For decades, there has been a consensus in the United States that parents should be involved in the decision to have an abortion by a minor. In the context of the inflexible framework established by Roe v. Wade, it is evident that this approach will continue to garner public support. This is likely to remain the case even in the wake of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health decision.
For example, in July of last year, Rasmussen Reports conducted a survey of 1,000 likely voters, inquiring as to whether parental permission should be required before an abortion is performed on girls under the age of 18.
By a margin of more than 2 to 1, voters believe that parental permission should be required before an abortion is performed on a girl under 18, with 60% in favour and only 29% opposed. A further 10% are not sure.
While a greater proportion of Republicans (81%) expressed support for the measure, a larger number of Democrats (42%) were in favour. One might also inquire as to the views of parents on the matter. Rasmussen offers the following commentary:
Support for parental notification is even higher, with 82% of Republicans, 48% of Democrats and 62% of unaffiliated voters believing that abortion providers should be required to notify parents before performing abortions on girls under 18. Eight-five percent (85%) of pro-life voters and 43% of pro-choice voters support parental notification.
The Denver Gazette published an editorial in favour of maintaining parental involvement in the decision-making process surrounding abortion. Those who are pro-abortion are vehemently opposed to any form of parental involvement, as this demonstrates their desire for the abortion industry to function without any disruption.
The editorial commences with the following statement:
Under Colorado law, a school cannot give a child with a fever so much as a tablet of paracetamol at the nurse’s office without written permission from a parent or guardian. It’s not always convenient, but it’s a necessary recognition of the central role parents should play in their children’s health and well-being.
It applies to medical procedures for children in Colorado – except abortion.
The editorial asks
One is compelled to inquire as to the objective of a pair of University of Colorado researchers in releasing findings indicating that one in ten minors seeking an abortion in Texas and Florida—which are among 22 states requiring parental notice—attempt to circumvent parental notification by pursuing legal action. Moreover, the researchers discovered that in 13% of such cases, the judge denied the request for a “judicial bypass.”
The proportion of cases where the judge rejected the request for a “judicial bypass” is 13% of 10%, which is a mere 1.3%. Nevertheless, the study’s authors appear to be concerned about this figure.
It is, of course, understandable that those who oppose abortion are distressed by the fact that even a few babies and their mothers are able to avoid the consequences of an abortion.
In a news release, co-author Amanda Stevenson, assistant professor of sociology at Colorado University Boulder, stated, “Those states that support abortion rights but continue to mandate parental involvement have a responsibility to consider the true consequences of those mandates.”
What are the “true consequences,” according to the editorial? In a few instances, pregnant teenagers attempted to prevent their parents from discovering their pregnancies.
The authors posit that abortion rights are under siege in Colorado. This is a gross exaggeration.
“Just last year, the Democratic majority in the legislature passed the Reproductive Health Equity Act, arguably the most permissive state abortion law in the country following last spring’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade. Democratic Governor Jared Polis signed the bill into law amid much fanfare. Abortion for adults in Colorado will remain unrestricted for the foreseeable future.
This brings us back to the issue of minors and Colorado’s parental notice law. The editorial posits that these laws are simply about ensuring that parents or guardians are at least apprised and, one hopes, engaged if their child undergoes a procedure that for many people has profound and life-changing implications.
If parents have to sign off on an aspirin, shouldn’t they at least be informed about an invasive medical procedure being performed on their 15, 14 or maybe 13-year-old child?
They conclude
The parental-notice law in Colorado is not onerous. However, it does ensure that parents are kept informed. This is a beneficial outcome.
However, for individuals such as Prof. Stevenson and her co-author Prof. Kate Coleman Minahan, it is a self-evident truth that in the majority of cases, parents are the enemies of their own children. The process of obtaining judicial approval before terminating a pregnancy, or even merely notifying one’s parents, can be a traumatic experience for young women.
In my opinion, parents are more likely to be supportive of abortion than pro-abortionists, who view them as an obstacle to their goal of increasing the abortion rate.
Daniel Miller is responsible for nearly all of National Right to Life News' political writing.
With the election of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency, Daniel Miller developed a deep obsession with U.S. politics that has never let go of the political scientist. Whether it's the election of Joe Biden, the midterm elections in Congress, the abortion rights debate in the Supreme Court or the mudslinging in the primaries - Daniel Miller is happy to stay up late for you.
Daniel was born and raised in New York. After living in China, working for a news agency and another stint at a major news network, he now lives in Arizona with his two daughters.
