|
2. After reading the following selection, write an argumentative passage drawing one of these conclusions: (1) Parental consent laws should be abolished. (2) Narrowly tailored parental consent laws are appropriate [state exactly how the laws should read]. (3) Parents should have complete control over whether their daughter has an abortion. Parental Consent Puts Teens in a Bind When most people hear about parental-consent [to abortion] laws, they find them pretty reasonable. After all, parents want to know what their children are doing so they can offer guidance and support. This is especially true when discussing important issues such as pregnancy and abortion. The fact is that most teens voluntarily involve parents in this intensely personal decision. The Alan Guttmacher Institute reports that 60 percent of young women in the United States seek input from their parents when considering terminating a pregnancy. This is without the government legislating family communication. The 40 percent who do not involve parents usually have very good reasons for their decision. Many people who support parental consent to abortion laws do so out of genuine concern for young people. But a closer look at these laws reveals that they hurt rather than help many teens. Teens who do not seek parental guidance are often physically and emotionally abused, or victims of incest. The story of a 13-year-old from Idaho is one of many laced with tragedy. Impregnated by her father, this sixth-grader scheduled an abortion in a neighboring state with her mother's assistance. After learning of his daughter's intention to terminate the pregnancy, he fatally shot her. In 1988, an Indiana high school senior died from a botched illegal abortion in an attempt to circumvent the state's parental-consent law. Although the state had judicial bypass — which would allow her to beg the court's permission in lieu of her parents' — the girl knew the judge who would hear her case was notorious for denying abortion rights to minors. Not wanting to disappoint her parents, she did not tell them and sought an illegal abortion. She sacrificed safety for privacy and paid the ultimate price. The Indiana girl's parents originally supported their state's parental-consent law because they believed it would strengthen families. Today, they speak out against the policy they believed killed their daughter. Legislators who oppose abortion believe that parental-consent laws will scare teens into abstinence. However, in states with these laws, sexual activity rates do not decrease. All that increases are health risks. Young people are frightened by these laws, but only after they are pregnant and desperately seeking help. Not only does the California parental-consent law jeopardize the safety of young people, it is wholly unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion in 1973, based on the constitutional right to privacy. Nowhere is that right qualified by age of the citizen. Further, if the California Supreme Court reverses [a recent] lower-court decision [blocking the California parental-consent law], it will essentially establish that young people are the property of their parents. If parents can prohibit a daughter's abortion, what's stopping them from forcing one? If it's perfectly legal for parents to decide their daughters must not terminate a pregnancy, the court must also uphold a "parent's right" to insist she does. Under this law, parents would own the bodies of their children. Would we then see perpetrators of incest and abuse citing the flawed decision in defense of their deplorable actions? Abortion-rights advocates wish to preserve minors' access to confidential reproductive health services, including abortion, because it protects the health and safety of young people. While parental involvement is strongly encouraged in contraception and abortion decisions, supporters of legal abortion know that the government cannot mandate healthy communication. Opponents of abortion view parental-consent laws as part of a long-term strategy to make abortion — under any circumstances — illegal. Parental consent laws, waiting periods and funding rollbacks are all part of their legislative effort to chip away at the right to choose. Coupled with the terrorist tactics of extremists who bomb clinics, harass patients and shoot doctors, access to services is seriously threatened. And without access, the right to choose is meaningless. In making its decision, the California Supreme Court must decide if minors are protected by the same constitutional right to privacy as adults, or if their safety will be sacrificed to promote the political agenda of the far right. If the court thoroughly examines the effect of mandated parental consent in other states, it will see that these laws sustain abortion rights in name only.
|