Do we even know for sure that the daughter truly did not give informed consent?
If not, are we truly suggesting that prison is the appropriate response for us not knowing?
If we are not suggesting that the mother should be sent to prison because “we don’t know if her daughter gave informed consent”, then what are you thinking?
The reference doesn’t say what the pills are. Ironically, the “morning after pill” can make you quite sick with cramps and nausea. Quoting some random site on the internet:
In contrast, the currently controversial ‘abortion pills’ that I know about have the advantage that they normally have fewer/lesser side effects when used as a “morning after pill” (to prevent conception and implantation).
Whether the daughter consented or not has nothing to do with the mothers’ actions being a crime. The crime is that she administered an abortion when she is not a trained physician, using illegally imported medication from Europe. There would not even be a prescription.
To tell the truth, the daughter’s consent didn’t even cross my mind when I read the OP. I took for granted that the article was accurate, and the teen did not want the child, and assumed that meant she wanted an abortion.
Exactly this…
Not sure if the sperm donor is mentioned in all of this - but if it were me, I would drive her to the clinic in a heartbeat - hell, I’d borrow the money from my parents, boss, uncles whatever to pay for a taxi. Worst came worst - I’d buy a bloody trailer for my bike and cycle there.
Furthermore - as a classmate I wouldn’t hesitate to drive her there. I had my own car at 16, and lived in a rural area - had I known one of my classmates to be pregnant I wouldn’t hesitate a moment to drive her to the clinic (even though it would have been illegal for me to have her in the car at the time).
It’s not very fair to judge unless you know the full story - but it seems as though there was a bit of laziness at play here.
Let’s put this a slightly different way - what if the mother had procured illegal slimming pills for her daughter, who then got sick - would anyone be as sympathetic in that situation?
We can simultaneously decry the lack of easy access to abortion and also call the mum out for doing something dangerous and illegal that needs to be punished.
I was pretty sure that’s what I was doing…
According to other articles, PA requires abortion patients to wait 24 hours after initial counseling by the provider. So the woman would have had to stay in a hotel with her daughter overnight, which she says she couldn’t afford, or drive her the the town with the clinic twice. She says she couldn’t do the latter because she and her husband have one car between them.
Under the circumstances, I wouldn’t say she was forced to do what she did but it certainly shows why the 24 hour cooling off period laws are a terrible idea.
It’s too easy to say, especially for the middle class, that having to stay overnight in a motel or using the family’s only car, is something she could have done. There are plenty of working class and working poor families that have to live paycheck to paycheck. For them the cost of a cheap motel is that week’s groceries or light bill. Taking the car could mean the other parent misses work or is late for work, either of which could cost them a job the family desperately needs. I think this case highlights how the “24 hour cooling off period” and other abortion restrictions are an unfair economic burden on many.
I was under the impression the entire point of the 24 hour wait was to make abortions harder to achieve. Of course this difficulty is vastly greater for the poor, but anti-abortioners don’t care at all about this. Not a particle. Because to them every single baby carried to term is a victory over evil. Its economic status and probable future are not their concern in any way.