, birth control, assisted suicide and living wills.

Less than 20 percent of voters cast ballots in favor of the constitutional amendment, supported by the country's Roman Catholic archbishop, seeking to protect human life from "conception to natural death."

Instead, nearly 80 percent ratified a government counterproposal, which legal experts say brings the country's legal framework for issues such as abortion and birth control in line with European standards.

The amendment was launched by conservative groups to protest a government attempt last year to change legislation that permitted abortion only in limited cases such as when the mother's life is in danger.

The campaign was vicious for Liechtenstein, a tranquil mountaintop country the size of Washington, D.C., with 33,000 people.

Conservative Archbishop Wolfgang Haas campaigned heavily in favor of the amendment and called the counterproposal a "death melody."

Crown Prince Alois expressed sympathy for the initiative in an address earlier this year, but he was more moderate in the run-up to the vote and said he supported both proposals.

Liechtenstein, sandwiched between Austria and Switzerland, is famous chiefly for being a tax haven, and although it has passed laws to curb money-laundering, it has more registered companies than citizens.

Once a sovereign state of the Holy Roman Empire, Liechtenstein is about three-quarters Roman Catholic.

Sounds like they've got the church/state question figured out.