Parental Notification doesn't cut down on abortions.

[techs]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/06/natio...1f9a750177ef3&ei=5094&partner=homepage

For all the passions they generate, laws that require minors to notify their parents or get permission to have an abortion do not appear to have produced the sharp drop in teenage abortion rates that some advocates hoped for, an analysis by The New York Times shows.

The analysis, which looked at six states that introduced parental involvement laws in the last decade and is believed to be the first study to include data from years after 1999, found instead a scattering of divergent trends.

For instance, in Tennessee, the abortion rate went down when a federal court suspended a parental consent requirement, then rose when the law went back into effect. In Texas, the rate fell after a notification law went into effect, but not as fast as it did in the years before the law. In Virginia, the rate barely moved when the state introduced a notification law in 1998, but fell after the requirement was changed to parental consent in 2003.

Supporters of the laws say they promote better decision-making and reduce teenage abortions; opponents say they chip away at abortion rights and endanger young lives by exposing them to potentially violent reaction from some parents.

But some workers and doctors at abortion clinics said that the laws had little connection with the real lives of most teenagers, and that they more often saw parents pressing their daughters to have abortions than trying to stop them. And many teenagers say they never considered hiding their pregnancies or abortion plans from their mothers.

"I would have told my mother anyway," said a 16-year-old named Nicole, who waited recently at a clinic in Allentown, Pa., a state that requires minors to get the permission of just one parent. Nicole's mother and father are divorced, and it was her mother she went to for permission to have an abortion.



You can argue that parents have the right to be informed when their kid wants an abortion. I am in favor of this.
Just don't be under the misconception that it prevents abortions.

 

[stinkz]

Originally posted by: techsJust don't be under the misconception that it prevents abortions.

How could we be? We all know the New York Times never spins facts to push an agenda.

 

[Tom]

The reason I oppose these notification laws is that sometime, somewhere, a woman or girl is going to be injured or killed because of the law.

It might be statistically insignificant, but it has consequences.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Tom
The reason I oppose these notification laws is that sometime, somewhere, a woman or girl is going to be injured or killed because of the law.

It might be statistically insignificant, but it has consequences.

I am sure some gun law has got somebody killed as well. The same can be said about a drug law.

We shouldnt base a law on some minute possibility in the future, when this law subverts the role of the parent in the family.

 

[Todd33]

Should we require parental notification before sex? At this point the parent has been "subverted", get over it. It's not like any of the anti-abortion people around here have kids, they are a bunch of middle class white boys.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Tom
The reason I oppose these notification laws is that sometime, somewhere, a woman or girl is going to be injured or killed because of the law.

It might be statistically insignificant, but it has consequences.

I am sure some gun law has got somebody killed as well. The same can be said about a drug law.

We shouldnt base a law on some minute possibility in the future, when this law subverts the role of the parent in the family.

I have mixed opinions about the notification laws. While I am not sure that a 12 year-old is capable of making a rational decision in this case, a 16-year-old might be. Either way, I think that the legislation of these laws has only one intention - and that's to limit abortions... and it's a totally wrong approach for doing so. Instead of treating the disease, let's prevent it. Instead of getting the parent to threaten the child with abandonment or physical harm, let's get them involved in the earliest stages of the child's sexual development. Have sex ed classes that parents attend WITH their children, where in a comfortable environment, all the risks of sexual activity can be outlined, along with methods of minimizing them. Maybe if the parents and their children attend such seminars together, they will no longer be squeamish about discussing it in the privacy of their homes... and maybe then there will be no need for these laws at all.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Todd33
Should we require parental notification before sex? At this point the parent has been "subverted", get over it. It's not like any of the anti-abortion people around here have kids, they are a bunch of middle class white boys.

What a stupid response, but coming from you not terribly surprising.

If you dont see the damage in having a govt entity interfere with a family decision you are beyond hope.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Tom
The reason I oppose these notification laws is that sometime, somewhere, a woman or girl is going to be injured or killed because of the law.

It might be statistically insignificant, but it has consequences.

I am sure some gun law has got somebody killed as well. The same can be said about a drug law.

We shouldnt base a law on some minute possibility in the future, when this law subverts the role of the parent in the family.

It isn't a "minute possibility", it's a certainty, in my opinion.

