Sorry, Anne. As long as responsible parents have the right to oversee the health and welfare of their daughters, other adults transporting them across state lines to avoid state laws should be unacceptable. And, yes, I know – what about irresponsible parents who victimize their daughters? This law has a provision to petition the court to waive the parental notification in the case of incest or other extenuating circumstances. The state protecting a parent’s right to raise their kids is not nannying.

Anne,

Your post appears to rest on the tragedy of pregnancies that result from daughter being raped by her father.

As such, you must have researched home many (in raw, reported #'s) and what percent of total pregnancies in the State of Oregon are a result of such a crime.

What are those numbers?

I think we really ought to sponsor a ballot measure that requires a father to have is filberts and carrot chopped off by the State if convicted of raping his children (I'm not joking here, I'm dead serious).

Don't forget Dan, it was Senate Democrats who blocked Jessica's Law from going to committee in 2005. I doubt they'd ever support mandatory castration, no matter how good an idea it is.

Seems hypocritical to me that Dems are worried about incest-caused pregnancies, but are afraid to severely punish child rapists -- unless it's an election year, of course.

Someone already beat me to it but, this statment is absolutely, 100% wrong: "absolutely cannot have an abortion without asking your parents first". The SCOTUS requires all state laws about parental consent for abortion to have a judicial opt-out where a teenager can have a hearing and request a waiver of the requirement.

whether the judicial-opt systems works on the ground is a spearate question. my point was that the original poster made an incorrect statement. with the ballot iniative coming up, now's not the time for misinformation and hyperbole.

the difference between abortion and other medical procedures? the SCOTUS has ruled that states have an interest in protecting fetuses. whether that's right or wrong is a different issue.

the real question: will the left be smart politically on this issue and fight to defeat the ballot measure OR will the left stick to the party line, drive the measure to victory, and hurt the people (teenage girls who want abortions) they are supposedly trying to help?

not an auspicious start.

To Michael Smith... Do you actually think it's a responsible and ethical solution for the government to expect, mandate, or require, a minor who has recently become pregnant due to rape from a family member to be able to maneuver the court system for a waiver? You're living in a dream world. Anne is absolutely right on. I would add that the drafters of this insidious and shameful bill had absolutely no intention to help an incest victim obtain an abortion. Stop kidding yourself. They put that clause in there to pick up a few more supporters here and there who needed to not appear like complete heartless jackasses back in their home district. This bill is purely about religious ideology and political posturing and not one ounce about protecting the health and well being of a minor in the face of an unwanted pregnancy. There are a dozen other ways the republican leadership in Congress could have approached this subject if that were their actual intent. I'll say it again because its worth repeating. You cannot legislate healthy family communication. I'd suggest you put your time where your mouth is Michael and go and volunteer for a teen crisis organization and learn a little about which you speak.

Also to Dan J. Let's flip the script for a moment. Show me the numbers of cases of teens being coerced or aided by a non parent adult who takes them over state lines for an abortion? This bill is a solution in search of a problem. It's a carefully orchestrated attack on Roe V Wade. Tear it down piece by piece. Drown the baby in the bathtub. And what does it accomplish? It leaves our most vulnerable and least represented at-risk youth even less in control of their own lives. It's a shameful and ugly political ploy with it's deepest roots in the foundation of the patriarchy- that women are not capable of making decisions for themselves. Kudos to you Anne for this post.

Chris, I read credible estimates that tell me that my daughter's generation will have to pay $25 million a year for Jessica's Law. Yes, we should put sexual predators away, but we need to find a way to pay for it, instead of just passing the cost to the future generations. Many of our elected representatives (including most republicans) like to pass laws that will help them get reelected, but are not willing to do the hard work of making the system more efficient to be able to pay for those laws. Being "tough" on crime while trying to reduce our state revenues is irresponsible. Jessica's Law is a good example of that lack of responsibility.

Anne, Why do you choose sarcasm for your vehicle? Seems to be a favorite of yours. Just wondering... (sarcasm: A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.)

Get ready, folks, you are going to see more and more legislation such as this dictating to us how to run our daily lives, and you are going to see bipartisan support for it.

Why?

I realized recently that the reason the Democratic Party is loosing its stamina and ability to fight such legislation is because of the number of Republicans leaving the Republican Party to join the Democratic Party.

