Really awful news out of Arizona and Illinois this week.
On Monday Arizona's new Republican Governor Jan Brewer signed into law a group of anti-choice bills. This includes a 24-hour waiting period, meaning women must consult with their doctor, who has to tell them about "risks and alternatives, and the fetus' probable characteristics," and then wait until the next day to have the procedure. Health care workers, including pharmacists, will be able to refuse to dispense emergency contraception. A ban on late-term abortions was revised. And a parental consent law that forces minors to get approval before having an abortion has been made even stricter. Former Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano, who left that position to become President Obama's Secretary of Homeland Security, vetoed all anti-abortion legislation that was sent to her.
On Tuesday a federal appeals court revived a parental consentnotification law in Illinois. A ban on enforcement was issued in 2007 - this new decision overturns that ruling. From the Court's opinion:
Abortion, no matter how it is confronted, may present intimidating choices to the minor woman who faces it.
OK, sure. But explain to me how this is any different from choosing to carry a pregnancy to term. Both can pose "intimidating choices" for anyone, but apparently the Court doesn't care about how "intimidating" it might be to have a child. Or have what must be a pretty "intimidating" conversation with one's parents if it has to be legally mandated.
You can read more about waiting periods here, conscience clause laws here, the true stories behind late-term abortion here, and parental consent and notification laws here.
The bottom line is that legal abortion is useless if it is inaccessible. The new laws in Arizona and the return of parental consent in Illinois are part of a larger attempt by abortion opponents to make abortions harder and harder to come by until the procedure is completely out of reach for everyone. Policy that limits access most directly impacts those who are already the most vulnerable. The more laws like these are enacted, the larger that group becomes. Roe v. Wade is simply not enough - safe and legal abortion needs to be a real option for all women regardless of age, class, race, geography, or any other mitigating factors.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Limits imposed on access to abortion in Arizona and Illinois.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14972
I thought I read that Illinois law was parental NOTIFICATION, not parental consent.
"The law does not require parental consent, only that parents be notified 48 hours before an abortion for a girl 17 or younger."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-teen-abortion-notifyjul15,0,5483679,print.story
I remember I had a pregnancy scare when I was 17, and the thing that terrified me most was the fact that I lived in a state with parental notification (again, not consent) laws - how was I going to tell my parents?
My mind was whirling and I even considered waiting the three months until my 18th birthday to have the procedure, just so I wouldn't break my parents hearts.
Thankfully, it was just a scare, but I'll never forget how I felt. Mandating conversations between young women and their parents is terribly misguided. If women felt they could trust their parents, they WOULD tell them.
Exactly what im afraid of. If a woman had a loving and safe relationship with her parents, she would want to tell them. (Or in your case, only choose not to because she didnt want to hurt them). If she doesnt want to, she probably has a damn good reason. Many women face being thrown out, beaten, even killed, and this law puts them in extream danger. The state should have no bearing over what a woman tells her parents. It scares me to think of the women who face such horror by abiding by the law. Its likely that some will attempt unliscensed, illegal abortions, which are very dangerous aswell.
I don't think we can generalize in this area. Even in a loving & trustworthy home there might be a multitude of reasons to not tell your parents. My parents were very supportive of me growing up but there's a ton of stuff I didn't tell them!
Im sorry that sounded like a generalization. I meant that there are definatly a lot of cases where if a woman choses not to tell her parents, it could be because she would be in danger. Certainly not all, like in Mary Jane's story.
You are right, completely my mistake. Thank you for catching it!
How was the parental consent law made stricter? I couldnt find more information on that in the artical.
I haven't read the original law so I can't be sure, but reading the current language it looks like the law now takes into account a court ruling on the matter and modifies the language accordingly - specifically, outlining what is necessary for judicial bypass. It also requires that parental consent be notarized and allows parents or guardians to bring a civil action if parental conselt law is violated. But again I'm not sure what's new and what's not. Anyone who follows Arizona legislation more closely know the answer?
In AZ, parental consent was required before this law. Now, consent must be notarized by a third party to address forgeries of the form. (Interpretation: Instead of having a parent accompany her to the clinic to sign the form in front of a practitioner, we're going to shame the little slut by making her involve a stranger.)
