Oh noes! A 25 year old girl is having an abortion. Better notify her parents!

[Zebra]

@Tuckerfan

A third option, the daughter can go out and have a backalley abortion, thus putting her life and future reproductive health in jeapordy.

Well, once we put her in jail for doing that, she shouldn’t have any babies.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@John_Mace

We had a ballot initiative in '04 in CA to impose parental notification (or was it approval?) for a minor to get an abortion, and it failed to pass.

It doesn’t really matter anyway; any parental notification requirement that doesn’t provide for an alternative route (typically requiring the child to get a judge’s approval) is almost certain to be struck down as unconstitutional.

[BrotherCadfael]

I’ve seen the same kind of blurring of age distinctions in other contexts recently - articles describing 23-year old gang members as “children”, etc. There does seem to be a trend in this country of extending childhood and adolescence to ridiculous extremes.

[John_Mace]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

It doesn’t really matter anyway; any parental notification requirement that doesn’t provide for an alternative route (typically requiring the child to get a judge’s approval) is almost certain to be struck down as unconstitutional.

In CA’s case, it did. But on what basis do you make the statement that it would be unconstitutional? Children do not have the same rights as adults, across the board. And we’re talking about girls that might be as young as 12. And. we’re talking about the present SCOTUS, right?

[Annie-Xmas]

@DianaG

Cite Warning - PDF!

Thanks DianaG. I wonder how many people reading that article will think “75% of all abortions are performed on girls between the ages of 12 and 15.” Which would be a startling epidemic.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@John_Mace

In CA’s case, it did. But on what basis do you make the statement that it would be unconstitutional? Children do not have the same rights as adults, across the board. And we’re talking about girls that might be as young as 12. And. we’re talking about the present SCOTUS, right?

Because SCOTUS has (reasonably enough) noted that a child reporting an unwanted pregnancy to her parent might be subject to physical or emotional abuse in response in some cases. Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. 416 (1983):

We turn next to 1870.05(B), the provision prohibiting a physician from performing an abortion on a minor pregnant woman under the age of 15 unless he obtains “the informed written consent of one of her parents or her legal guardian” or unless the minor obtains “an order from a court having jurisdiction over her that the abortion be performed or induced.” The District Court invalidated this provision because “*t does not establish a procedure by which a minor can avoid a parental veto of her abortion decision by demonstrating that her decision is, in fact, informed. Rather, it requires, in all cases, both the minor’s informed consent and either parental consent or a court order.” 479 F. Supp., at 1201. The Court of Appeals affirmed on the same basis. 29

The relevant legal standards are not in dispute. The Court has held that “the State may not impose a blanket provision . . . requiring the consent of a parent or person in loco parentis as a condition for abortion of an unmarried minor.” Danforth, supra, at 74. In Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622 (1979) (Bellotti II), a majority of the Court indicated that a State’s interest in protecting immature minors will sustain a requirement of a consent substitute, either parental or judicial. See id., at 640-642 (plurality opinion for four Justices); id., at 656-657 (WHITE, J., dissenting) (expressing approval of absolute parental or judicial consent requirement). See also Danforth, supra, at 102-105 (STEVENS, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). The Bellotti II plurality cautioned, however, that the State must provide an alternative procedure whereby a pregnant minor may demonstrate that she is sufficiently mature to make the abortion decision herself [462 U.S. 416, 440] or that, despite her immaturity, an abortion would be in her best interests. 443 U.S., at 643 -644. Under these decisions, it is clear that Akron may not make a blanket determination that all minors under the age of 15 are too immature to make this decision or that an abortion never may be in the minor’s best interest without parental approval.

Akron’s ordinance does not create expressly the alternative procedure required by Bellotti II. But Akron contends that the Ohio Juvenile Court will qualify as a “court having jurisdiction” within the meaning of 1870.05(B), and that “it is not to be assumed that during the course of the juvenile proceedings the Court will not construe the ordinance in a manner consistent with the constitutional requirement of a determination of the minor’s ability to make an informed consent.” Brief for Petitioner in No. 81-746, p. 28. Akron concludes that the courts below should not have invalidated 1870.05(B) on its face. The city relies on Bellotti v. Baird, 428 U.S. 132 (1976) (Bellotti I), in which the Court did not decide whether a State’s parental consent provisions were unconstitutional as applied to mature minors, holding instead that “abstention is appropriate where an unconstrued state statute is susceptible of a construction by the state judiciary `which might avoid in whole or in part the necessity for federal constitutional adjudication, or at least materially change the nature of the problem.’” Id., at 146-147 (quoting Harrison v. NAACP, 360 U.S. 167, 177 (1959)). See also H. L. v. Matheson, 450 U.S. 398 (1981) (refusing to decide whether parental notice statute would be constitutional as applied to mature minors). 30 [462 U.S. 416, 441]

