The New Parental Notification Law

From the Concord Monitor:

On Jan. 1, a new state law will require pregnant minors to tell a parent before getting an abortion, unless they convince a judge they’re mature enough to make the decision themselves. The problem, abortion providers say, is court officials haven’t told them or minors how to request a hearing before a judge or how a teenager’s maturity will be evaluated.

Nor have court officials said which courts will hear cases or how minors can reach the courts after hours and on weekends, given that the law requires they be allowed to file a hearing request 24 hour a day, seven days a week.

This new law goes into effect in less than a week, yet the procedures and methodologies are not in place.  
It’s a badly written bill aimed at punishing young women for their sexuality.  The fastest route to lifelong poverty for a teenaged female is childbirth. It’s indicative of the kind of contempt this legislature has for girls/women – they were desperate to get the bill passed, but they’re completely disinterested in how its enacted. As long as the young women have a really difficult time, they can congratulate themselves on a job well done.

No one knows how the judges will determine a minor’s maturity.

Judges in some states asked minors inappropriate questions, the report said, such as what type of birth control she would use in the future, where she had been having sex and whether she’d consider adoption more seriously.

Kiernan said neither judges nor court staff in New Hampshire have received any training on the new law or its requirements.

No training. That ought to be helpful. Because clerks and judges are all open minded, caring, and kind people who would never look askance at a pregnant teen.

If you read the article, you’ll see some horrible examples of things that have happened in other states, in the name of “determining maturity.” Some of the judges, clerks, etc. wouldn’t pass the test.

I predict that few if any minors will be found mature enough to have abortions, but all of them will be found mature enough to give birth.

Here’s a story about why parental notification laws are a disaster for young women.  

, , ,

8 Responses to The New Parental Notification Law

  1. Dean Barker December 27, 2011 at 4:38 pm #

    th NHGOP supermajority got this passed will result in a court challenge that gets this law tossed or modified.

    Which is horribly unfair to the young women stuck in this process starting on Sunday and until then, but perhaps that can come before next November’s elections.

  2. elwood December 27, 2011 at 4:51 pm #

    Once you get there, the government won’t second-guess your doctor.

    • Lucy Weber December 27, 2011 at 5:27 pm #

      NH law requires parental notification prior to abortion.  My understanding from testimony given at the hearings, and from this list is that Massachusetts has for some time actually gone a step further and requires the consent of one parent, or the minor must get a judge to consent.

      According to proponents of the current NH legislation, one of the reasons it was necessary was because of all the minors being driven the NH from MA so they could get an abortion without parental involvement.  Another case of talking out of both sides of the mouth–those who soften deplore the laws of another state rushing to ensure they are enforced in NH when it suits their ideology.

      • Lucy Weber December 27, 2011 at 5:40 pm #

        NH used to be one of the very few remaining states with no law requiring parental notification or consent to abortion for a minor.  What is interesting to me is that, prior to 2011,  only once in over 30 tries under Republican majorities, did a parental notification statute pass in this state.  That was the Benson-era parental notification bill that went up to the Supreme Court, and was held to b unconstitutional as enacted, and remanded to the NH federal district court for further proceedings.  those proceedings came to a halt when the law was repealed under the Democrats in 2007.

        The sea change that has occurred in the Republican party since 2006 is typified by this legislation.  For all those years, Rs and Ds alike chose to leave this most personal of decisions to the individual and to good medical practice standards.  Now, in the name of liberty, intrusions are made into the life of the individual, the dynamics of the family, and to the standards of medical practice.  The liberty interest here is, of course, the liberty of the parent, not the liberty of the young woman whose life may be thus endangered.

        (As always, there are still Rs who hold out against this advancing tide of interventionism, and I want to be sure that I recognize that.)

        • Lucy Weber December 27, 2011 at 6:33 pm #

          In the first paragraph above, I should have said “…only once in 30 tries under Republican majorities, did a law restricting abortion pass….”  Not all of those attempts were about notification.  Some were consent, or consent of husbands to adult women’s abortions, or requirements of ultrasounds and non-science based counseling prior to abortion, etc, etc, etc.

          • mevansnh December 28, 2011 at 4:18 pm #

            that everyone should own a gun in the Circle of Republican Life, even when you go to school.  

  3. hannah December 27, 2011 at 6:11 pm #

    prospect that their efforts to procreate should be counter-manded by a reluctant female.  After all, the reason males are made bigger and stronger is so they can dominate and enforce compliance with their desires.  That pregnancy is an inherently life-threatening process doesn’t matter ’cause that’s how the Creator designed it.  Besides, being instinct-driven means not having to take consequences into account.
    Being free means doing what comes naturally and never having to pay the price. If somebody else dies, that’s just too bad.
    One is tempted to call this attitude selfish, but that wouldn’t be correct.  Because, the instinct-driven have little or no awareness of self.
    The real issue here, which is not being addressed, is the male claim to a right to procreate–a right they don’t have for the simple reason that it’s a function they don’t have. Of course, one way of getting out of having to admit that is to assert that rights don’t have a functional basis to begin with, but are Constitutionally derived. So, they can posit a “right to life,” ’cause it’s mentioned, but not a right to be sustained as a living person.
    The conservative interpretation of the Constitution is not irrational; it’s just self-centered.
    That one can be self-centered without being self-aware is still a puzzlement (to me).  Perhaps the answer is that instinct is cruel.

  4. tchair December 28, 2011 at 2:32 am #

    working on a parental notification law where a minor needs their parents permission before having sex
    All my Republican friends say they asked their parents before humping—Honest—-The really did.


Site maintenance and hosting by Hoeferweb