Ever since the Republican Party was taken over by the Evangelical Cultists, traditional Republicans have thrown their hands in the air not knowing what to do. By Herr Limbaugh's standards, THEY are Liberals. So, what party represents the Liberals? The Democrats.

At a local level as well as national, I am seeing more and more of these Republicans jumping ship to align themselves with the Democrats. No, you aren't seeing this with the politicians -- they have too much to loose by changing party affiliation -- but you are seeing it from the voters.

These former Republicans are registering as Democrats, voting for candidates in primaries that represent their former Republican values, and changing the face of the Democratic Party because their Republican Party has been hijacked.

Walk the streets of Portland and you will meet dozens of these people who tarnish the name Liberal applying it to themselves because its the new chic thing to be if you're a modern Yuppy elitist trying to look cool.

A minor can't participate in a class on human sexuality (or get a tatoo/piercing/car loan) without a parental consent form, but she can terminate a pregnancy? I don't know a single parent who thinks their child should be able to get an abortion without first discussing it with their parents. I guess it's different if you don't have kids.

What additional surgical procedures should minors be entitled to undertake without parental knowledge?

Can your son get a vasectomy? Can your daughter get breast augmentation? Botox?

If they can get an abortion, would you also grant that 16 year old the right to marry?

Kari:

I would be shocked if your understanding of the law is correct. That said, assuming you are correct, I don't believe that any physician or surgeon who valued their practice would perform either a vasectomy or breast augmentation on a 16 year old. Irrespective of the legality, we all know that a civil lawsuit can be filed for any reason (or no reason), and no professional is likely to keep their liability insurance if they acted with such a cavalier (it's not illegal) attitude. There is a difference between what is legal, and what is ethical.

I went in to get a vasectomy and the doc said I had to get a form signed by my wife. Huh? Would they ask her to get my signature for an abortion?

Hey Anne,

What's up with this sarcastic male-bashing every time you want to make a point? Instead of attacking the party or the organizations who support stances with which you don't agree, it's always a "male conspiracy" that is the origin of these policies.

You don't think that there are right-wing anti-abortion women who support this ballot measure?

I detect anger in the sarcasm of Anne Martens post. Nothing personal, but why all the bile? Is this really about abortion rights or something else? I'm just another stupid white male. Fill me in.

anne's anger, while perhaps harsh, seems to be justifiably directed at the hypocritical republican nanny state, not men in general. there are fabulous men. they voted for al gore and john kerry.

why is it wrong to find out if a criminal psychopath wants to buy a handgun, but it's okay with republicans to force a 13-year-old girl to have her stepfather's baby?

it was fun while it lasted, i bet, but as the wool slips from our eyes, republican "values" are showing themselves to be grosser and grosser.

anne's anger, while perhaps harsh, seems to be justifiably directed at the hypocritical republican nanny state, not men in general. there are fabulous men. they voted for al gore and john kerry.

why is it wrong to find out if a criminal psychopath wants to buy a handgun, but it's okay with republicans to force a 13-year-old girl to have her stepfather's baby?

it was fun while it lasted, i bet, but as the wool slips from our eyes, republican "values" are showing themselves to be grosser and grosser.

I went in to get a vasectomy and the doc said I had to get a form signed by my wife. Huh?

If this is true, it's maybe a sign to find another doctor. There was no such request for our family.

I don't think the parental notification idea is ridiculous on its face. They are, afterall, asking that normal parental authority operate in this case, which is presently an exception. Only in understanding the facts of the situation does it become apparent that PN would be a mistake that will decrease the quality of life for young women and their children.

Sometimes sarcasm is not the best way to argue a point.

This is the second essay regarding this measure and I have yet to hear a convincing argument opposing it. So far my money is on this one passing easily come November.

In fact, the arguments against this measure have been amazingly weak, like the glib statement comparing abortion to wart removal which will only serve to alienate progressives who have qualms about abortion to begin with. The “attack on women’s reproductive rights” angle doesn’t work since we are talking about minors. And Anne’s “brilliant” essay is so full of holes as to be almost laughable.

Time to take a completely different tack and argue against children having children and promoting abortion for pregnant teens! Coming from low income/educational backgrounds where they will often raise their children as single parents, they will be a huge burden on the social welfare system while providing a less than adequate home environment for their kids. And that’s just for starters.

Voters just might see the reality of the situation if the argument is framed this way and opt to keep the status quo.

