Senate Limits Rights of Underage Victims

Sorry if you’re raped by your stepdaddy, girls. You’re having that baby.

The Senate passed legislation Tuesday that would make it a federal crime to help an under-age girl escape parental notification laws by crossing state lines to obtain an abortion.

…“If it is happening 20 times a year, it is still worth doing to protect those parental rights and to protect those children from being in these kinds of situations,” [said Senator John Ensign, the Nevada Republican who wrote the measure].”

Okay, but what if it’s the parent who has fathered the child? Why on earth should we protect his rights?

There are three possibilities that would result in an underage girl being taken across state lines for an abortion to avoid parental notification. 1. The girl is pregnant by an older man who is forcing her to get an abortion or by a boy whose parents are forcing her to get an abortion. In either case, if she is being taken against her will, there are laws in place already (like kidnapping) that would punish those victimizing her, making this law moot. 2. The girl is pregnant and doesn’t want her parents to know because she fears for her safety if they found out. 3. The girl is pregnant by a father, stepfather, or some other relative and cannot rely on parental approval for a much-wanted abortion. In either of those cases, this law essentially endangers her, which makes its rationale about protecting the girls moot, and ensures parental rights for parents who don’t deserve it.

There is simply no justification for this law, except as red meat for the base.

In a statement, Mr. Bush said that “transporting minors across state lines to bypass parental consent laws regarding abortion undermines state law and jeopardizes the lives of young women.”

As Michael at The Moderate Voice says, “How? … Does Bush even know the 'risks' of having an abortion? From a medical point of view, they're very small. Seriously, what kind of fake argument is that? It doesn't "jeopardize the lives of young women" at all. That has to be the most ridiculous statement of the year. Or at least close to it.” Indeed.

Of course, there are two ways to look at the phrase “jeopardizing the lives of young women.” As Michael noted, the literal threat to one’s life—as in, a grave chance of death—is ridiculous. But the abstract threat to one’s life—as in, quality of life and opportunity to realize one’s potential—is another consideration. And Bush has got it totally wrong. Allowing a young woman to terminate a pregnancy according to her wishes does not have the capacity to threaten her life, but forcing her to carry to term a pregnancy against her will certainly does. It will necessarily and unavoidably interrupt her schooling; if she keeps the baby, it may delay or derail many of her aspirations—college, career. That’s a tough situation for young mothers who want to keep an unexpected pregnancy; how much tougher is it for a young mother who didn’t want to keep it? What kind of parent will she be in that situation? What will it mean for the unwanted child’s life?

The irony of this bill is the focus on “protecting parental rights,” meaning the parents of the pregnant girl. It wholly ignores that the pregnant girl will soon be a parent herself, whether she wants to or not. And her right to make that decision is of no consequence.