The judicial bypass piece outlines what the court may consider in granting it, including: age and experience living or working outside the home, traveling by herself, what steps she took to explore her options and to what extent she weighed them, her conduct since learning of the pregnancy, and intellectual capacity. (Interpretation: You've thought about this? REEEEAAALLY? Prove it. And even if you prove you've thought about it, we can still say you're too stupid to understand your thoughts.)
Thanks Opheelia for the informative comments throughout this thread!
No problem. I've been following this extremely closely and quite frankly it's nice to vent. :)
So ...I'm not familiar with parental notification laws. If there is some form that parents sign saying "yes she told me she's getting an abortion" couldn't they just refuse to sign and effectively deny access to the abortion? What does the young woman do in that case?
This is exactly why I tell people that there really isn't any difference between parental consent and notification. When I was a teenager, if I notified my mother that I was going out and not coming back until 3 in the morning, she'd say something to the affect of "no you're not." Perhaps in the case of abortion, a teenager might say, "Bye, Mom and Dad. I'm off to get an abortion." And they might say, "Alright, don't come back."
Arizona's law is just going to make life much more difficult for women, particularly those who live in rural areas. I live in one of the largest counties in Arizona and we have one Planned Parenthood. How sad for women who live in rural areas. But I Arizona lawmakers seem to care little about women, education or health care.
Joan
... particularly those who live in rural areas.
This. A lot.
Without trying to minimize the difficulties that other women may face from this... I spent 4 years in Arizona living +/- 200 miles from the nearest abortion provider. Obtaining an abortion would have already been a multi-day affair. A waiting period adds a not insubstantial financial cost (lodging, additional time off from work, etc.) that really just... shouldn't be there.
They also prohibited nurse practitioners from performing surgical abortions, reducing the number of providers to three in the entire state.
***sigh***
as an arizonan, i watched this on the news yesterday and got so damn angry.
i miss governor napolitano.
I miss Napolitano too!
Joan
I miss her too. :(
Damn Arizona. It was always too conservative for me when my parents dragged me out there to live. No wonder I came back here the minute I hit adulthood. This garbage doesn't surprise me in the least but then again I'm old enough to remember Mecham as governor.
Also, the "informed consent" section of the Arizona law allows the father or maternal grandparents to file a civil action if informed consent is violated. And "fetus" is gone, replaced with "unborn child." Gross!
And "unborn child" is defined as from conception to birth. Slippery fucking slope.
The Arizona Republic (the main newspaper here) consistently mentions that this law will require "informed consent" but doesn't ever seem to mention that informed consent is ALREADY required for all medical procedures. What this law does is, in addition to telling the female about risks of the procedure, doctors will be required to tell a pregnant female that there may be public and private organizations waiting to hand her money to help her have a baby (where?), she may qualify for state aid and get her medical expenses paid (must be dirt poor though), and she can go after the guy who impregnated her for CHILD SUPPORT should she decide to continue the pregnancy.
In other words, they are dangling potential $$ in front of females to convince them to not have an abortion. Doctors say they have no way of knowing what organizations have any type of funding for pregnant females (because there aren't any) and they don't want to have to lie to patients.
The state aid thing pisses me off to no end. The same people who mandated providers to inform women that support may be available sat in closed door meetings in the middle of the freaking night, axing EVERY program that exists to help mothers in need. Not to mention what they did to education. In the words of the president of PPAZ, "That is not only dishonest, it's cruel."
That being said, that's one thing Brewer did right. She line-item vetoed health care and education portions of the budget, forcing the legislature into special session to fix the mess. We'll see what they come up with.
Informing a woman of the availability of state aid and her rights to child support is probably the only element that doesn't upset me. While I want abortion to be readily available for anyone who wants it, I also want a woman to be able to keep a pregnancy if that's what she wants. Not everyone knows exactly what they are entitled to from the state and the father, so it could be the deciding factor for a woman who wants a pregnancy but feels she must terminate for financial reasons.
Of course this assumes it's presented in an honest way that provides facts about funds and the qualifications to get aid. It also ignores the irony (which Opheelia pointed out) that the same people creating these laws to deter women from having abortions are the ones chipping away at the aid that would actually allow them to support a child. But in theory I like the idea of informing pregnant women of the resources available to them.