As far as parental roles, i'm not a fan of government control. That is the issue that always puzzles me, "conservatives" who want the government telling everyone how to live their lives, how to raise their children, etc, etc, etc.

Parents who need the government to make their kids tell them about getting an abortion..have you considered just how f'ed up that is ?

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Tom
The reason I oppose these notification laws is that sometime, somewhere, a woman or girl is going to be injured or killed because of the law.

It might be statistically insignificant, but it has consequences.

I am sure some gun law has got somebody killed as well. The same can be said about a drug law.

We shouldnt base a law on some minute possibility in the future, when this law subverts the role of the parent in the family.

I have mixed opinions about the notification laws. While I am not sure that a 12 year-old is capable of making a rational decision in this case, a 16-year-old might be. Either way, I think that the legislation of these laws has only one intention - and that's to limit abortions... and it's a totally wrong approach for doing so. Instead of treating the disease, let's prevent it. Instead of getting the parent to threaten the child with abandonment or physical harm, let's get them involved in the earliest stages of the child's sexual development. Have sex ed classes that parents attend WITH their children, where in a comfortable environment, all the risks of sexual activity can be outlined, along with methods of minimizing them. Maybe if the parents and their children attend such seminars together, they will no longer be squeamish about discussing it in the privacy of their homes... and maybe then there will be no need for these laws at all.

There is a difference between parental notificiation and parental approval. Requiring parental approval does cut down on the number of abortions. Of course this also leads to kids going out of state or attempting to abort the fetus themselves.
I believe if the parents deny an abortion under parental approval laws they should be financially responsible for the child.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Tom
The reason I oppose these notification laws is that sometime, somewhere, a woman or girl is going to be injured or killed because of the law.

It might be statistically insignificant, but it has consequences.

I am sure some gun law has got somebody killed as well. The same can be said about a drug law.

We shouldnt base a law on some minute possibility in the future, when this law subverts the role of the parent in the family.

I have mixed opinions about the notification laws. While I am not sure that a 12 year-old is capable of making a rational decision in this case, a 16-year-old might be. Either way, I think that the legislation of these laws has only one intention - and that's to limit abortions... and it's a totally wrong approach for doing so. Instead of treating the disease, let's prevent it. Instead of getting the parent to threaten the child with abandonment or physical harm, let's get them involved in the earliest stages of the child's sexual development. Have sex ed classes that parents attend WITH their children, where in a comfortable environment, all the risks of sexual activity can be outlined, along with methods of minimizing them. Maybe if the parents and their children attend such seminars together, they will no longer be squeamish about discussing it in the privacy of their homes... and maybe then there will be no need for these laws at all.

You may be right about the intent of the law to limit abortions, however this article has shown that may not be the case. But imo we shouldnt set the precedent the govt can tell a family unit what decisions it is allowed and not allowed to make together.

The idea my daughter can get a medical procedure done and I have no "right" to be notified is terrifying.

 

[Meuge]

To add something to my previous post, I think that if we look at statistics, we'll realize that a vast vast majority of abortions are the result of unprotected sex, rather than failures of contraception. That's why it is absolutely clear that if we halve the number of people who have unprotected sex... we'll halve the number of abortions... and so forth.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Tom
The reason I oppose these notification laws is that sometime, somewhere, a woman or girl is going to be injured or killed because of the law.

It might be statistically insignificant, but it has consequences.

I am sure some gun law has got somebody killed as well. The same can be said about a drug law.

We shouldnt base a law on some minute possibility in the future, when this law subverts the role of the parent in the family.

I have mixed opinions about the notification laws. While I am not sure that a 12 year-old is capable of making a rational decision in this case, a 16-year-old might be. Either way, I think that the legislation of these laws has only one intention - and that's to limit abortions... and it's a totally wrong approach for doing so. Instead of treating the disease, let's prevent it. Instead of getting the parent to threaten the child with abandonment or physical harm, let's get them involved in the earliest stages of the child's sexual development. Have sex ed classes that parents attend WITH their children, where in a comfortable environment, all the risks of sexual activity can be outlined, along with methods of minimizing them. Maybe if the parents and their children attend such seminars together, they will no longer be squeamish about discussing it in the privacy of their homes... and maybe then there will be no need for these laws at all.

You may be right about the intent of the law to limit abortions, however this article has shown that may not be the case. But imo we shouldnt set the precedent the govt can tell a family unit what decisions it is allowed and not allowed to make together.

