Mandatory Notifications Laws Options

[*AngelicEyz00*]

Okay, I hope there's not another topic on this.

I've been online recently reading up on California's Proposition 73. You can read about it by going to the following link:

http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/bp_nov05/vo...df/entire73.pdf
[you need adobe acrobat reader to view that]

Anyway, Californians will be voting in November, and this is one of the props we'll either pass or not pass. Now that I'm 18, I can vote No on Prop 73 haha. Anyway...

Currently, in the state of California, minors receive abortion services to the same extent as adults. They can get an abortion without having to worry about their parents finding out, because it is kept confidential from them.

If this proposition is passed, however, minors will be prohibited from receiving an abortion until a physician notifies their parent/guardian 48 hours prior to the procedure. The only way this notice can be waived is if it's a medical emergency or if the minor goes to court.

There's a lot more to this that you can read about in that link.

Realistically speaking, in my opinion, this is only going to make things worse. If I were a minor, and I was seeking to get an abortion, I'd be pretty scared that my parents would have to be notified. So, to avoid this, I'd go find someone who would perform the abortion legally... you know, a "back alley" abortion. That brings me to this:

http://ppfa.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/we...-becky-bell.xml
It's a short article about a girl who dies from an illegal abortion, which she sought because of the enforced notification laws in her state.

Okay, anyway. I lost my train of thought, but I'm willing to debate on this issue, so let's go.

And this isn't really a debate on abortion, it's a debate on whether or not this notification law should or should not be enforced in the state of CA... or anywhere else, for that matter.

P.S. Please READ this before you reply to this topic :
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/bp_nov05/vo...df/entire73.pdf

[*kryogenix*]

I have a feeling this is going to degenerate into an abortion debate.

I think the parents have a right to know, as long as they have custody of the minor. Emancipated minors shouldn't need to notify their parents, but as long as the parents are responsible for the welfare of their children, they have the right to know if their child is having an abortion.

[*Programmer*]

well the united states of america feels that the teen pregnancy rate is to high elba.... and are willing to hit major cities with prop 73 in order to make kids think twice about making mistakes...or decisions with there lovers/"freinds" also they are trying to get the parents invovled because "THEY ARE YOUR PARENTS" it's the job to hold you under there roof until your 18...therefore they are held responsible if anything goes on in your love live weather you like it or not.... i feel that prop 73 is a great way to give these teens a wake up call...

[sadolakced acid]

and if this passes california will see an increase in teen suicides, teen runaways, and surrounding states will see an increase in teen abortions.

[Mulder]

^good point.

not that i dont believe that a parent shouldn't have some control over their child..but i think if they're...16 or older, than they should be able to get an abortion with a parent being notified. its not like 18 is the set age for everything.... an adult can have sex with any minor above the age of 16 anyway.


i like 16. if you're old enough to drive, you're old enough to have an abortion.

[warriors1035]

= |

theres a preagnant 8th grader in my school.... i think

[artislife90]

I completely support it. The Parents should know if their child is getting such an operation.

[*kryogenix*]

and if this passes california will see an increase in teen suicides, teen runaways, and surrounding states will see an increase in teen abortions.

Evidence that supports this?

[simx]

Evidence that supports this?

I think that's just his opinion....

[yummy_delight]

theres a preagnant 8th grader in my school.... i think

Get the hell out.

I agree that mandatory notification is a bad idea. Although the law clashes with a few of my ethical concerns, its passing could involve more serious consequences to pregnant teenagers. Adolescents naturally want to keep things from their parents, especially big issues like sex and pregnancy. Should this law pass, truly determined teens would do anything and everything to get rid of the problem without notifying their guardians. They could attempt to get back alley abortions or even worse, attempt one themselves. Depressed teenage girls could potentially resort to suicide.

Sometimes we have to look past certain issues and focus on the matters at hand, like the health and lives of pregnant teenagers.

[*kryogenix*]

Get the hell out. 

I agree that mandatory notification is a bad idea. Although the law clashes with a few of my ethical concerns, its passing could involve more serious consequences to pregnant teenagers. Adolescents naturally want to keep things from their parents, especially big issues like sex and pregnancy. Should this law pass, truly determined teens would do anything and everything to get rid of the problem without notifying their guardians. They  could attempt to get back alley abortions or even worse, attempt one themselves. Depressed teenage girls could potentially resort to suicide.