Except that you are NOT informed of resources that are available. That would make sense and I would be for that since financial concerns are one of the main reasons for aborting (I've read). The physician has to tell the female that there might be funds available...somewhere...good luck finding them. How is that helpful? Plus, with all the cutbacks in my state, what money is actually available? And how much? Do they provide babysitting for teen moms to continue school? Do they pay for or subsidize childcare so poorer females can work? I don't think so.
I have the same problem with anti-choice organizations. If they actually could do something that would be helpful for females to continue a wanted pregnancy, then good for them. But they don't. They should be providing what I mentioned above (childcare) and other services to help girls stay in school, go to college, find housing, etc. Having a baby is expensive. Promising money that isn't there isn't fair.
Just to be clear I like the idea of information about access to resources and rights if it is truthful. I was not trying to argue that it's a good idea in the form you see it here.
And the child support thing seems to really only bother me. I've never seen anyone in any of the threads on the AZ Republic site even mention it.
It's like, here female--have a baby and make a guy support you and your kid for many years. I would think that males would be very annoyed by this. It's demeaning to women and also to men because it makes them seem like a money source and not much else. I never really understand why more men don't come out in favor of pro-choice legislation. When women are denied the right to choose to end a pregnancy, so are men. And for so many guys, even if the female doesn't go after them for child support, the state sure does if she qualifies for any kind of state or federal aid. I would think that men would be extremely pro-choice. And not just after hearing they got someone pregnant, but always.
"Policy that limits access most directly impacts those who are already the most vulnerable."
Absolutely. I worked at a clinic in a state where parental consent and a waiting period are mandatory. The women with the ability to take days off of work got in no problem, but for women who don't have the money to take off of work or can't arrange transportation, it's bullshit (pardon my cursing). Waiting periods are so, so infantilizing to women.
Parental notification might as well be consent. In that state (before it moved to consent), it be "official", the parent must return a notarized letter.
Exactly. Consent, notification--what's the difference? It would make a difference if it were an adult woman (not in all circumstances, but in most). A teen can easily be stopped by her parents if her parents don't want her having an abortion.
I never understood why a parent or the state has the power to force a girl to have a baby against her will. For her own benefit. Because she can't be trusted to make a decision to end a pregnancy. But she can be trusted to care for an infant.
As a mother, I've always found that extremely insulting. Teens and children cannot be good mothers. If they were, outcomes for people born to teens and kids would be just great. And they're not.
This makes me really sad.
I had a child in high school . It is NO walk in the park. I went to a Catholic Prep High School and walked the halls pregnant and refusing to be kicked out until my son was born. I returned and graduated-much to the chagran of hundreds of parents.
I endured so much harassment, humiliation and public shame. I was forced to wear concealing clothing that adhered to the school uniform dress code while also detracting from my "condition". They made it very hard for me to stay because my father and I REFUSED to be kicked out. i was also banned from prom and homecoming. (not that i wanted to go, but that is beside the point). Trust ME, it would have been so much easier to have an abortion (i have had one since then , my son is 5 and i suffer no negative affects of the procedure, just profound relief that i will not have another child).
So , from my experience these laws requiring parental consent or "notification" only make the road MORE mentally trying. Laws restrictinig access drive costs up for everyone! For example If the woman decides to give her child up for adoption rather than abort the pregnancy even more questions arise, does she have healthcare? if not, who pays for it? the state? or the adoptive parents ? (usually adoptive parents shy away from paying for healthcare of the pregnancy because too many cases see mothers change their mind , or so that s how the story goes). Either way money has to be there to pay for the birth of the child... money MANY people these days just dont have . If there is 24 hour waiting period, do they get their doctor's visit from the clinic or do they have to see a primary care physician? if so, how many young people have a primary care physician? if so, who pays for THAT visit? ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
So mad.
Someone hold me.
Sophia
Why did you have to go through all of that? Your experience is a perfect example of the hypocracy of the pro-birth crowd. They want you to have a baby, but they don't want you around and treat you like a pariah. If they weren't hypocrites, they'd have welcomed you with open arms, arranged for babysitting for your baby, had a shower for you with lots of diapers, etc.
But they made it hard for you to do what you chose to do. Even though it is also what they claim they want. It doesn't make sense. But you made it. Good for you.
