Abortion: Parental Notification

I heard that the controversy isn't over a teenager who wants an abortion, but one who needs one in an emergency. For instance, if the pregnancy has an infection to the point that the mother's health and life are endangered and her parents cannot be reached. Emergency appendetomies would be allowed in similar circumstances.

The girl's guardians would be responsible for the costs, unless they're indigent. They would be notitified unless a judge determined that to do so would place the girl in danger (history of abuse).

 

In the case of emergency, I would say that parental notification should not be required, but let me say that "I got pregnant, and I don't want Dad to find out" is not an emergency.

 

Utter nonsense. Not one in a million pregnant girls seeking an abortion, has a life endangered pregnancy. I'm betting the appendectomy would have to wait for parental permission.

 

This is very often the argument used by pro-abortionists when trying to get a new or expanded law into place that allows for more abortions. They SAY things like....well, what if its an emergency? Ive also seen the argument used about what if its the girl's father that got her pregnant? They simply are using these arguments to play on people's emotions. Once the law is passed it turns into more abortion for anyone and any reason.

Originally, Roe v Wade was supposed to be "saving women's lives who need abortions for emergencies." In practice it has really become abortion on demand for any reason.

I had to give my parental consent to have my daughter's ears pierced.....and it was more than just signing a consent form. I had to show ID and fill out a questionnaire. An abortion is a little more invasive than ear piercing.

There's no reason that a teenager should not have to get ONE of her parents to give her the permission to kill her baby.

 

In the case of emergency, I would say that parental notification should not be required, but let me say that "I got pregnant, and I don't want Dad to find out" is not an emergency. </font>[/QUOTE]That seems to be the rub, though. How are the doctors going to end up defining an emergency? My guess is that Planned Murder probably has a very liberal and loosely defined definition of emergency.

My guess is that it is the taxpayers who pay for the murder of the unborn baby. If I had a daughter who did this behind my back, I would refuse to pay and go to court before I would pay for the murder of my grandchild. That is sick.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Sick indeed.

 

Yeah, let the girl die. Oh, but then the baby dies, too...but a natural death, so that's ok.

The law allows no exceptions for emergencies. This is not about an 'on request' situation. It has happened that the baby can die in the womb, not be expelled and cause a major infection. There could be an ectopic on the verge of rupturing - what should the doctors do if the parents cannot be reached? If the girl is unconcious and unable to provide the information, do they let her die?

I think you simply made up that statistic, but no matter...what about the million and first girl for whom it is a genuine emergency? The first million would be refused, the one would die. The law as currently enacted does not allow for the exception. That is the problem.

You lose. If the appendix has ruptured, the emergency is immediate and life-threatening. When the parents are unreachable, the doctors don't simply allow the child to die.

It wouldn't, of course. The parents would only not be notified after the fact if there was a court order which is far different from the emergency situation.

 

Aborttion is surgery. Many women die in these clinics. The abortion rights folks have made sure that clinics are almost completely unregulated. And therefore we don't get very good data on the risks. I know one mans whose daughter came home and died. Her uterus was perforated by the insterments and she was slowly bleeding to death and did not know it. This is a major porcedure and dangerous. How dare anyone operate on a minor and not have to have parental notification.

 

So doesn't that undercut one of the reasons for an exception to parental notficiation laws - or is an allegedly abusive parent not expected to be abusive after an abortion compared to being notified before an abortion? </font>[/QUOTE]Huh? There are two reasons that I can think of - the emergency, non-abusive situtation and the non-emergency, abusive situation. In the first case, the parents would be notified as soon as possible and they would probably incur the expense - unless they were never found, in which case the taxpayers may get the bill. In the second case, if the girl wants an abortion AND gets a court order for non-notification, she would probably have to pay cash up front.

I suppose you could also have an emergency, abusive situtation, but practically speaking, I think the parents would be notified before the girl could get the abortion - unless she got the order before it became an emergency.

 

That's not what a strawman is.

How do you figure that? If the girl has a court order and pays cash, how is the parent going to find out?

I believe the reason is concern for the girl's safety.

 

Thousands of dollars for an operation? I don't think abortions really cost that much...

 

It's hard to believe that anyone who is a parent would argue against parental notification.

 

My daughter had to get my written permission to go on a 120 mile round trip...and to think that some folks say it's ok for a teenager to be able to have a major operation without a parents notification...come on!

An abortion will cost between $850-$1,000...which most teenagers probably don't have in the piggy banks.