# Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood - SCOTUS takes on an abortion case! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 23, 2005, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190 "2005-05-23T23:51:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2005, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190/141 "2005-05-26T22:34:46Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > You’re failing to address the concern about girls who are afraid they will be abused or abandoned if they are ratted out to their parents. If they are disbelieved by some judge because his magic truth-telling abilities didn’t work that day (or maybe he’s just an asshole with axe against abortion) then she is NOT going to be protected from abuse or abandonment. You are not addressing the concern that girls who are faced with such a threat may seek more despearte choices > > There is no right of parents to “govern” the reproductive choices of their children. That choice belongs exclusively to the person who lives in that body. > > How has she “failed” to exercise judgement by seeking an abortion? That sounds like excellent judgement to me. I’m concerned that you’re creating this boogeyman that is largely unrepresentative of all but a few extreme cases and trying to make out like it’s the norm. To attempt to write a law in such a manner as to allow for every improbable notion is _extreme law,_ and just plain bad business. I’m dismissing that portion of your argument entirely. And yes, parents do have authority to govern the “reproductive rights” of their children, as children (minors) have no reproductive rights; it’s called such things of “Age of Consent” and “Statutory Rape” (at least for the guy; in the interest of “equality,” I’d like to see the female get charged with something, too, every now and then). 13 y/o children do not have a right to have sex, and have a child; that they do is not an admission of consent on societiy’s part, but either a parental failure to instill some sense of restraint in their child, or the child’s fault for not listening to Mom/Dad/GMa/GPa/Aunt/Uncle/Sister/Brother, and just being a little sex monkey. Yes, in a few extreme cases, the pregnancy may be the result of incest/rape. You just have to have a little faith in _something_; if not in a higher power, then at least in the human decency of average cops, social services case workers, and judges in protecting those few extreme cases and getting them safe abortions in accredited health institutions, as well as prosecuting the asshole who forced himself on her, and seeing that she gets not only counselling to help her recover, but a decent, safe home with trustowrthy relatives or foster parents. And yes, a few of those extreme cases will be treated harshly by those same groups; we live in an imperfect world. Deal with it. You will never, _ever_ have enough laws, cops, courts, prisons, or social workers to blanket the entire nation and prevent human depravity _everywhere._ Finally, the typical preganat minor hasn’t failed to exercise judgement for seeking an abortion. I never intended to imply that, and it says a lot about your own combative mindset that you arrived at that conclusion from my words. The typical minor failed to exercise judgement for having unprotected sex and getting pregnant\* in the first place.\* ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2005, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190/142 "2005-05-26T22:42:13Z")
Mr 2001: > [@](#): > > Children that young don’t get pregnant. Adolescents and teenagers, OTOH, are quite capable of remembering that they’re allergic to certain medications, and understanding the importance of staying away from them. Yes, and they’re also quite capable of mentally minimizing said importance, especially when in a stressful situation. > [@](#): > > To the point that they’d withhold important medical information from her? No. I’m not talking so much an intentional withholding of information as a neglect to mention something they shouldn’t need to know, if they’re not expected to be seeing doctors on their own. > [@](#): > > onsense. No birth control method is 100% effective, as I’m sure you know, which means it’s possible to become pregnant without either being raped or failing to take precautions. Or do you think that everyone who has sex when they don’t want children is lacking in judgment? Quite frankly, I do on a personal level, but with abortion a legal option in America, I wouldn’t say that it’s inherently irresponsible. However, I think it’s an EXTREME lack of good sense to be doing so if one is dependent upon one’s parents for all necessities of living, and has some idea that their relationship with their parents would be jeopardized by the discovery that they’d been sexually active. > [@](#): > > First, because it’s a step in the right direction - recognizing that many minors are, in fact, responsible enough to make these decisions. So campaign to lower the age of majority. Certainly, though, even you’ll admit that there’s an age line below which a child’s judgement is not to be relied on, and, unless your opinion is that that line is as low as ten, there’s good reason for a parental notification requirement for anyone still fitting the definition of a minor. > [@](#): > > Second, and more importantly in this case, because pregnancy is going to affect the minor in question far more than it’ll affect her parents, and under no circumstances should those parents be able to intimidate or force her into making a choice that she’ll regret for the rest of her life. She may be a minor now, but she’ll be an adult soon enough, and the consequences of her parents’ interference will still be with her. As will the consequences of a lack of adult advice. I have no desire to see a minor forced into anything, but I certainly wouldn’t trust one to make a life-affecting decision without some adult input. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2005, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190/143 "2005-05-26T22:44:00Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > 13 y/o children do not have a right to have sex, and have a child; What exactly are you arguing in favor of? Underage girls get pregnant. That’s a fact. What we’re discussing is what to do once that happens. Are you suggesting that the parents should decide about an abortion? This law is about informing parents, not letting them make the decision. If a girl wants an abortion, should the parents be able to stop her? What if she doesn’t want one-- should the parents be able to force her to have one? ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2005, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190/144 "2005-05-26T22:46:17Z")
ExTank: > [@](#): > > it’s called such things of “Age of Consent” and “Statutory Rape” (at least for the guy; in the interest of “equality,” I’d like to see the female get charged with something, too, every now and then). Meet [Mary Kay LeTourneau](http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/psychology/marykay_letourneau/1.html). ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2005, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190/145 "2005-05-27T01:16:59Z")
> [@cmkeller](#): > > ExTank: > > Meet [Mary Kay LeTourneau](http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/psychology/marykay_letourneau/1.html). I was actually thinking more along the lines of the 14-15 y/o wiggly-giggly who willingly, even _gladly,_ hopped in the sack with her 16 y/o boyfriend, and then was foolish enough to believe him when he said that she couldn’t get pregnant if it was her first time. I’m not arguing whether or not the 13 y/o has the right to the abortion, **John,** or whethe rparent sget a veto option. I’m arguing against the notion that the parents have no right to be _informed_ of their child’s medical procedures. **DtC’s** example of the most extreme situation isn’t in-and-of-itself a bad example, as long as it’s understood that that’s not a representative example, but a “worst-case-scenario.” On review, my thoughts closely parallel **cmkeller’s.** Adios, folks. I’m off for the Memorial Day weekend. Back on Monday. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2005, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190/146 "2005-05-27T01:39:57Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > The typical minor failed to exercise judgement for having unprotected sex and getting pregnant\* in the first place.\* Just because she’s pregnant doesn’t mean she had unprotected sex. No birth control is 100% effective - if you have a few thousand people using any given birth control method correctly, some of them will still get pregnant, but their judgment is still every bit as good as the rest. > [@cmkeller](#): > > I’m not talking so much an intentional withholding of information as a neglect to mention something they shouldn’t need to know, if they’re not expected to be seeing doctors on their own. If these parents think their kid shouldn’t need to know something as important as what medications she’s allergic to, then sorry, they have no business making decisions on her behalf. It’s naive for them to think they’ll always be around to tell the doctors “oh, by the way, she’s allergic to penicillin” - if there’s some kind of accident while she’s at school/a friend’s house/on vacation/etc, and she has to be taken to an emergency room but her parents can’t be reached in time, don’t you think they should be held responsible if their failure to tell her these things _about herself_ results in her injury or death? > [@](#): > > Quite frankly, I do on a personal level, but with abortion a legal option in America, I wouldn’t say that it’s inherently irresponsible. However, I think it’s an EXTREME lack of good sense to be doing so if one is dependent upon one’s parents for all necessities of living, and has some idea that their relationship with their parents would be jeopardized by the discovery that they’d been sexually active. Well, I’ll agree that it shows a lack of good sense to do so _but only when parental notification/consent laws are in place_. But if getting an abortion in private is a legitimate option, then I see no problem with someone having protected sex, with abortion as a last resort if the protection fails. > [@](#): > > So campaign to lower the age of majority. Certainly, though, even you’ll admit that there’s an age line below which a child’s judgement is not to be relied on, and, unless your opinion is that that line is as low as ten, there’s good reason for a parental notification requirement for anyone still fitting the definition of a minor. Without getting into my whole philosophy of age restrictions… no, I don’t agree with any sort of line drawn by age. If I had to draw a line, I’d set it at puberty - anyone old enough to get pregnant is old enough to make their own decisions about it. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2005, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190/147 "2005-05-27T02:41:50Z")
