About
Learn More about our progressive online community for the Granite State.

Create an account today (it's free and easy) and get started!
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Search




Advanced Search


The Masthead
Managing Editor
Mike Hoefer

Editors
elwood
susanthe
William Tucker
The Roll, Etc.
Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch paper
Democracy for NH
Granite State Progress
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Pickup Patriots
Re-BlueNH
Still No Going Back
Susan the Bruce
New Hampshire Labor News
Chaz Proulx: Right Wing Watch

Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Landrigan
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes

Campaigns, Et Alia.
NH-Gov
- Maggie Hassan
NH-01
- Andrew Hosmer
- Carol Shea-Porter
- Joanne Dowdell
NH-02
- Ann McLane Kuster

ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC

National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo

50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Rhode Island
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

The Politics of Parental Notification

by: judy stadtman

Sat Sep 04, 2010 at 13:54:04 PM EDT


( - promoted by Dean Barker)

It's a relief to learn that Katrina Swett has reversed her position on requiring parental notification for teens seeking abortion. While Ann McLane Kuster clearly has a stronger record on protecting women's health and reproductive rights, it's important to acknowledge that many NH voters who consider themselves pro-choice feel conflicted about upholding the legal right of minors to receive confidential medical treatment.

As usual, hard-core social conservatives and anti-choice politicians have blown the issue of parental notification wildly out of proportion to what happens in the real world.  

judy stadtman :: The Politics of Parental Notification
Today, nearly 70 percent of U.S. teens are sexually active by the time they graduate from high school - and Granite State youth are no exception. (This figure actually represents a slight decline in teen sexual activity since the 1980s.) The great news is that New Hampshire has the lowest teen pregnancy rate in the nation. According to the Guttmacher Institute, teens between the ages of 15-17 account for just 5 percent of abortions provided in the state. Among teenagers who have abortions, six in ten involve a parent or trusted adult in making the decision.

Which means that this year, fewer than 70 teens who obtain an abortion in New Hampshire will do so without a parent's knowledge - compared to over 15,300 high school students who probably will not inform their parents that they recently engaged in binge-drinking, or more than 5,400 teens who aren't planning to tell mom & dad that they have first-hand experience with the dangerous combination of drinking and driving.

Every parent worries about the health and safety of their child at every age and stage of development. As the parent of two teenage sons and a person who was once a teenager herself, I can verify that children take risks and are capable of demonstrating an appalling lack of judgment when it comes to preserving their personal wellbeing. But parental notification and consent laws, which are currently in place in 34 states, are not designed to address an urgent public or child health risk - in fact, current research suggests that parental notification requirements increase the risk of adverse health outcomes for teens who want to terminate a pregnancy.

Nor are these measures genuinely intended to address parents' concerns or alter adolescent sexual behavior:  there is no substantive evidence that parental notification laws improve family communication, reduce the number of teen abortions, or discourage teenagers from engaging in behavior that can lead to unintended pregnancy.

The sole intention of parental notification requirements is to restrict access to safe, legal abortion for an especially vulnerable population as a strategic step toward revoking every woman's right to make her own reproductive health decisions - including the right to decide whether and when to bear children - without interference from the state. As one frustrated pro-choice senior recently said to me, "It's still about men wanting to control women's bodies." I would only amend her observation to add that there are plenty of women in politics who built their careers on undermining other women's reproductive and civil rights.

Thanks to pro-choice leaders in Concord, New Hampshire has rejected repeated attempts to pass parental notification laws. It's unlikely that we have seen the final skirmish on that particular battlefield - even though the last major round to defend this key piece of anti-choice turf cost Granite State taxpayers $300,000. In any case, it's nice to know that Katrina Swett is finally on our side.

Warning: Public Service Announcement/Shameless Self-Promotion

The best and only way to for parents to know what's going on in their kids lives is to be available and keep the lines of communication open. Local community health organizations and agencies - including Planned Parenthood of Northern New England - offer comprehensive, accurate information about family planning and reproductive health for adolescents and adults, as well as resources for parents who want to know how to talk to their teens about sexuality and sexual health.

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Wrong. (4.00 / 1)
Every parent worries about the health and safety of their child at every age and stage of development

is a wrong statement.  Many parents sexually abuse their children and some impregnate them.  Others use them as pawns to get back at a spouse from whom they've been divorced and refuse to provide either support or consent to anything.

Pregnancy is a potentially life-threatening condition at any age.  When it is coerced, either before or after the fact, it's an assault on the integrity of the person which a society committed to human rights should not tolerate.

Most fertilized ova are, as a matter of fact aborted by the intervention of Mother Nature.  When human mentors are needed for assistance because Mother Nature was inattentive, it's another matter -- a surgical or medical termination.

Politicians being opposed to abortion are having it both ways.  It's easy to be against something over which you have absolutely no jurisdiction.  But then, Republicans have become addicted to failure.