Sometimes we have to look past certain issues and focus on the matters at hand, like the health and lives of pregnant teenagers.

Is it right for the teenagers to hide things from their parents?

Their parents need to know their child's medical history. And if kids weren't having sex before they are ready to have children, we wouldn't have this problem.

[*mipadi*]

And if kids weren't having sex before they are ready to have children, we wouldn't have this problem.

The question is, how does that deal with the matter at hand, that being pregnant teenagers? Do mandatory notification laws directly contribute to a lower teen sex/pregnancy rate?

[yummy_delight]

Is it right for the teenagers to hide things from their parents?

Of course not. But, let's face it. We've all done it at some point or another and it will continue to happen forever. There's no way of stopping teens from lying to their parents.

And if kids weren't having sex before they are ready to have children, we wouldn't have this problem.

True. But, the mandatory law isn't going to stop these girls from having sex. They won't stop before having sex and think "You know what? I should probably hold this off until I'm legally an adult, or else Prop 73 is coming to whoop my ass." If STD's can't stop teens from having sex, what makes you think a law will?

[*AngelicEyz00*]

Kids having sex before they're ready to have children isn't an issue; kids having sex without taking the necessary precautions is an issue.

[mai_z]

well the united states of america feels that the teen pregnancy rate is to high elba.... and are willing to hit major cities with prop 73 in order to make kids think twice about making mistakes...or decisions with there lovers/"freinds" also they are trying to get the parents invovled because "THEY ARE YOUR PARENTS" it's the job to hold you under there roof until your 18...therefore they are held responsible if anything goes on in your love live weather you like it or not.... i feel that prop 73 is a great way to give these teens a wake up call...

No teenager's gonna have stop having sex because of something like this. No teenager expects to get pregnant, it happens, and it's going to continue to happen. Mandatory notification just pushes teenagers to go to shady places where they're not going to follow the law anyways, so they're not going to follow any laws on abortion procedures and standards, etc.

[*kryogenix*]

The question is, how does that deal with the matter at hand, that being pregnant teenagers? Do mandatory notification laws directly contribute to a lower teen sex/pregnancy rate?

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. And maybe if teens knew that they wouldn't be able to hide an abortion from their parents, they would be less willing to have sex/get pregnant.

Of course not. But, let's face it. We've all done it at some point or another and it will continue to happen forever. There's no way of stopping teens from lying to their parents.

So you're saying it's wrong, but since everyone does it, it should go unpunished?

True. But, the mandatory law isn't going to stop these girls from having sex. They won't stop before having sex and think "You know what? I should probably hold this off until I'm legally an adult, or else Prop 73 is coming to whoop my ass." If STD's can't stop teens from having sex, what makes you think a law will?

Maybe their thought process will be more like "You know what? I should probably hold this off until I'm legally an adult, because if I get pregnant, my parents will have to know before I get an abortion."

  Kids having sex before they're ready to have children isn't an issue; kids having sex without taking the necessary precautions is an issue.

Yes it's an issue. They're not ready to give birth, why else would they need an abortion?

No teenager's gonna have stop having sex because of something like this. No teenager expects to get pregnant, it happens, and it's going to continue to happen. Mandatory notification just pushes teenagers to go to shady places where they're not going to follow the law anyways, so they're not going to follow any laws on abortion procedures and standards, etc.

Evidently, the problem at hand is teenage mentality. "If you make a new law, we'll always be able to find ways around it. Who cares if you're looking out for our well-being!"

[*mipadi*]

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. And maybe if teens knew that they wouldn't be able to hide an abortion from their parents, they would be less willing to have sex/get pregnant.

That's wishful thinking almost to the point of naïveté. I fully agree that teaching kids the consequences of sex is a good thing, but kids are still going to have sex. The point remains that we are in a period of time where we are limiting teens' access to abortion, while also limiting their access not only to birth control, but to information regarding birth control. It seems to me that if one wants to try to limit teen pregnancy, one should at least admit that teens are going to have sex, and at least give them unbiased information regarding the preventation of unwanted pregnancies.

Furthermore, if one wishes to make mandatory notification laws in order to curb teen pregnancy, "maybe" isn't good enough--are there actual statistics to show that mandatory notification laws contribute to a lower teen sex and/or pregnancy rate?