Too many comments here have addressed what the child and her parents should do if they had a perfect family life, if the child were comfortable discussing such intensely personal matters with them, if the parents were supportive rather than punitive. But that ship has sailed in any scenario this law would apply to. They’re all about families that are already broken down, where the child is already having sex (protected or not), perhaps being raped by her own family members, certainly not on comfortable terms with them. Why are so many of you still trying to lecture this child instead of help her? Why are so many of you concerned about the rights of parents who may well have shown themselves incapable of exercising those rights caringly and responsibly? The problem is how to salvage what can be salvaged, and how to help those most in need of help. Putting up hoops to be jumped through, even low, large hoops, just to gratify our own senses of what their stories \*should \* have been does them only harm and does nobody else any good at all. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2005, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190/148 "2005-05-27T03:59:52Z")
This idea of allowing an abortion if the girl tells a judge she’s been raped or molested is bunk. It’s an empty concession, one that will never be employed. There’s never going to be a girl who’ll need to talk to a judge first, because if an abused girl has enough guts to tell a judge she’s being abused, she’ll have already told a social worker that she’s being abused and the question of the abuser’s parental rights is moot. Most teenagers seeking abortions are not the products of rape or abuse. However, there are not an insignificant population. There is simply no way a law like this can be implemented that is not at their expense. I respect the principle behind parental notification laws, and can see that they would prevent some harm to some girls, but only at the cost of infinitly more harm to some other girls. “Harm,” obviously, is subjective, and I recognize that other posters think that these laws prevent more harm than they cause. But don’t kid yourselves into thinking that this “judicial permission” clause is going to help anything or anyone. It isn’t. It’s a meaningless gesture disguised as compromise. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2005, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190/149 "2005-05-27T12:12:58Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > But don’t kid yourselves into thinking that this “judicial permission” clause is going to help anything or anyone. It isn’t. It’s a meaningless gesture disguised as compromise. Well, from a legal standpoint, it’s a critical clause: without it, the law would be unconstitutional under SC precedent; with it, the law is constitutional. Under current SC precedent. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2005, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190/150 "2005-05-27T12:31:03Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > This idea of allowing an abortion if the girl tells a judge she’s been raped or molested is bunk. It’s an empty concession, one that will never be employed. There’s never going to be a girl who’ll need to talk to a judge first, because if an abused girl has enough guts to tell a judge she’s being abused, she’ll have already told a social worker that she’s being abused and the question of the abuser’s parental rights is moot. As probably the only person in this thread who actually has some small (very small) amount of professional experience with minors’ _ex parte_ applications for a judicial bypass to a parental notification law, I can assure you that your categorical denial of the existence of rape claims in such proceedings is entirely incorrect. Don’t bother asking details. It’s privileged. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2005, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190/151 "2005-05-27T12:49:19Z")
> [@](#): > > Well, from a legal standpoint, it’s a critical clause: without it, the law would be unconstitutional under SC precedent; with it, the law is constitutional. > > Under current SC precedent. …From the man who is so respectful of stare decisis, this looks curiously as though you’d be delighted if current Supreme Court precedent was flushed down the toilet. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2005, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190/152 "2005-05-27T12:56:08Z")
> [@Gadarene](#): > > …From the man who is so respectful of stare decisis, this looks curiously as though you’d be delighted if current Supreme Court precedent was flushed down the toilet. 🙂 Wha…?? No. As to this case, I’m saying that the parental notification law is permissble, and I hope it will remain so. I’m arguing in favor is _stare decicis_. This is not to say my respect for _stare decisis_ is absolute. There are conceivably decisions out there so wrong, so flawed, that it is wisest to overrule them. But the more time that goes on, the less that is so… Consider, for example, _Miranda_ in light of _Dickerson v. US_. In 1970, had a _Dickerson_ come along, I would have been in favor of overruling _Miranda_ in view of the Congressional action that _Dickerson_ hung its hat on. By the time 2003 rolled around, it was too late. _Dickerson_ was right on the merits, but thirty years too late to undo the damage. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2005, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190/153 "2005-05-27T13:01:44Z")
> [@](#): > > Wha…?? You’re right; sorry about that. I’m functioning on little sleep. 🙂 > [@](#): > > There are conceivably decisions out there so wrong, so flawed, that it is wisest to overrule them. But the more time that goes on, the less that is so… I don’t think a blanket statement can be made to that effect. Sometimes wrong decisions get no less wrong with the passage of time – _viz._ Dred Scott or Plessy. ---
**Author:** ![Enola\_Straight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dec6dc/32.png) [@Enola\_Straight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enola_Straight)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2005, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190/154 "2005-05-27T17:17:29Z")
Parental information? If the girl gets the abortion and she herself dosen’t cough up the $400 or so for the procedure, guess who gets stuck with the bill? THAT"S when the parents are informed. ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2005, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190/155 "2005-05-27T17:37:32Z")