I stand corrected... (0.00 / 0)
Every caring parent worries about their child's safety and welfare. There are physically and sexually abusive parents and non-parents in American society, and every society. It should be noted that current state-level restrictions on teen abortion access typically include exceptions for victims of incest and rape.

Pregnancy is a potentially life-threatening condition - but it is rarely fatal for healthy women who receive adequate pre-natal and post-partum care. Even women in less than optimal health who receive poor care are much more likely to survive pregnancy than not. Women who decide to terminate an unintended pregnancy - or to carry one to term - are not, in the vast majority of cases, making a choice between life and certain death. There are more credible and compelling arguments for keeping abortion safe, legal and accessible in the United States.


[ Parent ]
Some actions are not appropriate to be categorized as either legal or (4.00 / 1)
illegal.  Most individual behaviors which do not cause injury to another or to the community as a whole should not be categorized as illegal.
People who live in a bi-polar world, think everything is either/or.  That's not reality.  It's not even a matter of shades of gray in addition to black and white.  There are all the colors of the rainbow.
Anyway, medical professionals are governed by a code of conduct which creates the presumption of competence and appropriate care.  While this presumption, like the presumption of innocence, can be challenged and, indeed, there are cases where medical professionals violate the standards of their profession, it's a gross waste of time and energy to call their professional judgment into question as a matter of routine.

There is something to be said for people minding their own business.  Determining the conditions under which a pregnancy is naturally or artificially terminated is not a legislator's business.

The fact that, in the past, the pregnancies of certain populations were routinely terminated without their consent or under false pretenses is not a valid reason to impose strictures on women going forward.

This whole parental notification thing is a remnant of the belief that children are the property of their parents, a lingering example of property being assigned a higher priority than the person--a determination made necessary by the fact that having been purchased as property negated the personhood of some people.  Which accounts, in part, for why human rights are still trumped by property rights.

When it is proposed that children be removed from the custody of negligent or abusive parents, it is the parents, not the children, who are provided with legal counsel, lest they be deprived of their property without due process.  There's a reason why the United States has not subscribed to the protocol guaranteeing the rights of the child.  A considerable segment of our population still prefers that some humans not have rights.


[ Parent ]
There are very few things (4.00 / 1)
that get to my very being as a woman than any man, particularly, but also any woman who wants to tell me that I am less important than a fetus.  
When I was a teenager and lived in Massachusetts, contraception was illegal!  NO GOING BACK!  Young women today need to realize that there are people out there who would take away the rights as human beings that were so hard-fought to get, the rights that they too often take for granted.  

What do you find most effective in responding (0.00 / 0)
to the line, "The school nurse can't even give my daughter an aspirin without checking with me. Why should it be easier for her to get an abortion without my knowledge?"

I've used different arguments in response to that, but I'm not sure I have the best ammo.


the school nurse (0.00 / 0)
isn't going to give your daughter an abortion.

There is nothing to prevent your daughter from discussing it with you.  


[ Parent ]
The school nurse (4.00 / 4)
...is not forbidden from dispensing aspirin because of a desire to protect your child's health, or morality, or your parent-child relationship.  The purpose of the prohibition is to protect the school district from any potential source of a lawsuit in the event your child happens to have an adverse reaction.

It's a matter of apples and oranges, and also of smoke and mirrors.

The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. --Marcus Aurelius, courtesy of Paul Berch


[ Parent ]
about aspirin (0.00 / 0)
My retort to any Republican who repeats the school nurse/aspirin talking point is: I would support legislation allowing school nurses to dispense aspirin.  Of course any such legislation would be pretty complicated; some families don't believe in aspirin for religious or other reasons, and aspirin is a potentially hazardous drug.


[ Parent ]
I think that aspirin (4.00 / 5)
has become associated with essentially taking a sugar pill in today's society because you can buy it OTC and just about everyone has taken as aspirin before.  The reality is that it's a potentially dangerous drug that has been implicated in Reye's syndrome, stomach and other GI problems (hence the need for Bufferin), and clotting problems to name just three.

A nurse cannot be expected to know how every child will respond to aspirin or if the child hasn't just taken 10 aspirin and is now at risk for an overdose.  Without parental permission, the nurse and the school are open to liabilities they don't want and it's not safe for the kid.

Likewise, a pregnancy has potential lethal consequences for the mother, and requiring parental notification could increase the mother's risk of severe morbidity or mortality if the parents say no or take a long time to decide.  

Both of these scenarios you describe are entirely consistent with putting the health of the individual (student in one case, mom in the other case) first, which I would hope is what we want in our society.  


[ Parent ]
At the risk of being misinterpreted (4.00 / 1)
by both campaigns, I am sincerely happy to hear about the change of position on notification, something I was not aware of.

