Nutshell said:
You're thinking is exactly what's wrong with many of those who voted "No" on the CA prop. You're thinking would have been accurate a year ago, but this time, the prop. was changed to include language that allowed for pregnant minors to get quick court permission to waive the parent notification requirement. Therefore, under this statute, the "good" parents will be notified and the "bad" parents you describe will not because the pregnant minor can get a waiver.
I present the previously put question again:
"
What prevailing or compelling overriding interest does the State possess in determining (legislating/mandating) the reproductive health or available [health/medical] options of any fertile female, regadless of their age?"
As far as the State is concerned, in either custodial support, financial assistance, or child placement issues--these are only borne and incumbent upon the State once a birth (either intended or unplanned/undesired) of a child has taken place. Undelivered fetus' have no civil rights, no constitutional protections/guarantees, nor legal standing as individualistic persons. The State does however bear responsibility to equal enforcement of civil/criminal laws, and insuring protections of civil rights and liberties of all individual citizens, regardless of their age, gender, marital status, or qualitative assessments of familial attachments.
You said:
Now, those who oppose the waiver idea say these "troubled" girls aren't savvy enough to negotiate the court system. Certianly that would be a concern, but if a girl is going to an organization such as Planned Parenthood, certainly that organization is savvy enough to assist the girl in getting the waiver.
This counterpoint strikes me as comparable to the State arguing that availability of free access to a legal medical procedure is borne solely by the patient alone. Does in fact, the State bear any responsibility in providing free access to 911 emergency services, fire department responses, or emergency care transportation (like ambulances)? Is access to these State funded services contingent upon previous court order, petition, or lent consent?
Should they be?
Should the State err in favor of emergency needs and concerns, or mandate elements of legal standards and procedures as qualifier for such access?
When a five-year-old dials 9-1-1, and reports that his mommy is suddenly "asleep" on the kitchen floor, does the State err in favor of prospective emergency, or does it mandate some element of adult confirmation and assesment /validation first?
Shessh. Just how much power and authority do we ultimately wish to cede to imposed government control and influence over our personal choices and lives, especially in times of emergency or dire personal consequence?
[Note: It seems utterly ironic to me that most self-proclaimed "conservatives" seek to reduce the role and influence of government in personal lives and liberties. Certainly, gun ownership advocates wish to limit or eradicate all governmental regulations of legal possession of rightfully protected firearms. No one like the idea of government reading their private written correspondence; monitoring their phone calls; tracking their activities of group affiliations; or dictating what they can buy, watch, drive, or legally consume (be it booze, cigarettes, or mutually consentual sexual relations). If elements of personal privacy are overridden by some ill-defined (or utterly absent compelling) argument of State concern or interest , then what is the measure of personal freedoms and liberty?
When state-imposed barriers to personal freedoms are erected, it makes them all that much more difficult to dissemble once they are established.
No one "favors" abortion as primary contraceptive.
No one favors (or advocates) unprotected sex amongst minors.
No one condones adults having sex with minors.
No one advocates abusive, absent, or single-parenting environments as ideal for homone-laden teens.
NO ONE.
Should parents of a teen bearing an unintented/unwanted pregnancy be involved (ideally) in the legally protected choice of medically-available remedies as alternative to full-term deliveries? Of
course they should...
ideally.
Ideally, all teens burdened with the prospects of a life-altering choice could/should call upon a trusting, loving, involved and engaged, two-parent familial foundation. But statistically, teens with two married parents living under the same roof constitute a
minority today.
Idealism is an opportunistic
goal.
Realism is reasonably and intelligently grappling with the "
less than ideal" contemporarily presented scenario.
Should the State (and society-at-large) err in
favor of the present-day realities, or impose legal barriers to hopefully manifest or enforce an ever elusive and waning ideal?
What is the State's overriding concerns in this? A teenager's health and repoductive choices, or ensuring the protection of parental sensibilities and involvement in both free access and self-determination?
