Constitutional Background & Issues
In the landmark case, Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that women have the right to an abortion, under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. An earlier case, Griswold v. Connecticut, set a precedent for Roe v. Wade, allowing the Supreme Court to reach similar decisions, in each case. Griswold established that the government could not create laws forbidding health care practitioners from giving married couples advice about their reproductive health, including the prescription of contraceptives. The law was unconstitutional, as the government has no role in regulating married couples’ personal lives, including their decisions concerning reproduction. In Roe v. Wade, the Court declared that any state, that had an outright ban of abortion, violated the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee of privacy rights. The choice to have an abortion is personal, and government has no role in dictating private matters. However, Roe v. Wade allowed state governments to regulate abortions if the fetus could survive outside of the womb (has viability), unless the pregnancy was found to endanger the health of the mother. If the fetus could not survive outside the womb, no state could regulate its abortion.
At “A Minor’s Right to Choose,” we are concerned with the constitutionality of laws that limit a minor’s ability to make independent decisions about abortion. A minor is a citizen, regardless of their age, and should not be denied an opportunity freely given to older women. Though there may be a compelling state interest to limit minors’ rights, such as free speech/press in schools, the right of very young children to consent to medical treatment, and the right to vote, there is no interest when it comes to requiring parental notification and/or consent when a teenager chooses to have an abortion. Once a minor reaches the age that they can bear children, they are capable of making more complex decisions, especially when it comes to their own bodies. There is a difference between allowing a 7-year-old child, or a teenager, to consent to a medical procedure. A teenager is likely to be more worldly than a young child, and has more awareness of the consequences of their actions. As such, young women should be entrusted with making independent decisions regarding the abortion procedure, without being required to divulge personal information to their parent(s) and/or be forced to hand over the final decision to their parent(s).
In irony, most states allow teenagers to consent to prenatal care, treatment for STDs, putting their child up for adoption, and delivery by cesarean section (which is far more dangerous than the abortion procedure), without any parental involvement or notification, whatsoever. If the states trust young women to make all of these decisions, privately, then there is no compelling state interest to require any parental involvement concerning abortions, as the state has acknowledged that women of this age are capable of making decisions regarding their bodies, especially as it applies to reproduction. Clearly, this information shows that the state governments that oppose abortions are pushing their beliefs onto their populace, limiting individual rights to an abortion in any way they can. As it stands, notification/consent laws should be unconstitutional.
At “A Minor’s Right to Choose,” we are concerned with the constitutionality of laws that limit a minor’s ability to make independent decisions about abortion. A minor is a citizen, regardless of their age, and should not be denied an opportunity freely given to older women. Though there may be a compelling state interest to limit minors’ rights, such as free speech/press in schools, the right of very young children to consent to medical treatment, and the right to vote, there is no interest when it comes to requiring parental notification and/or consent when a teenager chooses to have an abortion. Once a minor reaches the age that they can bear children, they are capable of making more complex decisions, especially when it comes to their own bodies. There is a difference between allowing a 7-year-old child, or a teenager, to consent to a medical procedure. A teenager is likely to be more worldly than a young child, and has more awareness of the consequences of their actions. As such, young women should be entrusted with making independent decisions regarding the abortion procedure, without being required to divulge personal information to their parent(s) and/or be forced to hand over the final decision to their parent(s).
In irony, most states allow teenagers to consent to prenatal care, treatment for STDs, putting their child up for adoption, and delivery by cesarean section (which is far more dangerous than the abortion procedure), without any parental involvement or notification, whatsoever. If the states trust young women to make all of these decisions, privately, then there is no compelling state interest to require any parental involvement concerning abortions, as the state has acknowledged that women of this age are capable of making decisions regarding their bodies, especially as it applies to reproduction. Clearly, this information shows that the state governments that oppose abortions are pushing their beliefs onto their populace, limiting individual rights to an abortion in any way they can. As it stands, notification/consent laws should be unconstitutional.
Impact on Minors
Each year, about 350,000 teenagers, under the age of 18, become pregnant. Eighty-two percent of these pregnancies are unintended. If they become pregnant, teenagers have many options, when it comes to making decisions about their next steps. Some decide to keep the baby, put the baby up for adoption, or have an abortion. However, teenagers' final decisions often are limited by the permission of one or both of their parents. Twenty-six states require one or both parents to provide consent for their daughter's abortion procedure. Eleven states require that one or both parents be notified before the procedure takes place. For teenagers who do not feel that they can turn to their parents for permission, these state laws can be damaging.