This is a good thing for everyone involved.

birch paper; on Twitter @deanbarker


I see what you mean (0.00 / 0)
http://www.bluehampshire.com/d...
I Have No Idea What Katrina Swett Supports, and That's Precisely the Problem


note to close readers: this might be sarcastic so think twice before reading to candidates for use in their attacks on each other

[ Parent ]
Do you really want to go there, JB? (0.00 / 1)
You don't.  Trust me.

[ Parent ]
bwahahahaha (0.00 / 0)
I was referring to why Dean might have said what he did, showing his general good humor and ability to change with new info. Can't a person have a private chat around here? By the way, I see the Sox won two yesterday.

note to close readers: this might be sarcastic so think twice before reading to candidates for use in their attacks on each other

[ Parent ]
Itchy Fingers (4.00 / 2)
Dave,
Dean's comment is heart felt. There's no shiv in there. Trust me.

Jon,
Easy, bro. Flipping Dave the bird is not the way to go, at this point. You know that specific diary is a trigger.

"Ill writers are usually the sharpest censors." - John Dryden


[ Parent ]
its been dull n/t (0.00 / 0)


note to close readers: this might be sarcastic so think twice before reading to candidates for use in their attacks on each other

[ Parent ]
Federal Funding (4.00 / 1)
until we get over the 'I am in favor of protecting a woman's right to choose' but 'I don't support Federal Funding for abortion' conundrum, poor and disadvantaged women will continue to be discriminated against in their health care options. Do we then automatically assume if you're poor you must have that baby, even if it will be undernourished, or sick or worse? Why do we discriminate against the poor in health care?
I assume that the healthier we are as a nation, the stronger we are as a nation.What is wrong with me? Too secular and logical?

note to close readers: this might be sarcastic so think twice before reading to candidates for use in their attacks on each other

Nope, nothing wrong with you (0.00 / 0)
Children deserve the best we can give them, and we don't even try to give them the best.  Right now the right will defend to someone's death your right to be born but after that you are on your own, and they will try to take as many rights away as they can, and make sure you stay poor if that is how you started.  

[ Parent ]
Some people are into deprivation. (0.00 / 0)
Deprivation is a threat to living well and having peace of mind.  Deprivation makes people anxious and anxious people become timid -- i.e. easier to control.  

There is an alternative to fight or flight.  It's to become paralyzed by fright.  I'm not sure why it's never mentioned.  When predators are color blind and attracted by motion, paralysis is a protective response.  


[ Parent ]
Nuthin' wrong with you (4.00 / 1)
but I think you hit it when you point out that it is difficult to construct a coherent secular or cost-benefits argument for denying federal funding for a common medical procedure - which is what abortion is, after all - that is safer and less costly than a lot of medical treatments we do consent to pay for with federal dollars.

To get there, we would somehow have to get beyond the good/evil moral dichotomy that dominates any public policy debate related to human sexuality, but most often to public policy debates that concern the sexual health and reproductive rights of women, non-whites, the young, the poor, undocumented immigrants, everyone in the LGTB community... add your example here.

In my mind, a convincing secular argument for denying or limiting access to legal abortion would need to prove that every pregnancy, from the instant of conception, has equal and intrinsic value to society apart from the new life it may potentially produce, and therefore all pregnancies merit equal protection and support from the state. Given our long social history of penalizing & discouraging the pregnancies of some women while supporting & encouraging the pregnancies of others, that's a tough argument to sell without inserting a faith-based moral standard that equates conception and gestation with personhood.  


[ Parent ]
Is it possible that there isnt a simple answer to parental notification? (4.00 / 4)

As the age of puberty descends at an alarming rate in response to environmental exposure to hormones, I wonder if there is ever a point at which the balance of equities shift to a default of parental notification.

There are very few if any serious decisions we entrust to children of the age of nine or ten because of an immaturity in judgment and an concomitant inability to understand long term consequences.

In other areas, such as the issue of who will have primary custody of the children of divorced parents, we give increasing weight to the wishes of the child (and necessarily, less weight to those of the parents and 'neutral' third parties) as children age.

So I wonder if there is or isn't a point at which the opponents of parental notification would agree that the balance shifts and the default should be more to the side of notification.

(I envy those on either side who find this to be a simple issue, as I find it to be fraught with complexity, as are most cases of competing valid concerns, and I certainly think the question of parental concern about medical treatment of children is a valid concern). I find it telling that the diary above only briefly mentions the concept of "children" before it segues into a discussion of the rights of "teenagers" and "women". I wonder  if at some point in the evolution of the onset of puberty, we will reach an age at which most people will consider the input (which of course is different from decision making power)of parents to be desirable in almost all cases.

(BTW, the question mark in the title means that this is a question, not an assertion).

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  


Healthy Kids (0.00 / 0)
I know this is slightly off-topic, but I read an article in this past Friday's Exeter Newsletter about a Newmarket candidate for State Rep, and the first program he'd like to repeal in the state is the Healthy Kids program.  It's mind-boggling to think about how far they want us to regress.


Connect with BH
     
Blue Hampshire Blog on Facebook
Powered by: SoapBlox