# 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:** 13\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2005, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190/161 "2005-05-31T05:00:10Z")
\*\* 1010011010 \*\*, Just so we are on the same page here I hold my position fairly strongly for girls up to age 14 or 15. Would it change your position at all if we required parental notification for girls under 14? I will come back and respond to your points if you still disagree but we may be wasting our time here. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2005, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190/162 "2005-05-31T13:16:28Z")
[Parental consent or notification laws, by state](http://www.positive.org/Resources/consent.html). In some states, only one parent need by notified. In other states, another family member, such as a grandparent or a sibling over 25, can give consent for a minor. In still other states, a doctor’s opinion can bypass the need for notification or consent. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2005, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190/163 "2005-05-31T14:38:40Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > [Parental consent or notification laws, by state](http://www.positive.org/Resources/consent.html). In some states, only one parent need by notified. In other states, another family member, such as a grandparent or a sibling over 25, can give consent for a minor. In still other states, a doctor’s opinion can bypass the need for notification or consent. And some states require notification of BOTH parents. > [@](#): > > Some states go as far as to require the involvement of both parents. These statues ignore the realities of teenagers’ lives. > > ``` > * In 2000, approximately 19 million children under the age of 18 lived with only one parent. Nearly three million more lived with neither parent (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001a). > > * In 2000, 33 percent of all births occurred to unmarried women (CDC, 2003). One study found that 20 percent of unmarried fathers had little to no contact with their children (Doherty et al ., 1998). > > * Millions of children live with a single parent subsequent to divorce. In 2000, 54 percent of single parents with children under the age of 18 were divorced or separated (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001b). A study found that one-third of divorced fathers had no contact with their children during the previous year (Doherty et al., 1998). > > * In Minnesota, more than one-quarter of the teenagers who sought judicial bypass were accompanied by one parent, who was most often divorced or separated. According to the federal district court that reviewed Minnesota's law, many of the custodial parents feared that notification would "bring the absent parent back into the family in an intrusive and abusive way" (Hodgson v. Minnesota, 1986). > > ``` > > Moreover, even if a teenager is able and willing to involve one or both parents, the procedures required by some state parental consent or notification laws make compliance impossible or difficult. > > ``` > * Requiring that teenagers either obtain notarized evidence that parents have been notified or present a death certificate for a deceased parent may present impossible logistical barriers, lead to breaches of confidentiality for parents and teenagers, or cause serious delay. > > * A requirement that the physician personally locate and notify the parents could easily both delay the procedure and increase the cost. > > ``` > > SOURCE: [Planned Parenthood](http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/abortion/fact-teenagers-abortion-intrusion.xml) Actually the link above has other details on the inconsistency of all of this. For instance, many argue that a medical procedure for their child simply MUST be ok’d by their guardian. However, many states allow other medical procedures ot be sought out by minors without any parental consent. > [@](#): > > ``` > * Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia grant all minors the authority to consent to contraceptive services. Approximately eleven other states grant most minors this authority (AGI, 2004a). > > * Thirty-four states and the District of Columbia authorize a pregnant minor to obtain prenatal care and delivery services without parental consent or notification (AGI, 2004b). > > * All 50 states and the District of Columbia give minors the authority to consent to the diagnosis and treatment of sexually transmitted infections (AGI, 2004c). > > ``` > > Many of these laws allow minors to give consent to treatments that involve greater medical risk than a first-trimester abortion, such as surgical interventions during pregnancy and cesarean sections. Nevertheless, many of these same states require parental consent for abortion. > > SOURCE: [Planned Parenthood](http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/abortion/fact-teenagers-abortion-intrusion.xml) Other details are in there on how the judicial system is inconsistent in its application of these laws (in Ohio Judicial Bypass ranged from 100% to 2% depending on the county). I am surprised at the legal eagles here who advocate for something in the law that is so inherently vague. Where the decision of the judge is more likely to be based on the judge’s personal beliefs than the law (not to say most judges would ignore the law but given the latitude and the vagueness of applying it the judge is able to fall back on personal beliefs as would seem to be the case in Ohio). As an aside I am curious to know if a minor comes to court for Judicial Bypass to seek an abortion and claims abuse at home (or perhaps rape by a parent or family member) is the judge going to turn around and send the police after the family of set DCFS on them? I find this a hard one to imagine playing out insofar as what it would mean to the minor seeking the Judicial Bypass. Assuming the judge has to act on that information (which I do not know to be the case but how could it be ignored?) does the minor understand the possible consequences to her family of her appearance in court? It might be argued that this is ultimately a good thing if abuse exists but that is laying a huge burden on the minor to offer her family up in that fashion even if they do deserve it. What if she lies? After DCFS turns her family upside down do they prosecute the minor for lying under oath? On the face of it and can see why a parent would expect to be notified but you do not have to look very far to see that requiring this by law is a mess. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2005, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190/164 "2005-05-31T14:55:51Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > And some states require notification of BOTH parents. Although states may have such laws on the books, I’m thinking that the Supreme Court in _Bellotti v. Baird_, 443 U. S. 622 (1979), struck down laws requiring that both parents be notified. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2005, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190/165 "2005-05-31T14:58:05Z")