[*kryogenix*]

That's wishful thinking almost to the point of naïveté. I fully agree that teaching kids the consequences of sex is a good thing, but kids are still going to have sex. The point remains that we are in a period of time where we are limiting teens' access to abortion, while also limiting their access not only to birth control, but to information regarding birth control. It seems to me that if one wants to try to limit teen pregnancy, one should at least admit that teens are going to have sex, and at least give them unbiased information regarding the preventation of unwanted pregnancies.

Furthermore, if one wishes to make mandatory notification laws in order to curb teen pregnancy, "maybe" isn't good enough--are there actual statistics to show that mandatory notification laws contribute to a lower teen sex and/or pregnancy rate?

PDF warning:

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/colloquium...omics/Klick.pdf
http://www.lochrie.com/ImpGuide.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/index/H4RLQCAVXT004B18.pdf

I agree that kids need to be educated more about birth control. Abstinence is the only 100% effective means of birth control, and if more teenagers practiced it, we wouldn't have this problem.

Not only does this law help the kids, it ensures that the parent stays informed with the well-being of their child. What if there was a complication with the abortion process? I would be angry if I was a parent and my child was hurt in an abortion I didn't know about.

[*mipadi*]

I agree that kids need to be educated more about birth control. Abstinence is the only 100% effective means of birth control, and if more teenagers practiced it, we wouldn't have this problem.

I'm not talking about abstinence; I'm talking about giving kids access to information regarding methods of birth control used during sex.

"Abstinence-only sex education programs, a major plank in President George W. Bush’s education plan, have had no impact on teenagers’ behavior in his home state of Texas, according to a new study.

Despite taking courses emphasizing abstinence-only themes, teenagers in 29 high schools became increasingly sexually active, mirroring the overall state trends, according to the study conducted by researchers at Texas A&M University." [1]

"A leading group of pediatricians says teenagers need access to birth control and emergency contraception, not the abstinence-only approach to sex education favored by religious groups and President Bush.

The recommendations are part of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ updated teen pregnancy policy." [2]

"Teens who pledge to remain virgins until marriage are more likely to take chances with other kinds of sex that increase the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, a study of 12,000 adolescents suggests." [3]

More Information

[sadolakced acid]

Evidence that supports this?

none really. i could probably find stats if i cared to look.

Is it right for the teenagers to hide things from their parents?

Their parents need to know their child's medical history. And if kids weren't having sex before they are ready to have children, we wouldn't have this problem.

teenagers can hide things from thier parents. expecially about thier health. I have to sign release papers before my parents are allowed to see my medical documents- and that's the way it should be.

teenagers are allowed to decline medical treatment, even if thier parents wish to force them to get it. and that's the way it should be.

and you proabbly will ask, why should it be this way?

because you cannot teach a man to swim by tying him to a dock. Teenagers need to learn to be adults, not sheltered and protected, then kicked out into the real world at 18.

and part of growing up as a teenager today means most likely encountering sex, and making the decision about it.

and as far as parental notification of abortions- no, not before an abortion, not after an abortion. an abortion is a medical procedure, which should nto be denied to someone based soley on age. and that's what this law aims to do.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. And maybe if teens knew that they wouldn't be able to hide an abortion from their parents, they would be less willing to have sex/get pregnant

maybe, but probably not. some evidence?

what i can tell you is about me. i recieved the abstinence only propoganda. i recieved propoganda that did not mention that condoms cut the transmission of HIV and other STDs. the propoganda, in fact, stressed that condoms do not block any STDs.

i have not been educated in the use of any contraceptive. i have not been taught how to properly use a condom- and due to the bush administration's forcing of the CDC to remove instructions from their web site, i probably would have to learn from experience how to use one.

neither did the class teach about oral contraceptives, or any other contraceptive.


and will this affect my decision to have sex? no. that decision is based on my own morals, not the morals given to me by the government. and will the avalibility of contraceptives affect my decision to have sex? probably not.

abortion is not a form of birth control, and should not be used that way. However, abstinence is not. and untill all children are taught about contraceptives at age 11, and then again at 14, abortions should remain legal for teenagers, and confidential.

because saying abortion or abstinence is a form of birth control would mean including shooting pregnant women as birth control.

Evidently, the problem at hand is teenage mentality. "If you make a new law, we'll always be able to find ways around it. Who cares if you're looking out for our well-being!"
*

this law is not about the well-being of teenagers. and you know it. it is about parents excercising control over teenager's health decisions. It is about liberty and choice.

and as far as the teenage mentality; in my state it is illegal for anyone to have oral sex. it is in the constitution. people still do it? yes.