Precisely. One the things that ticks me off about the reaction to Roe, is that opponents try to make it seem that abortion was completely illegal prior to that, when in reality it was a state by state thing. Roe decided that aborions need to be avaialable nationaly and accessible.
It seems that prior to Roe, many people who would call themselves pro-life would be more than willing to turn their eyes when a middle to upper class woman disappeared for a while (off to Mexico, Canada, another state) to have a relatively safe abortion, even though they all knew the reason for the disappearance. Those same people would act like everything was honkey dorey towards the woman who had means to go off and get a discreet abortion, but would treat a woman who went through a pregnancy like trash.
It seems that a lot of Puritanical values are based solely heavily on maintaining appearance.
I just finished writing a play in which I needed to do a fair amount of research on abortion laws. It's pretty horrifying how screwed women are in states that have mandatory waiting periods, parental notification laws, and required counseling. Who has the time to take a week or two off for this nonsense? Most women have jobs and limited resources. It's purely an attempt to oppress women, especially the poor/underprivileged, by the right wing. Of course, these are the same idiots who bitch about "welfare queens" and "people having babies they can't afford"/
Oh, and to literally add insult to injury, three senators stated on during floor debate that "Abortion is the worst form of domestic violence" (or some variation on that theme) after all of them had just voted against a bill that expands dv protections to people in dating relationships.
Hey, you have posted all sorts of knowledgeable posts on this thread - how do you stay so well informed? What are your sources? Mainstream news, a particular blog, what?
I read as much as I can in the MSM here, and regularly read a couple of political blogs. A coworker introduced me to both www.rumromanismrebellion.net (a snarky and amazing lefty blog) and www.espressopundit.com (a conservative blog- before you eschew it, the guy who writes it is incredibly smart and connected).
I also work in the DV community in Phoenix, and with all the budget stuff going on, it's been particularly important to keep up with the legislature.
For reproductive rights issues, I'm on the NARAL AZ listserv; they do a really good job with their action alerts and host "Choice Chats." Haven't been yet, but next month is on The Purity Myth! So I'm definitely going. :)
But I really think the most valuable thing is to read the actual statutes and bills in the beginning of the session. You can find all of the bills at www.azleg.gov, and you can do keyword searches to find what you're looking for. They prepare summaries as well, giving background on the bill and the provisions.
Rock on, you.
I generally disagree with any form of abortion restrictions, but I have a question about parental notification/consent laws. If parents have to consent for their kids to take aspirin at school, why shouldn't they have to consent to abortion? This question (or something similar to it) comes up all the time in abortion debates & I have no good answer to it. Its a hard line of argument to refute.
Some kids are allergic to aspirin and schools don't want to get their asses sued because of it. I thought that was obvious.
An abortion should be the woman's choice, period. Although her parents raised her, she's not their property and should not be able to force her through something that can be as life changing as a pregnancy. Anything that makes abortion harder for women to have access to limits our choices and therefore parental consent=BAD.
I'm not even sure why students have to get their medication approved and only take it through the nurse so it can be supervised. After I finish reading up on feminist arguments on porn (and abortion), maybe I will have to go read some books on children's rights! Ra! Especially important since I'm going to be a high school teacher soon :D
I never have a good answer to this question either. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure how I feel about parental notification. There is the potential for physical consequences from an abortion. However rare they are, I would think it's important someone knows a girl had the procedure in case she needs emergency medical care.
I know that I was refused to be seen at a doctor's office 1 month before I turned 18 when I had strep throat because I was a minor. This was an office where I'd been, and they had my medical records. So, yeah, parental notification for a medical procedure isn't restricted only to abortions, and I think the judicial bypass for telling parents who may be abusive makes the argument for notification stronger.