According to a study done by Henshaw & Kost, 22% of teenagers who did not tell their parent about their decision to have an abortion feared that they would be "kicked out" of their family home. About 8% believed that they would be physically abused, as their parent(s) had beaten them before. Twelve percent did not live with either of their parents, and 14% had parents who abused drugs and/or alcohol.
In Colorado, one of the first teenagers required to notify her parent about her abortion decision, was left homeless by her mother. Angered by her daughter's pregnancy, and the perceived lack of morality behind her decision, the mother took the money her child had saved for the abortion, and threatened to disown her if she went through with the procedure. When the teenager made a call to the local abortion clinic, to reschedule her appointment, it was found that she was living in her friend's car. Though the Colorado law was intended to help minors make informed decisions about abortion, it, in this case, ruined the teenager's relationship with her mother, and put her in a disadvantaged situation.
Though teenagers are allowed to go to court for a waiver of the parental consent/notification requirements, this situation is often intimidating. Without any guidance, teenagers must reveal the details of their personal lives, to strangers, in court. A teenager is likely to feel fear, when faced with talking to a judge about anything, let alone their unwanted pregnancy and pending abortion.
Among other issues, teenagers are more likely to have an abortion in a later trimester than older women. Restricting teenagers' access to abortions often cause further delays. After Missouri's parental consent law was enacted, the proportion of second-trimester abortions, among minors, increased by 17%. Late abortions entail more medical risks, are more expensive, and fewer doctors are willing to perform them.
Restricting access to abortions, through requirements of parental involvement, make it less likely that teenagers will seek out an abortion. Though notification/consent laws may have been intended to guide young women to making a responsible decision about abortion, it has created consequences that may do more damage to a teenager than free access to an abortion ever would. Teenagers, especially those who are are in difficult family and economic situations, find it difficult to adequately provide for a child. They must suffer the physical, emotional, economic, and social costs of childbearing at such a young age. If their decision was not restricted, they may not have been put in such a difficult situation, in the first place. It has been shown that teenage mothers are less likely to be financially successful in life, as having a child limits their educational opportunities, and therefore their access to many career paths.
According to a study done by Henshaw & Kost, 22% of teenagers who did not tell their parent about their decision to have an abortion feared that they would be "kicked out" of their family home. About 8% believed that they would be physically abused, as their parent(s) had beaten them before. Twelve percent did not live with either of their parents, and 14% had parents who abused drugs and/or alcohol.
In Colorado, one of the first teenagers required to notify her parent about her abortion decision, was left homeless by her mother. Angered by her daughter's pregnancy, and the perceived lack of morality behind her decision, the mother took the money her child had saved for the abortion, and threatened to disown her if she went through with the procedure. When the teenager made a call to the local abortion clinic, to reschedule her appointment, it was found that she was living in her friend's car. Though the Colorado law was intended to help minors make informed decisions about abortion, it, in this case, ruined the teenager's relationship with her mother, and put her in a disadvantaged situation.
Though teenagers are allowed to go to court for a waiver of the parental consent/notification requirements, this situation is often intimidating. Without any guidance, teenagers must reveal the details of their personal lives, to strangers, in court. A teenager is likely to feel fear, when faced with talking to a judge about anything, let alone their unwanted pregnancy and pending abortion.
Among other issues, teenagers are more likely to have an abortion in a later trimester than older women. Restricting teenagers' access to abortions often cause further delays. After Missouri's parental consent law was enacted, the proportion of second-trimester abortions, among minors, increased by 17%. Late abortions entail more medical risks, are more expensive, and fewer doctors are willing to perform them.
Restricting access to abortions, through requirements of parental involvement, make it less likely that teenagers will seek out an abortion. Though notification/consent laws may have been intended to guide young women to making a responsible decision about abortion, it has created consequences that may do more damage to a teenager than free access to an abortion ever would. Teenagers, especially those who are are in difficult family and economic situations, find it difficult to adequately provide for a child. They must suffer the physical, emotional, economic, and social costs of childbearing at such a young age. If their decision was not restricted, they may not have been put in such a difficult situation, in the first place. It has been shown that teenage mothers are less likely to be financially successful in life, as having a child limits their educational opportunities, and therefore their access to many career paths.