Outweighed by the Needs of the Few

by Jer

Republicans are against abortion until their daughters need one, and Democrats are for abortion until their daughters want one. - Grace McGarvie

I hate the abortion debate. I really do. I think most folks who get loud on both sides of the argument are morons and frankly, I just wish they would go away. Perhaps to Canada or France or better yet, Florida.

I think the Bible-thumping, judgmental, pro-life, evangelical types who say the most vile of things protesting an abortion clinic wouldn't know Jesus if He was standing right next to them.

And I think the button wearing, entitled, pro-choice, liberal types who act so enlightened their shit don't stink are ignorant to the fact that it actually does.

Now that I've leveled the playing field by pissing everybody off...

A couple of weeks ago I was trying to enjoy a cup of over-priced Starbucks coffee when I read an editorial by Cindy Richards in the Chicago Sun-Times titled, Nix parent notification law for abortion. Under normal circumstances, I don't spend a whole lot of time outside of the sports section of the Sun-Times. Clearly, they have the best sports coverage in Chicago (my hometown), but I find the rest of the newspaper - of any newspaper - to be too depressing and slanted to keep my attention for very long.

But for some reason, I found myself flipping through the entire paper on this particular day and Ms. Richards' piece caught my eye.

As the title might suggest, the author is of the pro-choice mindset and would like to see a not-yet-enacted Illinois law repealed; a law that requires parental notification anytime a girl 17-years or younger is seeking an abortion. Ms. Richards concluded her thoughts with the following:

Meanwhile, a bill that would take the edge off the parental notification law is winding its way through the Illinois Legislature. The bill would allow a teen who doesn't believe she can confide in her parents to instead tell another responsible adult about her plans to have an abortion. In the saddest of all cases, a teen who has no trusted adult in her life still would have the option of seeking permission from a judge.

If the goal of the parental notification law is to ensure a girl has sufficient support in her time of need -- and not simply a way to keep her from getting an abortion -- this bill should speed its way through the Legislature.

I'm not in the least bit interested in debating the morality of abortion. I'm not in the least bit interested in debating the reproductive rights of women. It's not that I don't care; it's just that it would be an exercise in futility. On both sides of the issue, there's nothing I can say that hasn't already been said. This is such a polarizing topic; I would imagine there are few who consider themselves "undecided."

However, I do have a problem with this Illinois law that is "winding its way through the Illinois Legislature" and any law that would remove the need for parental notification prior to any kind of non-emergent medical procedure.

So I have some questions about this proposed piece of legislation: Exactly who will determine that a teen has parents in whom she cannot confide? What's that process look like? Who makes the determination that the parents cannot be informed? And based on what criteria? Are we taking the teen's word as evidence enough that the parents should be kept in the dark?

When I was a sophomore in high school, I was playing a game of co-ed, tackle football with a bunch of kids from my church. If you've never played the 'church' version of co-ed tackle football, it's simple. Boys can tackle boys. Girls can tackle girls. Girls can tackle boys. Boys canNOT tackle girls.

The problem with co-ed sports? Boys always think they can do it better than the girls. I was no exception. While on offense, our QB threw the ball to a girl. Thinking I could do bigger and better things, I stepped in front of her, caught the ball, and started to run up-field. I didn't make it too far before Raul Cantu - a future serviceman in the first gulf war - tackled me from the left, pile driving my right shoulder into the ground.

My clavicle broke in three places. I know this because (1) it hurt and (2) with the bone being in such close proximity to my ear, I heard it break.

In the ER, the pain was so excruciating, I kept passing out. Because they needed my name, phone number and other important details, each time things started to go black, the nurse would hold smelling salts under my nose so she could finish taking her report. It was during one such episode that she asked for my home phone number so they could notify my parents. Whatever number she heard while I was starting to fall over was not mine and as a result, they couldn't reach my folks.

So there I sat, in pain, waiting for them to get permission to treat my injury. Without the parental notification, they couldn't even give me Tylenol. (After about two hours of no one answering the phone, they decided to ask me for my number again).

Getting back to the topic at hand, if Ms. Richards gets her way, a minor can have an elective surgical procedure without telling her parents; a procedure with a higher complication rate than a couple of Tylenol capsules.

I applaud her desire to protect those teens who have such short-sighted, untrustworthy parents that they can't turn to them in their greatest hour of need. Chances are a young girl's choice to not protect herself in the first place can probably be traced back to a dysfunctional home.

But those teens are the exception, not the rule, and a law like this outweighs the need of the minority (teens who cannot turn to their parents) over that of the majority (teens who can trust their parents and ultimately are better-off doing so).

And let’s also not lump-in the parents of a pregnant teen who are bound to become angry and/or disappointed (which will be most) with parents who will become abusive and unsupportive. It’s only natural that a parent would be hurt and angry in such situations; that hardly warrants a law that would enable their teen to keep them in the dark. In most cases, the anger will pass, forgiveness will settle in, and together, parent and child can make an informed, well-thought out decision that isn’t motivated by fear.

Finally, a law like this cannot be enforced with any level of equity or dependability. For that reason alone, it should stay off the books. It would simply give teenagers the freedom to abate the consequences of their actions; consequences that - in the short-run - may prove painful, but in the long-run, may pale in comparison to the result of an uninformed, unsupported, knee-jerk choice of a young girl whose body has matured faster than her ability to make a good decision.