We do not think that the abstention principle should have been applied here. It is reasonable to assume, as we did in Bellotti I, supra, and Matheson, supra, that a state court presented with a state statute specifically governing abortion consent procedures for pregnant minors will attempt to construe the statute consistently with constitutional requirements. This suit, however, concerns a municipal ordinance that creates no procedures for making the necessary determinations. Akron seeks to invoke the Ohio statute governing juvenile proceedings, but that statute neither mentions minors’ abortions nor suggests that the Ohio Juvenile Court has authority to inquire into a minor’s maturity or emancipation. 31 In these circumstances, we do not think that the Akron ordinance, as applied in Ohio juvenile proceedings, is reasonably susceptible of being construed to create an “opportunity for case-by-case evaluations of the maturity of pregnant minors.” Bellotti II, supra, at 643, n. 23 (plurality [462 U.S. 416, 442] opinion). We therefore affirm the Court of Appeals’ judgment that 1870.05(B) is unconstitutional.

ETA: Difficult to say whether the current Court would uphold this precedent, but it’s fairly well established and the previous (2005) iteration of SCOTUS upheld it in a New Hampshire case, IIRC.

[John_Mace]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Because SCOTUS has (reasonably enough) noted that a child reporting an unwanted pregnancy to her parent might be subject to physical or emotional abuse in response in some cases. Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. 416 (1983):

ETA: Difficult to say whether the current Court would uphold this precedent, but it’s fairly well established and the previous (2005) iteration of SCOTUS upheld it in a New Hampshire case, IIRC.

That concerns parental consent. The statistic noted above was for parental notification. Big difference.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@John_Mace

That concerns parental consent. The statistic noted above was for parental notification. Big difference.

That’s true, but you said you didn’t know if the CA initiative was for parental consent or parental notification.

Notification requirements are currently not considered unconstitutional, as you say.

[DianaG]

@John_Mace

That concerns parental consent. The statistic noted above was for parental notification. Big difference.

In theory, perhaps. In practice, not so much.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@DianaG

In theory, perhaps. In practice, not so much.

In jurisprudence. Not so much in real life, IOW.

The point I raised above - that minors can be subject to abuse as a result of informing their parents of unwanted pregnancies - is always cited in amicus briefs on these cases, and usually by the minor or Planned Parenthood or whoever (in connection with the “health of the mother” concept), and always studiously ignored by the Court.

[Cat_Fight]

Another cite

Pregnancy rates for females under age 25, including teenagers, in the United States declined in 2004 compared to 1990, according to a report released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The report says nearly 38 percent of pregnancies in 2004 were to women under age 25, down from nearly 43 percent in 1990. The proportion of pregnancies among teens under age 20 dropped from 15 percent in 1990 to 12 percent in 2004.

[Otanx]

Anyone else think it is funny that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report pregnancy rates?

-Otanx

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Otanx

Anyone else think it is funny that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report pregnancy rates?

-Otanx

I know you’re kidding, but it’s very germane to infant mortality and infant diseases and stuff like that. There all sorts of things pregnant women and foetuses can catch that nobody else can, too.

[dropzone]

@BrotherCadfael

I’ve seen the same kind of blurring of age distinctions in other contexts recently - articles describing 23-year old gang members as “children”, etc. There does seem to be a trend in this country of extending childhood and adolescence to ridiculous extremes.

My 23-yr-old daughter is trying to get financial aid for college. I have to fill out forms demonstrating how my income should not be taken into account in the decision making. I asked the lady, “She’s 23, is not my dependent, and moved out. By her age I had graduated and was already married a year. Why on earth would you think it’s my responsibility to continue paying for her schooling?”

“It’s a federal law to consider the parents’ income until the student is 24.”

“Huh? Why?”

“Because many students don’t graduate after only four years.”

“Well, yeah, but since she went to a junior college for five years without graduating… Whatever. Send me the form.”

[Bridget_Burke]

Haven’t heard from the harpies at Concerned Women for America in quite a while. The group was founded by Beverly LaHaye to fight the Equal Rights Amendment. Beverly’s hubbie is co-author of the Left Behind books; they met at Bob Jones U…

The group is against feminism, gay rights, the teaching of Evolution, etc.

And they were pioneers in warning us about The War on Christmas!

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@dropzone

“It’s a federal law to consider the parents’ income until the student is 24.”

“Huh? Why?”

“Because many students don’t graduate after only four years.”

“Well, yeah, but since she went to a junior college for five years without graduating… Whatever. Send me the form.”

This is why I haven’t been able to go to grad school. My parents paid my way through college, but wouldn’t pay for grad school, and I can’t get financial aid because they make too much money on paper.

Of course, thanks to the credit crunch, they are losing money hand over fist right now, but of course I’m old enough now anyway.