Thanks for pointing that out, Bricker. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2005, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190/166 "2005-05-31T15:08:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Although states may have such laws on the books, I’m thinking that the Supreme Court in _Bellotti v. Baird_, 443 U. S. 622 (1979), struck down laws requiring that both parents be notified. IANAL but it does not look like requiring both parents to be notified was specifically struck down by \* Bellotti v. Baird\*. Perhaps you could give a better analysis as the quote below is too brief. > [@](#): > > Bellotti v. Baird et al. > 443 U.S. 622 (1979) > Docket Number: 78-330 > Abstract > > _\_ > > **Conclusion** > > The Court found the statute unconstitutional for two reasons. First, it allowed judicial authorization for an abortion to be withheld from a minor who is mature and competent enough to make the decision independently. Second, it required parental notification in all cases (parents were required to be notified if their daughter initiated proceedings in superior court) without allowing the minor to seek an independent judicial assessment of her competence to decide the abortion issue. > > SOURCE: [http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/35/](http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/35/) ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2005, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190/167 "2005-05-31T19:02:03Z")
To be fair, reading up further on this it looks as if the case (_Hodgson v. Minnesota_) cited in my quotes in my earleir post got the SCOTUS to throw out the requirments that both parents be notified. I did find some interesting stuff from the American Psychological Association (apparently the some of the opinions in the SCOTUS case _Hodgson v. Minnesota_ relied in large part on the amicus brief the APA provided [cite](http://www.apa.org/psyclaw/hodgson.html) ). It appears that there is no evidence to suggest that by-and-large adolescents are incapable of making competent medical decisions for themselves. Interestingly, girls who choose abortion as an option are considered more mature and competent than girls who do not. > [@](#): > > Psychological theory and research on cognitive, social, and moral development support the finding that adolescents, as a group, are able to understand, reason, and make decisions about important life situations. > > ``` > * Research on pregnancy-related decision-making abilities, and more general studies on cognitive and social development, support the view that by middle adolescence (ages 14 to 15) minors have developed many adult-like intellectual and social capacities (Ambuel, 1995; Ambuel & Rappaport, 1992; Lewis, 1987; Mann et al., 1989). These capacities include the specific abilities necessary for understanding treatment alternatives, considering risks and benefits, and giving legally competent consent. It is important to note that the ability to make a legally competent decision is not equivalent to making an intelligent, mature, or right decision (O'Keefe & Jones, 1990). Adults, like adolescents, can make decisions that are not in their best interests or are considered immature by others. > > * When comparing adolescents to adults, research has found that adolescents who considered abortion were generally as competent as legal adults in their decision-making; however, adolescents under age 15 who did not consider abortion were generally found to be less competent in their decision-making than adults (Ambuel & Rappaport, 1992). > > * It is also noteworthy that almost all adolescents who exercise the judicial bypass option provided in parental consent/notification laws governing abortion are successful in obtaining court permission to forgo parental involvement (Ambuel, 1995; Crosby & English, 1991; Pliner & Yates, 1992). Nearly 90 percent of the minors who use judicial bypass procedures are ages 16 and 17; and in those cases where minors were considered immature, the courts have almost always decided that the abortion was in the minor's best interest (O'Keefe & Jones, 1990). Research on sociodemographic and economic factors has found that adolescents who choose to obtain abortions tend to be relatively well-educated, white, unmarried residents of the northeast or west, and either in school or working (Stevans et al., 1992). There is also evidence to suggest that adolescents who choose abortion are more mature and competent than those who decide to carry the pregnancy to term (Ambuel & Rappaport, 1992). > > ``` > > SOURCE: [American Psychological Association](http://www.apa.org/ppo/issues/pparentalconsent.html) Other good stuff on this issue at that link…wish I could quote it all. I have yet to see any reason for parental notification laws beyond a knee jerk reaction from parents that they should just know no matter what their child’s opinion on the matter is. On the flip side there is a great deal of evidence to suggest parental notification laws do more harm than good…pretty much across the board (to the young woman, the family, doctors, society). They haven’t even been shown to decrease abortions in the states that have these laws. Just an all around bad idea. Parental notification laws should be removed across the board except, perhaps, for mentally retarded women (at least there a serious case can be made that the young woman does not have the capacity to make decisions such as this). ---