Buckman Res writes:

"Time to take a completely different tack and argue against children having children and promoting abortion for pregnant teens! Coming from low income/educational backgrounds where they will often raise their children as single parents, they will be a huge burden on the social welfare system while providing a less than adequate home environment for their kids. And that’s just for starters."

I can only hope you aren't kidding. Eugenics is a great message to reach the general public. Heck, Oregon progressives have a long and storied love affair with eugenics. So has Planned Parenthood.

Please take Buckman's advice, even if it is toungue in cheek. Democrats will show just how little regard they have for human life that doesn't meet their standards.

Dearest Liberals,

Can none of you (apparently Anne can't) provide a raw # or % of minor pregnancies caused by a dad or step-dad in the state of Oregon?

I asked the question earlier and no answers so far.

Her post rests on this point. You can say it doesn't, but it does.

Surely your good friends at Planned (non)Parenthood can provide such information considering the many statistics they tabulate.

Do you actually think it's a responsible and ethical solution for the government to expect, mandate, or require, a minor who has recently become pregnant due to rape from a family member to be able to maneuver the court system for a waiver?

why is it wrong to find out if a criminal psychopath wants to buy a handgun, but it's okay with republicans to force a 13-year-old girl to have her stepfather's baby?

Wow, you guys make it sound like most teen pregnancies are a rape by a family member? Holy crap, I hope not. If so, we many more worse problems to deal with than this ballot measure.

As for the vasectomy, issue...I had to get my wife to sign something too. Mine was done up at St. Vincent. I think this has something to do with the hospital being run by a Catholic organization.

dan j. and jon, how many 13-year-old girls should have their stepfathers' babies, according to your calculations?

according to progressives, one is too many.

Jami,

I'm in complete agreement with you. If you read my earlier post (3rd or 4th from the top), I'd go so far as to support castration of the father or step-father.

Would you support castration? If not, why Jami?

I'm just looking for an answer to a point raised buy Anne.

dan j. and jon, how many 13-year-old girls should have their stepfathers' babies, according to your calculations?

according to progressives, one is too many.

I agree. As a matter of fact, I dont think any teens should be having ANY babies.

But I dont see how this would affect that situation. So the doctor performing the abortion has to send a letter to the parents informing them? So what. Its not for asking permission, and I seriously doubt the letter gets to the parents before the procedure is complete. The girl still gets the abortion.

If the girl is a minor and she tells the doctor or Planned Parenthood or whoever is doing the procedure that she was raped by anyone, by law they are required to report it to police. So the offender goes to jail. Thats a good thing, right?

Hmmm... I haven't read the text of the measure; I was going from The O's article and reading 48-hour notice, by certified mail, before the abortion, as saying that the clock doesn't start until the USPS certifies that the parent has received the notice.

Is Jon right that it's possible the 48 hours starts when the letter is consigned to the USPS? Or when it's put into its envelope? Or when it's cranked out of the laser printer?

And if my assumptions are right, what do we do if the parents are out of the country when the USPS tries to deliver the letter? What if they've moved and left their daughter no forwarding address, which is why she's in the informal custody of her grandparents in the first place? What if the parents have a policy of refusing to sign for mail that they didn't expect or don't want?

I'd like to see some research on how this law has worked in other states. How many judicial by-passes, how many children were raped by Dad and got PG (My guess, very very very few) That would be interesting and informative.

However, Since we're talking hypotheticals, The Law of Unintended Consequences could bite:

What if...

The child gets PG by Boyfriend. She doesn't want to tell parents, because they are violent, or perhaps are religious conservatives and may make her take pregnancy to term, so says parent is either abusive or maybe - if she's really not thinking - that Dad or other male relative did this. Provider is a mandatory reporter who must report child abuse to authorities. DHS yanks child from home to foster home, Dad arrested for Measure 11 crime and is imprisoned with $250,000 bail. He loses job, is branded a child molester for life (because as every good conservative knows, if you're arrested your're guilty)

Or....

Child gets PG by Dad, but is told that she must notify parent or be yanked from home or get Dad arrested. So tries to ignore the problem, or gets illegal abortion.

I just want to know how many of you out there are parents.

And those who are, how many of you would want your daughters to sneak off and get an abortion or really any major medical procedure without telling you?

It seems like everybody on this thread is confusing the sense of embarrasment/shame that most minors would face when discussing unplanned pregnancy with the (much less frequent) occurrence of parental rape of a child.