The idea my daughter can get a medical procedure done and I have no "right" to be notified is terrifying.

And once again you miss the point. Parental notification is stronly supported by most Americans. It doesn't stop your kid from having an abortion without your approval. And it doesn't cut down on abortions.
The other law is a parental approval law. And as I said earlier believe if the parents deny an abortion under parental approval laws they should be financially responsible for the child.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Tom
The reason I oppose these notification laws is that sometime, somewhere, a woman or girl is going to be injured or killed because of the law.

It might be statistically insignificant, but it has consequences.

I am sure some gun law has got somebody killed as well. The same can be said about a drug law.

We shouldnt base a law on some minute possibility in the future, when this law subverts the role of the parent in the family.

It isn't a "minute possibility", it's a certainty, in my opinion.

As far as parental roles, i'm not a fan of government control. That is the issue that always puzzles me, "conservatives" who want the government telling everyone how to live their lives, how to raise their children, etc, etc, etc.

Parents who need the government to make their kids tell them about getting an abortion..have you considered just how f'ed up that is ?

Your response said it might be "statistically insignificant". That in my opinion is "minute".

And why is it "f'd" up requiring a hospital or clinic to notify the "legal" guardian of a "child" before a medical procedure is performed?

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Tom
The reason I oppose these notification laws is that sometime, somewhere, a woman or girl is going to be injured or killed because of the law.

It might be statistically insignificant, but it has consequences.

I am sure some gun law has got somebody killed as well. The same can be said about a drug law.

We shouldnt base a law on some minute possibility in the future, when this law subverts the role of the parent in the family.

It isn't a "minute possibility", it's a certainty, in my opinion.

As far as parental roles, i'm not a fan of government control. That is the issue that always puzzles me, "conservatives" who want the government telling everyone how to live their lives, how to raise their children, etc, etc, etc.

Parents who need the government to make their kids tell them about getting an abortion..have you considered just how f'ed up that is ?

Your response said it might be "statistically insignificant". That in my opinion is "minute".

And why is it "f'd" up requiring a hospital or clinic to notify the "legal" guardian of a "child" before a medical procedure is performed?

You still miss the point.
btw what would you do if your daughter wanted an abortion and the clinic notified you?

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Tom
The reason I oppose these notification laws is that sometime, somewhere, a woman or girl is going to be injured or killed because of the law.

It might be statistically insignificant, but it has consequences.

I am sure some gun law has got somebody killed as well. The same can be said about a drug law.

We shouldnt base a law on some minute possibility in the future, when this law subverts the role of the parent in the family.

It isn't a "minute possibility", it's a certainty, in my opinion.

As far as parental roles, i'm not a fan of government control. That is the issue that always puzzles me, "conservatives" who want the government telling everyone how to live their lives, how to raise their children, etc, etc, etc.

Parents who need the government to make their kids tell them about getting an abortion..have you considered just how f'ed up that is ?

Your response said it might be "statistically insignificant". That in my opinion is "minute".

And why is it "f'd" up requiring a hospital or clinic to notify the "legal" guardian of a "child" before a medical procedure is performed?

One of the keys of good parenting is communication, in both directions. For this government regulation of families to be necessary, you would have to have a family that does not communicate in the first place, and an underage person who is pregnant, both of which are not indications of good parenting, if you ask me.

But even given that, I do not consider myself such an authority on parenting that it is my right to tell people how to raise their children. And that extends to it not being my right as expressed through government control, which is nothing but an extension of what my rights are as an individual.

When the government acts, it is acting on my behalf as a citizen, government has no authority in a democracy beyond the authority the citizens transfer to it.


Ask yourself, do you think, as an individual, you have the right to FORCE a young pregnant girl to tell her parents if she decides to have an abortion ? Not advise her to tell, but to compell her to tell.

Because that is what this law does, the government has no more inherent authority than you do.

 

[judasmachine]

in my experiance it's been the parents that insist the teen get an abortion. two of them were forced by their Xtian parents, because no daughter of their's was sexually active.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Tom
The reason I oppose these notification laws is that sometime, somewhere, a woman or girl is going to be injured or killed because of the law.

It might be statistically insignificant, but it has consequences.

I am sure some gun law has got somebody killed as well. The same can be said about a drug law.

