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

[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.

[*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.

[*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.