**Author:** ![1010011010](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/1/ea666f/32.png) [@1010011010](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/1010011010)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2005, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190/168 "2005-05-31T23:22:34Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Just so we are on the same page here I hold my position fairly strongly for girls up to age 14 or 15. Would it change your position at all if we required parental notification for girls under 14? I will come back and respond to your points if you still disagree but we may be wasting our time here. In those cases where the minor has cause to wish to maintain their privacy (as opposed to maintaining their privacy for its own sake, a justification I assume you do not agree is valid), the consequences of violating that privacy will be more severe, not less, as the age of the minor decreases. In any event, 14 is no less arbitrary than 18. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2005, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190/169 "2005-06-01T01:54:52Z")
> [@1010011010](#): > > In any event, 14 is no less arbitrary than 18. Per my cite above the American Psychological Association is on your side as well and not with **Treis** (they even specifically cite 14-15 year old girls). ---
**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:** [June 1, 2005, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190/170 "2005-06-01T05:36:49Z")
> [@](#): > > Gee, now that you put it that way, it’s a mystery why anyone would ever want to have sex. Well, perhaps it would involve a more stable, long-term relationship, or at least someone in a position to provide financial support. I’d think that would be kind of vital, given what a parent-phobic teenager is risking. And of course, when two self-sufficient adults are invovled, there’s no reason they wouldn’t want to have sex. > [@](#): > > I can’t wait to hear your take on skiing or football. Can’t say I take a very high view of any high-risk, low-reward behavior. > [@](#): > > Not necessarily. But then, I’d never equate teenagers to mentally disabled people. Nor would I. But it puts to the lie your presumption that sexual maturity necessarily indicates mental/emotional maturity. > [@](#): > > 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. Nor would a parental notification law require a minor to take one course of action or another. The point would be to put the decision in the hands of a person regarded by law as the party responsible for the pregnant one’s care. If the law doesn’t consider the person responsible in other ways, how does getting pregnant suddenly imbue her (in the eyes of the law) with the sound judgement to make the decision to abort or to carry to term? ---
**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:** [June 1, 2005, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190/171 "2005-06-01T07:25:11Z")
> [@cmkeller](#): > > Nor would I. But it puts to the lie your presumption that sexual maturity necessarily indicates mental/emotional maturity. Of course there are exceptions, but what do you expect when you’re making generalizations based on age? Everyone matures at a different rate, and some people never mature at all. The possibility that a mentally incompetent adult might get pregnant has no more impact on a line drawn at puberty than one drawn at 14 or 18. > [@](#): > > If the law doesn’t consider the person responsible in other ways, how does getting pregnant suddenly imbue her (in the eyes of the law) with the sound judgement to make the decision to abort or to carry to term? Because she’s affected by that decision more than anyone else. It’s her body. If the law doesn’t consider her responsible in other ways, that indicates a problem with the law. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2005, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190/172 "2005-06-01T12:11:18Z")
> [@cmkeller](#): > > If the law doesn’t consider the person responsible in other ways, how does getting pregnant suddenly imbue her (in the eyes of the law) with the sound judgement to make the decision to abort or to carry to term? This suggests the pregnant young woman in question only has herself or her parent(s) to rely on for advice in this matter which is untrue. Studies have shown that young women considering abortion nearly always seek advice of others. You can quibble opver the value of the advice given (such as seeking advice from the boyfriend who impregnated her) but the young woman rarely if ever makes decisions on abortion without any guidance whatsoever. That does not even take inot account the counseling many women’s health clinics offer and perhaps even mandate before an abortion is provided. > [@](#): > > Among the respondents who did not inform their parents of their pregnancies, all consulted someone in addition to clinic staff about their abortions, such as their boyfriend (89 percent), an adult (52 percent), or a professional (22 percent). (Henshaw & Kost, 1992) > > SOURCE: [http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/abortion/fact-teenagers-abortion-intrusion.xml](http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/abortion/fact-teenagers-abortion-intrusion.xml) ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2005, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190/173 "2005-06-01T12:36:52Z")
Can a parent force or bar their child from getting an abortion (assuming the young woman’s wishes run counter to her paret’s wishes)? I really do not know but am curious. Can a parent force any medical procedure on their children? For instance, perhaps a sibling needs a bone marrow transplant and one of the other children has matching marrow. For whatever reason the potential marrow donor does not want to go through the procedure. Can a parent force their child to do it anyway? Taken the other way suppose the parents have religious beliefs that lead them to avoid any medical intervention but their teenager decides the appendix that is now causing them a ton of pain and will ultimately kill them unless removed decides to go to the hospital and have it done anyway. Can the parents stop the hospital from performing an appendectomy? (Just examples to illustrate what I am on about) This would seem to go to how the law views the ability of a minor to make medical decisions. If the minor cannot be forced/prevented into a medical procedure it would seem the law thinks they can make their own decisions and is merely trying to force consultation with parental notification laws. Genuinely curious on this point…I have no clue. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-scotus-takes-on-an-abortion-case/305190.md?page=8)