The North Dakota House recently passed an abortion ban that would take effect in the event Roe is overturned. The Senate has taken up the legislation, and is expected to vote on it later this week. The bill has an exception for saving the woman's life -- but not for rape or incest. (Full text of the bill is here.)
The ND legislature also recently failed to pass legislation that would have guaranteed pregnant teens the right to seek prenatal care without notifying their parents. (Full text here.) Currently, North Dakota law requires parental consent to treat pregnant women under 18.
Just to be clear, we're talking about prenatal care here, not abortion.
Conservatives are wailing that explicitly stating there is no parental notification requirement would "drive a wedge between the daughter and the parents." But isn't it obvious that, if a young woman has chosen to carry her pregnancy to term without telling her parents, she most likely has a compelling reason for keeping them in the dark? And if a teenage girl faces very little support at home for keeping her pregnancy -- which, presumably, is the reason she would keep this info from her parents -- then you would think anti-abortion activists would be in favor of this legislation. After all, they love to publicize cases where parents have coerced their daughters into abortions. You would think that this legislation would prevent that from happening.
Seeing as how the pro-choice movement is actually pro-choice, not pro-abortion (as the antis love to characterize us), we can agree it's bad for parents to force their daughters into abortions AND bad to force them to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.
The disconnect in requiring parental notification for abortion but not for prenatal care has long been pointed out as part of the legal rhetoric opposing laws that meddle with teens' reproductive rights. A Guttmacher Policy Review article from 2000 found no states that require parental consent or notification for teens to receive prenatal care, whereas more than 20 required it for abortion.
But other sources say 27 states and DC "specifically allow pregnant minors to the obtain prenatal care and delivery services without parental consent or notification." And last year Colorado decided to grant teens confidentiality rights when it comes to prenatal care. Too bad North Dakota won't be joining their ranks.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Permission for prenatal care.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/5018
Ann, you did a good job summarizing.
I live in ND and did a blog when this bill was defeated last week, you can view at:
http://dakotawomen.blogspot.com/2007/03/nd-refuses-to-allow-prenatal-care-to.html#links
The abortion ban/trigger bill (HB 1466) hasn't gone to floor vote on the Senate yet but will probably do so this week. My last update on that was: http://dakotawomen.blogspot.com/2007/03/hb-1466-abortion-ban-in-nd.html
Isn't it completely contradictory for pro-lifers to make it more difficult for pregnant teens to get prenatal care when they're always going, "But a zygote/embryo/fetus is a person, just like you and me!!!!" It's just more proof that anti-choice legislation is passed simply to control women, not protect "life."
Smells a little like a "Modest Proposal"-style stunt to me.
You know how some anti-gay-marriage people use the "marriage is for making babies!!!" rhetoric and some pro-gay-marriage people proposed a law barring heterosexual married couples from staying married more than 3 years without reproducing?
Well, some people use "minors should need parental permission for any medical procedure!!!" rhetoric against girls choosing abortions for themselves, and isn't prenatal care medical too...?
Demanding that teen girls share their pregnancy information with parents will just encouage them NOT to seek prenatal treatment. If a teen were to hid a pregnancy, there's generally a reason and if parents can't see it, there's generally a reason. Remeber "Saved"--Christian High School Teen flick? Pretty good. Well, one of the main female leads hid a pregnancy from her entirely delusional mother because she (the mother) had said that she would send her daughter away to a Christian Rehabilitation Center and have any baby born out of "wedlock" whisked away for adoption to true christian parents as soon as it was born. The daughter didn't want this and she was graduating soon and sought prenatal care, so she hid it. Now, certainly hiding a pregnancy isn't a great idea and who isn't going to bring up that girl who left hers in a High School bathroom at the prom, but she was totally delusional herself and had NOT gotten prenatal care. Seeking prenatal care demonstrates at least to some extent responsibility taking and that should not be discouraged. Fundies don't care about BAAABEEEZ, they care about controlling women's bodies, punishing women for having sex, and hating people who have families in circumstances that don't exactly reflect their circumstances. It's time to take the "pro-life" label away and not just call them anti-abortion rights folks, but anti-life or anti-whole-life or come on, let's brainstorm--its not just reproductive rights they're trying to take away, its the right to full fledged humanity!
I got pregnant at the age of 18 the summer before I turned 19 and I didn't feel comfortable telling my mom or anyone in my family about my pregnancy. Even though I always planned on having my daughter and was personally ok..even happy about it I knew my family wouldn't feel the same way. I can only imagine what someone who is between the ages of 12-18 would feel, I can only imagine how hard it would be for them to be forced into explained to their parents they are pregnant just to receive prenatal care. This will only discourage pregnant teens, who are in a high risk group BTW to not get prenatal care. This could put millions of young women and of course their fetuses at risk. Pro-lifers should consider calling themselves women killers.
...is there some special rabbit hole for getting into the Dakotas?
The same legislators who want to pass a trigger law banning abortion won't guarantee a minor the right to even *seek* pre-natal care?
"No young lady, go home and tell your abusive alcoholic parent that you're pregnant and then come back for pre-natal care. Unless he/she beats the shit out of you- then call an ambulance, we'll come get you, and if you haven't miscarried, we'll give you pre-natal care. After we stitch you up."
Ok, let me try this again since my last comment doesn't appear to be posting...great summary Ann.
I'm from ND and did a blog on this on DakotaWomen when it went down in defeat last week. It was an INCREDIBLY frustrating defeat.
The argument mentioned by FEMily! did get some of the conservatives to vote for passage but not a lot. The bill picked up most of the republican moderates but the problem is that the ND House is so heavily republican.
Regarding HB 1466 (the abortion trigger bill): might make it to floor vote tomorrow, but I'm guessing more likely on Thursday.
i wonder if it's the same logic as some folks have for the death penalty. as in, fear of state-sanctioned death will deter people from committing a crime in the first place, knowing they might get caught.
in this case, fear of telling mom and dad will keep kids from having sex, which might sometimes lead to pregnancy.
must be why it doesn't even make a lick of good sense to me. just the wrong thing the wrong thing the wrong thing. illogical logic, you might say.