By Dave Andrusko
As the in-house think-tank for the abortion industry, the Guttmacher Institute’s response to any parental involvement in their minor daughter’s decision whether to abort would be, of course, a thunderous thumbs-down.
I can’t know this but as likely as not the report’s timing is geared to have an impact—that is, derail–the strong movement in Florida to require parental consent. That and what Guttmacher says is the introduction in four states of attempt to repeal parental involvement laws.
How they reach their conclusion is worth pondering for a few minutes.
“’Parental Involvement’ Mandates for Abortion Harm Young People, But Policymakers Can Fight Back” is the headline of the study, first officially published online today. Notice “Parental Involvement” is in quotation marks, as if the very idea that parents should not be in the dark requires something resembling air quotes to signal the absurdity of it all.
Here’s the opening paragraph which captures Guttmacher’s conclusions. Sophia Naide writes
Young people deserve access to the full spectrum of sexual and reproductive health care, including abortion care. Yet, states have long imposed special barriers by forcing minors to involve their parents in their decision to have an abortion. These parental involvement mandates are unnecessary, deny young people’s bodily autonomy, and can add logistical and financial burdens to abortion care.
We understand that for these folks, there is no teenage too young to require that their parents be given a heads-up. That they might know something about their minor daughter your local Planned Parenthood “counselor” wouldn’t is so absurd, so irrelevant to Guttmacher (formerly Planned Parenthood’s ‘special affiliate’) that it does not require a rebuttal.
Noteworthy is this throwaway paragraph:
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the constitutional right to abortion applies to minors, but that states may pass parental involvement laws if they include a judicial bypass, a process that allows young people to seek a waiver from a court.
But state laws DO include judicial bypass provisions. So what’s the problem? Naide tells us
Some states have amplified the burden of these laws in the decades since the Supreme Court’s ruling by requiring involvement of both parents or requiring parents to show identification, proof of parenthood or a notarized statement” (aka “special hoops,” in Guttmacherese).
So, if a state does anything to actually make sure parents are actually involved—as opposed to merely going through the motions—Guttmacher and its erstwhile patron, Planned Parenthood, have a conniption. And without rehearsing the experiences of the last 40 years, I can assure you that the Abortion Industry does everything in its considerable power to negate parental involvement, regardless of what state law requires.
What Naide variously describes as “special barriers” or “special hoops” resulting in “forced parental involvement” is a backhanded acknowledgment that even the Supreme Court grasps that the “bodily autonomy” of a teenage girl is different from that of an adult woman.
The real reason for the Abortion Industry’s feigned concern for teenagers is access to a population, fewer of whom are having abortions than was the case not so many years ago. To Guttmacher. Planned Parenthood, and the National Abortion Federation, it is a colossal disappointment that more teenagers are carrying their babies to term.
If they can just keep those useless barriers (i.e., parents) out of the way, who knows there might be a return to the good old days when a high percentage of adolescents aborted their babies.
But we won’t let that happen. And, in places such as Florida, we will move forward to make sure there is a better and more realistic opportunities for parents to help their minor daughters at a time of crisis.