[*kryogenix*]

I'm not talking about abstinence; I'm talking about giving kids access to information regarding methods of birth control used during sex.

"Abstinence-only sex education programs, a major plank in President George W. Bush’s education plan, have had no impact on teenagers’ behavior in his home state of Texas, according to a new study.

Despite taking courses emphasizing abstinence-only themes, teenagers in 29 high schools became increasingly sexually active, mirroring the overall state trends, according to the study conducted by researchers at Texas A&M University." [1]

"A leading group of pediatricians says teenagers need access to birth control and emergency contraception, not the abstinence-only approach to sex education favored by religious groups and President Bush.

The recommendations are part of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ updated teen pregnancy policy." [2]

"Teens who pledge to remain virgins until marriage are more likely to take chances with other kinds of sex that increase the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, a study of 12,000 adolescents suggests." [3]

More Information

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/BG1533.cfm

Operation Keepsake. Operation Keepsake is an abstinence program for 12- and 13-year-old children in Cleveland, Ohio. Some 77 percent of the children in the program were black or Hispanic. An evaluation of the program in 2001, involving a sample of over 800 students, found that "Operation Keepsake had a clear and sustainable impact on...abstinence beliefs." The evaluation showed that the program reduced the rate of onset of sexual activity (loss of virginity) by roughly two-thirds relative to comparable students in control schools who did not participate in the program. In addition, the program reduced by about one-fifth the rate of current sexual activity among those with prior sexual experience.

Of course, we're deviating from the issue at hand, which is mandatory notification laws, not birth control education.

teenagers can hide things from thier parents. expecially about thier health. I have to sign release papers before my parents are allowed to see my medical documents- and that's the way it should be.

teenagers are allowed to decline medical treatment, even if thier parents wish to force them to get it. and that's the way it should be.

What law is this under? Who is responsible for payment of medical treatment? Parents should have access to their child's medical history as long as they hold responsibility over that child, and that's the way it should be.

because you cannot teach a man to swim by tying him to a dock. Teenagers need to learn to be adults, not sheltered and protected, then kicked out into the real world at 18.

You can teach a man to swim, however, by setting boundaries, and slowly increasing the area he can swim in as he gains more skill.

Or, if the man thinks he's ready to conquer the ocean, he can cut the rope. A child can become an emancipated minor if he/she wants. There goes the need to notify your parents. The thing is, kids think they can be adults, when they aren't ready to accept responsibilities that adults have.

This law does not prohibit the child from having sex, or even prohibits the child from getting abortion. It only lets the parents know that the child requested an abortion, which is something a parent should know as long as they have custody of the child.

[sadolakced acid]

then why a minimun of 48 hours in advanced?

i doubt a teen will ask thier parent for a few hundred bucks for an abortion. they probably would borrow it from friends, use thier saved up cash (which even if their parents gave it to them it's still theirs. it's called a gift), or something else.

the 48 hours before is so the parents can lock up the teen and prevent them from getting the aborition.

if it were simply about knowledge, it would be a limit of 48 hours after.

[*disco infiltrator*]

Kryo, I'm sorry, but I really think you need a bit of a reality check...

Teens have sex. This is fact. It happens and it will happen and really, there's nothing you can do about it. Sure, you think they should wait till marriage, but it's not gonna happen. It's true that if less people had sex, there would be less abortions, but it's not gonna happen. People are going to have sex, like it or not. So please..stop telling us that abstinence is the only 100% to prevent it. We know that, it's obvious. But that doesn't work.

[*kryogenix*]

then why a minimun of 48 hours in advanced?

i doubt a teen will ask thier parent for a few hundred bucks for an abortion.  they probably would borrow it from friends, use thier saved up cash (which even if their parents gave it to them it's still theirs.  it's called a gift), or something else.

the 48 hours before is so the parents can lock up the teen and prevent them from getting the aborition.

if it were simply about knowledge, it would be a limit of 48 hours after.

48 hours gives time for support and counseling on alternatives to abortion. And if the parents don't let her go for those 48 hours, the girl can bring it to a judge, or reschedule. Also, in case the abortion goes awry, the parents will have been able to talk with the girl before the abortion.

  Kryo, I'm sorry, but I really think you need a bit of a reality check...