We shouldnt base a law on some minute possibility in the future, when this law subverts the role of the parent in the family.

It isn't a "minute possibility", it's a certainty, in my opinion.

As far as parental roles, i'm not a fan of government control. That is the issue that always puzzles me, "conservatives" who want the government telling everyone how to live their lives, how to raise their children, etc, etc, etc.

Parents who need the government to make their kids tell them about getting an abortion..have you considered just how f'ed up that is ?

Your response said it might be "statistically insignificant". That in my opinion is "minute".

And why is it "f'd" up requiring a hospital or clinic to notify the "legal" guardian of a "child" before a medical procedure is performed?

You still miss the point.
btw what would you do if your daughter wanted an abortion and the clinic notified you?

Good question.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: Genx87
And why is it "f'd" up requiring a hospital or clinic to notify the "legal" guardian of a "child" before a medical procedure is performed?

Because it is not simply a medical procedure anymore. We are talking about a biological woman and her reproduction. They are treated as adults, much like a 13 year old is when he/she murders someone. If a young woman makes an adult decision to have sex, then the state should let her make an adult decision to carry to term. Injecting the parent is just the religious right's way of complicating that decision in hopes of stopping it. The majority supports it? Because it sounds reasonable, but most people don't put half a thought into it. Maybe we can then stop trying teenagers as adults and charge their parents instead? Reasonable?

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Tom
The reason I oppose these notification laws is that sometime, somewhere, a woman or girl is going to be injured or killed because of the law.

It might be statistically insignificant, but it has consequences.

I am sure some gun law has got somebody killed as well. The same can be said about a drug law.

We shouldnt base a law on some minute possibility in the future, when this law subverts the role of the parent in the family.

It isn't a "minute possibility", it's a certainty, in my opinion.

As far as parental roles, i'm not a fan of government control. That is the issue that always puzzles me, "conservatives" who want the government telling everyone how to live their lives, how to raise their children, etc, etc, etc.

Parents who need the government to make their kids tell them about getting an abortion..have you considered just how f'ed up that is ?

Your response said it might be "statistically insignificant". That in my opinion is "minute".

And why is it "f'd" up requiring a hospital or clinic to notify the "legal" guardian of a "child" before a medical procedure is performed?

You still miss the point.
btw what would you do if your daughter wanted an abortion and the clinic notified you?

I noticed you haven't answered the question Genx87 .
What would you do if your daughter wanted an abortion and the clinic notified you?

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Todd33
Should we require parental notification before sex? At this point the parent has been "subverted", get over it. It's not like any of the anti-abortion people around here have kids, they are a bunch of middle class white boys.

What a stupid response, but coming from you not terribly surprising.

If you dont see the damage in having a govt entity interfere with a family decision you are beyond hope.

Umm I think your a little confused parental notification/consent laws are the goverment entity interfering.

When there is no such laws that is called not interfering. I hope that helps clear up the confused big goverment republicians.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Tom
The reason I oppose these notification laws is that sometime, somewhere, a woman or girl is going to be injured or killed because of the law.

It might be statistically insignificant, but it has consequences.

I am sure some gun law has got somebody killed as well. The same can be said about a drug law.

We shouldnt base a law on some minute possibility in the future, when this law subverts the role of the parent in the family.

It isn't a "minute possibility", it's a certainty, in my opinion.

As far as parental roles, i'm not a fan of government control. That is the issue that always puzzles me, "conservatives" who want the government telling everyone how to live their lives, how to raise their children, etc, etc, etc.

Parents who need the government to make their kids tell them about getting an abortion..have you considered just how f'ed up that is ?

Your response said it might be "statistically insignificant". That in my opinion is "minute".

And why is it "f'd" up requiring a hospital or clinic to notify the "legal" guardian of a "child" before a medical procedure is performed?

You do, for basically every other medical procedure in the world. But not an abortion thanks to the lobbyists.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Tom
The reason I oppose these notification laws is that sometime, somewhere, a woman or girl is going to be injured or killed because of the law.

It might be statistically insignificant, but it has consequences.

I am sure some gun law has got somebody killed as well. The same can be said about a drug law.

We shouldnt base a law on some minute possibility in the future, when this law subverts the role of the parent in the family.

It isn't a "minute possibility", it's a certainty, in my opinion.