Mr 2001: > [@](#): > > If these parents think their kid shouldn’t need to know something as important as what medications she’s allergic to, then sorry, they have no business making decisions on her behalf. > > It’s naive for them to think they’ll always be around to tell the doctors “oh, by the way, she’s allergic to penicillin” - if there’s some kind of accident while she’s at school/a friend’s house/on vacation/etc, and she has to be taken to an emergency room but her parents can’t be reached in time, don’t you think they should be held responsible if their failure to tell her these things about herself results in her injury or death? No, but they’d tell the responsible parties. School nurses in any reputable school have forms on file filled out by PARENTS - not by the children themselves - apprising them of relevant medical conditions for children under their care. If she’s staying with friends, the parents would tell the friends’ parents, who would likely be the ones bringing the kid to a doctor. I agree that it would be outrageous for the parents to knowingly have the child seek her own medical care without telling her of any relevant information. However, I find the likelihood of that low. Maybe I’m just behind the times. > [@](#): > > Well, I’ll agree that it shows a lack of good sense to do so _but only when parental notification/consent laws are in place._ No, because there’s plenty of ways her sexual activity could come to light other than by her getting pregnant and attempting to obtain an abortion. By doing it at all, she’s risking detection, and risking the wrath of her parents, her sole source for food, clothing and shelter. And for what? To “win the love” of some pimply-faced high school junior? To enjoy a few moments of pleasure here and there? Sorry, that’s horrendously bad judgement. > [@](#): > > no, I don’t agree with any sort of line drawn by age. If I had to draw a line, I’d set it at puberty - anyone old enough to get pregnant is old enough to make their own decisions about it. We’re going to have to agree to disagree, then. In my opinion, the mere fact that a person is gifted with a uterus does not mean she is capable of using it responsibly. You know, most mentally incompetent- adults have functional reproductive organs as well. You’d trust them to make life-altering decisions? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2005, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190/156 "2005-05-27T18:07:32Z")
> [@minty green](#): > > As probably the only person in this thread who actually has some small (very small) amount of professional experience with minors’ _ex parte_ applications for a judicial bypass to a parental notification law, I can assure you that your categorical denial of the existence of rape claims in such proceedings is entirely incorrect. > > Don’t bother asking details. It’s privileged. You’re right, of course. I didn’t entirely think my last post through. Let me try again. For many (if not most) victims of sexual abuse - particularly incest - there is a huge amount of shame, guilt, and fear that must be overcome before they can bring themselves to get help. Once a girl in that position has decided to get help, (say, because she’s been impregnated by a relative) she’s as likely to seek help through judicial bypass of parental notification as any other avenue of aid available to her. However, it seems to me that if this provision did not exsist, the girl would most likely still seek help through another channel: school, church, abuse hotlines, etc. which would, in effect, also bypass parental notification requirements by terminating the abusive parent’s parental rights. Those victims who have not yet found it in themselves to find help, however, are no more going to tell a judge that they are being abused than they are to tell a teacher, police officer, or social worker. _Those_ girls are going to be hurt by this law. I stand by my characterization of this as an empty compromise: of the population of girls seeking abortions, this exception will help none that would not seek help under other circumstances, and will cause the majority of them to seek alternatives to safe, legal abortions. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2005, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190/157 "2005-05-27T22:26:07Z")
> [@cmkeller](#): > > No, but they’d tell the responsible parties. […] If she’s staying with friends, the parents would tell the friends’ parents, who would likely be the ones bringing the kid to a doctor. Let’s hope so, right? (How would that go? “Hey Bob, nice barbecue you got out there. I want to thank you for watching Katie this weekend… shh, she’s coming-- DON’T MIND US, HON. I’LL BE OUT IN A SEC --all right. Look, just in case anything happens, you should know that she’s a-l-l-e-r-g-i-c to p-e-n-o… um… you know, enicillin-pay.” ;)) I just don’t see how it’s any less risky for these parents to operate on the assumption that they’ll _always_ be able to get this information to the right people in time, when they could easily just tell their daughter what she needs to know about her own body. Every teenager I’ve ever known would’ve been able to remember and note the importance of something like being allergic to a common antibiotic. > [@](#): > > By doing it at all, she’s risking detection, and risking the wrath of her parents, her sole source for food, clothing and shelter. And for what? To “win the love” of some pimply-faced high school junior? To enjoy a few moments of pleasure here and there? Gee, now that you put it that way, it’s a mystery why anyone would ever want to have sex. I can’t wait to hear your take on skiing or football. > [@](#): > > You know, most mentally incompetent- adults have functional reproductive organs as well. You’d trust them to make life-altering decisions? Not necessarily. But then, I’d never equate teenagers to mentally disabled people. OTOH, I have a hard time thinking of a situation when I’d be comfortable forcing a mentally disabled person to carry a child to term, or to have an abortion. Seems about one step away from eugenics. ---