Teens have sex. This is fact. It happens and it will happen and really, there's nothing you can do about it. Sure, you think they should wait till marriage, but it's not gonna happen. It's true that if less people had sex, there would be less abortions, but it's not gonna happen. People are going to have sex, like it or not. So please..stop telling us that abstinence is the only 100% to prevent it. We know that, it's obvious. But that doesn't work.

Reality check: There is no need for teens to be having sex, unless they are responsible and want children right away. If that's the case, I applaud them for being mature adults. But when immature kids are having unprotected sex, get pregnant and then seek an abortion, it's pretty selfish and could have been prevented if the kids just had waited until they were mature.

Sometimes, kids grow up with the misconception that contraceptives are a foolproof way of preventing pregnancy. Kids need to realize that they're taking a chance by having sex. If they realize the consequences of taking that chance, and they have sex anyway, who's to blame for it?

[yummy_delight]

Reality check: There is no need for teens to be having sex, unless they are responsible and want children right away. If that's the case, I applaud them for being mature adults.

If that's the case, you could argue that there's no real need for adults to be having pre-marital sex if they don't plan on it resulting in children. You can't stop anyone from having sex. Even if we strapped chastity belts on everyone, they'd probably find a way to get them off.

Sometimes, kids grow up with the misconception that contraceptives are a foolproof way of preventing pregnancy. Kids need to realize that they're taking a chance by having sex. If they realize the consequences of taking that chance, and they have sex anyway, who's to blame for it?

Obviously that person is to blame. That's why we have Health class, Sex Ed, and family planning in schools to try and educate them as to what could potentially happen if they choose to have sex. However, drilling all of this into their head is definitely not going to get them to stop. Talking won't get all of them to stop. Classes haven't gotten them to stop. The law in question (which I think we've gotten ourselves off topic from, btw) won't get them to stop, either.

[*kryogenix*]

If that's the case, you could argue that there's no real need for adults to be having pre-marital sex if they don't plan on it resulting in children. You can't stop anyone from having sex. Even if we strapped chastity belts on everyone, they'd probably find a way to get them off.

I don't quite understand what you're trying to say.

Look, it's none of my business if kids are having sex. It becomes my business when they apply for abortion, because the burden is falling on taxpayers for the mistakes of kids.

Obviously that person is to blame. That's why we have Health class, Sex Ed, and family planning in schools to try and educate them as to what could potentially happen if they choose to have sex. However, drilling all of this into their head is definitely not going to get them to stop. Talking won't get all of them to stop. Classes haven't gotten them to stop. The law in question (which I think we've gotten ourselves off topic from, btw) won't get them to stop, either.

Actually, if you read the previous posts here, you'll read that abstinence programs resulted in drastic decreases in sexual activity in teenage girls.

The law in question will have an effect, because it brings parents into the equation.

[sadolakced acid]

^ if i remember the stats correctly all abstinence programs do is delay the age of the start of sexual activity, and remove contraceptives from the event.

and how does a teen applying for an abortion burden taxpayers?

and if anything that burdens taxpayers and someone doesn't should be banned, then well we might as well ban everything.

48 hours gives time for support and counseling on alternatives to abortion. And if the parents don't let her go for those 48 hours, the girl can bring it to a judge, or reschedule. Also, in case the abortion goes awry, the parents will have been able to talk with the girl before the abortion.

you know that's not the real reason.

abortion clincs aready do all that counseling and presenting of alternates to abortion.

in fact, some abortion doctors are required by law to tell everyone seeking an abortion that it increases the risk of breast cancer, ' when all scientific evidence says the contrary.


and how is a girl locked up in a house able to bring her case against a judge? there are these kinds of parents, you know.

[*mipadi*]

Actually, if you read the previous posts here, you'll read that abstinence programs resulted in drastic decreases in sexual activity in teenage girls.

The law in question will have an effect, because it brings parents into the equation.

Arguable, Kryo. Definitely arguable. I've read plenty of studies that say that abstinence programs do not decrease sexual activity.

[*disco infiltrator*]

There are girls who believe in abstinence and there are girls that do not. If you tell them at 13 years old "you should not have sex", that will not change their mind. Telling someone not to have sex does not make them not have sex. You can tell me not to have sex all you want, but I'm pretty sure I'm going to have sex before I'm married. It's not a goal or anything, just an educated guess. I don't want to get married until a couple years into the relationship, until I'm actually sure I want to spend the rest of my life with that person - and I'm probably going to have sex with that person before those years are up. Tell me all you want not to, but it's probably gonna happen.