As far as parental roles, i'm not a fan of government control. That is the issue that always puzzles me, "conservatives" who want the government telling everyone how to live their lives, how to raise their children, etc, etc, etc.

Parents who need the government to make their kids tell them about getting an abortion..have you considered just how f'ed up that is ?

Your response said it might be "statistically insignificant". That in my opinion is "minute".

And why is it "f'd" up requiring a hospital or clinic to notify the "legal" guardian of a "child" before a medical procedure is performed?

You do, for basically every other medical procedure in the world. But not an abortion thanks to the lobbyists.

Just curious, how big/powerful do you think the government should be, since it isn't big/powerful enough yet ?

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Tom
The reason I oppose these notification laws is that sometime, somewhere, a woman or girl is going to be injured or killed because of the law.

It might be statistically insignificant, but it has consequences.

I am sure some gun law has got somebody killed as well. The same can be said about a drug law.

We shouldnt base a law on some minute possibility in the future, when this law subverts the role of the parent in the family.

It isn't a "minute possibility", it's a certainty, in my opinion.

As far as parental roles, i'm not a fan of government control. That is the issue that always puzzles me, "conservatives" who want the government telling everyone how to live their lives, how to raise their children, etc, etc, etc.

Parents who need the government to make their kids tell them about getting an abortion..have you considered just how f'ed up that is ?

Your response said it might be "statistically insignificant". That in my opinion is "minute".

And why is it "f'd" up requiring a hospital or clinic to notify the "legal" guardian of a "child" before a medical procedure is performed?

You still miss the point.
btw what would you do if your daughter wanted an abortion and the clinic notified you?

I noticed you haven't answered the question Genx87 .
What would you do if your daughter wanted an abortion and the clinic notified you?

And still Genx87 hasn't answered the question:
What would you do if your daughter wanted an abortion and the clinic notified you?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Tom
The reason I oppose these notification laws is that sometime, somewhere, a woman or girl is going to be injured or killed because of the law.

It might be statistically insignificant, but it has consequences.

I am sure some gun law has got somebody killed as well. The same can be said about a drug law.

We shouldnt base a law on some minute possibility in the future, when this law subverts the role of the parent in the family.

It isn't a "minute possibility", it's a certainty, in my opinion.

As far as parental roles, i'm not a fan of government control. That is the issue that always puzzles me, "conservatives" who want the government telling everyone how to live their lives, how to raise their children, etc, etc, etc.

Parents who need the government to make their kids tell them about getting an abortion..have you considered just how f'ed up that is ?

Your response said it might be "statistically insignificant". That in my opinion is "minute".

And why is it "f'd" up requiring a hospital or clinic to notify the "legal" guardian of a "child" before a medical procedure is performed?

You still miss the point.
btw what would you do if your daughter wanted an abortion and the clinic notified you?

I noticed you haven't answered the question Genx87 .
What would you do if your daughter wanted an abortion and the clinic notified you?

Irrelevant to this discussion and nothing but a diversion to turn this personal.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Tom
The reason I oppose these notification laws is that sometime, somewhere, a woman or girl is going to be injured or killed because of the law.

It might be statistically insignificant, but it has consequences.

I am sure some gun law has got somebody killed as well. The same can be said about a drug law.

We shouldnt base a law on some minute possibility in the future, when this law subverts the role of the parent in the family.

It isn't a "minute possibility", it's a certainty, in my opinion.

As far as parental roles, i'm not a fan of government control. That is the issue that always puzzles me, "conservatives" who want the government telling everyone how to live their lives, how to raise their children, etc, etc, etc.

Parents who need the government to make their kids tell them about getting an abortion..have you considered just how f'ed up that is ?

Your response said it might be "statistically insignificant". That in my opinion is "minute".

And why is it "f'd" up requiring a hospital or clinic to notify the "legal" guardian of a "child" before a medical procedure is performed?

You still miss the point.
btw what would you do if your daughter wanted an abortion and the clinic notified you?

I noticed you haven't answered the question Genx87 .
What would you do if your daughter wanted an abortion and the clinic notified you?

Irrelevant to this discussion and nothing but a diversion to turn this personal.

Nope. Its highly relevant. Because you keep whining about your rights over your kids. You chime in every time this topic is brought up.
Lets hear what you would do. Real life and real people. Thats what these laws affect.
What would you do if your daughter wanted an abortion and the clinic notified you?