It's difficult to know what works for all situations. I would hate to know that my daughter went through an abortion at 16 without any emotional support from me (nevermind that I'm not sure where she'd get the money). Now, I don't imagine that would happen because my children are exposed to my political views regularly, but it still isn't something I would wish on her - or my son's girlfriend for that matter.
i have problems with this, too.
a girl can legally consent to an abortion in some states without a parent's OK, but not, say, a nose job. or even something ultra-minor, like removing a mole.
honestly, as a parent, this freaks me out a bit. i was an honor student when i was 16, and i still did dumb shit, and needed advice and support from my parents. i'm not convinced that most 16-year-olds have the risk assessment, discipline and emotional wherewithal to make such an important decision without assistance.
and i know there are parents who oppose abortion, but i'm not convinced that being pro-life makes you a bad parent, either. the law also needs to protect parents. i mean, at 16, a girl can get an abortion without her parent's consent, but if she gets in a car accident, the parents might be liable.
here's a hypothetical situation: a teenage girl gets pregnant, and wants to keep her baby. however, she has a medical condition that makes pregnancy unsafe, and her parents want her to have an abortion. can they force an abortion on her for her health? they could, after all, have her undergo any other medical procedure. from what i know of the law, it's unclear.
i wish in the country we had one set age of majority. and, at that age, all rights and responsibilities of adulthood apply. none of this you-can-die-for-your-country-but-you-still-can't-have-a-beer shit.
Most girls do tell their parents and their parents (or mom, actually) does go with them for the abortion. But some don't and can't (or think they can't). And if they know that their parents will not allow an abortion, then shouldn't they be allowed to get one on their own? No, being pro-life doesn't make you a bad parent, but in my opinion, it is immoral to force your daughter to become a mother against her will.
if we're talking morality, i absolutely agree with you, 100%. if my daughter comes to me saying she's pregnant and wants an abortion, i'd call planned parenthood that minute.
the law needs to protect everyone's right to their own morality, though, and i'm not sure when a person becomes functionally autonomous. right now, the law essentially indicates that a girl can make the decision to have an abortion on her own, but she can't make the decision to drink a beer on her own. she can legally be employed, but cannot vote on the laws governing the taxes she pays. also, depending on her age, if she got involved in a sexual relationship with someone older, she could be viewed as a victim of sexual assault, regardless of whether or not she gave her consent.
i agree that it's morally wrong to force someone to have a child against their will. but i also think it's wrong to legally interfere with parents' rights to run their families in accordance with their values.
i have no good answer to this dilemma, because most girls become physically mature long before society and science have deemed them emotionally mature enough to conduct themselves in the world in which we live.
Except that not everywhere can a girl have an abortion on her own. You mean only in states that don't require parents to be involved. I still believe that parents have tremendous control over whether or not their daughter has an abortion or a baby since they are told most of the time. That's why I don't think highly of notification or consent laws. It's already mostly happening and it intrudes on situations that could be potentially dangerous for the teen.
It would be much better if all schools had comprehensive sex education and teens had access to birth control and were encouraged to use it. Then this would not even be an issue.
You have a good question and a lot of people had good replies. I think that the asprin or any drug thing is in place because it is just easier for schools to ensure across the board that no one can take any medicine that could potentially hurt themselves (and then their parents would sue the school district). Like that principal who ordered the 13 year old girl to be strip searched to look for illegal Advil--they had a "no tolerance" policy (which apparently gives one the right to strip search children).
It's kind of a false argument, though, since girls don't go to school nurses for abortions. If they can get birth control without parental consent (as I think they can in some places), then THAT would be the question.
Also, only Christian Scientists would stop their daughter from taking an asprin; no one else would. And parents who deny their children needed drugs or medical care can be forced into providing it. The state will make them.
But many parents would stop girls from having an abortion, and the state will not step in to help the girls. So their right to control their body needs to be preserved.
Jan Brewer also wouldn't allow Planned Parenthood to have a booth at a Women's Health Expo. PP wanted to hand out brochures and talk about STDs, low cost mammograms, etc. But they were not allowed to attend. A Women's Health Exp. I think the governor might have thought that they were going to set up a table giving 2-for-1 abortion specials.
And Jan Brewer is a big fan of abstinence-only sex propaganda and reversed Janet Napolitano's ban on this.
One piece of good news though--she signed a bill allowing gun owners to take loaded weapons into bars and restaurants. See, she does care about individual rights! (Of gun totin' cowboys, at least.) Because it is quite necessary to take your handgun into McDonald's.
Apparently you haven't heard of the Hamburgler. Awful crime spree that masked guy is on...
Oh, I get the name now. At first I thought they were for "the Life of America." :-(