**Author:** ![Eva\_Luna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e495f1/32.png) [@Eva\_Luna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eva_Luna)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2005, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190/158 "2005-05-30T15:05:49Z")
> [@Enola Straight](#): > > Parental information? > > If the girl gets the abortion and she herself dosen’t cough up the $400 or so for the procedure, guess who gets stuck with the bill? > > THAT"S when the parents are informed. In the experience of everyone I’ve ever known who has had an abortion, you pay upfront, and the facility won’t perform the procedure without it. A close relative has gone through this 3 times (and I’m not going to comment on why 3 times; that’s a very different thread, best suited for the Pit). In fact, this phenomenon is often cited as a reason for continuing to allow 2nd-trimester abortions; many women don’t find out they are pregnant until late in their first trimester or into their second trimester, and poor women and young women especially will have a hard time scraping up the cash. Yet it costs rather more than $400 to give birth to, and raise, a child. ---
**Author:** ![1010011010](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/1/ea666f/32.png) [@1010011010](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/1010011010)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2005, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190/159 "2005-05-30T17:10:47Z")
> [@treis](#): > > You ask what protections we give to the girls that carry the child to term and I say there are none we can give. We can’t force a girl to tell her parents when no one else even knows she is pregnant. We can force her to notify her parents before having an abortion. Many “Abortion Clinics” offer a variety of services, often referred to under the term “Women’s Health”, some of which include services to women who wish to continue a pregnancy. If a minor comes in to one of these clinics seeking a pregnancy test and it comes back positive, the parents could be notified. The parents could be notified even if it came back negative. Or if a minor patronized a free clinic for the treatment of an STD. Or applied for an HIV test. Or tried to get free condoms. There are many many ways we could _try_ to invade the privacy of scared teenagers. But, no-one is proposing to rat out the teenage girl getting periodic check-ups and pre-natal vitamins on the sly because of some nebulous “parental right to know.” Why do you suppose that is? > [@treis](#): > > The point of parental notification is to give the legal guardians input into the medical decisions of their ward. Telling them after the fact doesn’t accomplish that. What percentage of legal guardians do you suppose will be capable of framing their input on the subject of abortion in the terms of it being a medical decision? The authority of a guardian to represent a ward derives in part from the understanding that the guardian represents the ward’s interests. A policy of parental notification only becomes an issue in those cases where that authority is being abused. The minor does not want the parent notified because the minor knows the parent will not represent the minor’s interests. > [@treis](#): > > You speak as though minors have independent choices in medical procedures. They don’t, ultimately the guardian is the one that makes those decisions. If the minor is less than 17.25 years, they are likely to find they have become a guardian and, quite mysteriously, are imbued with the wisdom to make such decisions… though, ironically, not for themselves. > [@treis](#): > > It serves the purpose for parents to have a say in their childs medical decisions. Again, what parents are likely to say on the matter will probably extend far beyond subjects medical. Also, the medical risks of pregnancy and child birth v. an abortion are probably pretty lopsided. I’m not sure that parents will have any relevant input on the medical concern. > [@treis](#): > > What exactly is the purpose of this paragraph, do you see anyone in this thread acting like that? It’s very rarely that I’ve come across someone in the Pro-Life movement that extreme, though there is more generally a sort of pathological disinterest in the women involved and the harm that will be caused to them (and their children) so long as a policy will reduce the number of (legal) abortions that occur. The question that I’d ask is if the benefits of notifying parents whenever a minor seeks help outweighs the costs associated with the minors failing to seek help to avoid parental notification and the harm stemming directly from notifying the parents in some cases. ---
**Author:** ![Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Helen\_s\_Eidolon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Helen_s_Eidolon)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2005, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190/160 "2005-05-31T03:58:58Z")
Here is the issue, as I see it. Is this notification happening before or after the abortion? If it’s being done before, it’s tantamount to needing parental permission (in the reality of most parent-child relationships). If it’s done after, what’s the point? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190.md?page=9)