Dan J's point is as simple as it is irrefutable: many young women would prefer to keep their unplanned pregnancy/abortion a secret from their parents; conversely, very few women face mortal danger if the law required their parents to be notified.

most everyone commenting still seems to think that it's okay for some girls (veryveryvery few) in desperate situations to slip through the cracks. it's absolutely not okay.

if you want your daughter to tell you if she gets pregnant, that's understandable. be a good parent, not the kind of parent who will hit her or throw her out or call her a whore. do you really need a law to be a good parent?

I'm a parent. I want my 23-year-old daughter to tell me everything about her every need for medical care, just as I want to know my 68-year-old mother's and 96-year-old grandmother's medical histories and they want to know mine.

My mother, her mother and I rely on the age-old techniques of showing interest in people and, very occasionally, a dash of maternal guilt. If we ever came up against a relative who didn't want to tell us all about it, we might resort to recruiting siblings or cousins to do some gentle prying, we might offer to trade secrets or we might apply a heavier dose of guilt. Ninety-nine percent of the time the bare fact that we listen with interest and care how the person talking to us feels is enough to open all the doors -- and yes, this also works with teenagers.

We would all be revolted at the idea of running to the government to force somebody to tell us something she didn't want to tell. That kind of unwilling intimacy is just another kind of rape -- with the police state on the side of the perpetrator.

Good grief. So ... what's the penalty for:

Dr.: I can perform an abortion, because you're over 15 and able to make your own medical decisions, but first I have to send a letter to your parents and wait 48 hours.

Patient: Ok, fine. Their address is <gives best="" friend's="" address="">.

Or the patient skips school so she can be home to sign for the certified letter.

Is the state going to pay bureaucrats to trace these letters, or is the point of this so that if the parents later find out their kid had an abortion, and then find out the name of the doctor, and then sue the doctor, the doctor can pull the certified mail receipt from the files and get off the hook?

Seriously, in what way or ways do the proponents of this law expect it to affect real life? (I get the theory that it's expected to chisel away at the political support for reproductive choice -- that's not the kind of real life I'm asking about.)

Good grief. So ... what's the penalty for:

Dr.: I can perform an abortion, because you're over 15 and able to make your own medical decisions, but first I have to send a letter to your parents and wait 48 hours.

Patient: Ok, fine. Their address is (insert the address of her best friend).

Or the patient skips school so she can be home to sign for the certified letter.

Is the state going to pay bureaucrats to trace these letters, or is the point of this so that if the parents later find out their kid had an abortion, and then find out the name of the doctor, and then sue the doctor, the doctor can pull the certified mail receipt from the files and get off the hook?

Seriously, in what way or ways do the proponents of this law expect it to affect real life? (I get the theory that it's expected to chisel away at the political support for reproductive choice -- that's not the kind of real life I'm asking about.)

"...the most compelling argument is that it creates an exception for abortions as opposed to every single other medical procedure. Once you're 15, you are medically emancipated in this country. Notification laws make abortion the ONLY exception to that rule. What's the justification for that?"

You are absolutely right, there is no justification.

I was surprised to learn the age for medical emancipation is 15. That seems way too young to me, regardless of the medical procedure. You can’t get a drivers license at that age, or get a tattoo, or vote, or die for you country in the military.

The law should be changed to make the age 18.

Buckman: Is there a justification for treating abortion differently as a medical procedure?

Well, first I'll say that even though technically the age of medical consent is 15, do doctors really perform medical procedures on kids of that age without notifying parents? I seriously doubt it.

Second - other medical procedures don't have government agencies and non-government agencies assisting 15 year olds in acquiring access to the procedures without the knowledge of parents. Abortion does. School health clinics and Planned Parenthood are at the ready assistance of a teen girl to help her get an abortion without parent knowledge.

That fact alone makes it absolutely legitimate for voters to say "enough!"

This doesn't happen with other medical procedures. A girl goes to her school health clinic because she sprained her wrist in PE, or because she has a headache, or any number of medical maladies, and the parent gets a phone call.

It is abortion that is treated differently. And that is why we need to tell them to stop, by passing parental notification.

Sasha, where did you go to school? My school clinic passed out small remedies, gave me a cot to rest on and even sent me home without ever calling my parents.

This was in Salt Lake City, a place where family values are respected and parents face societal pressure to do the work of parenting -- including talking to their own kids.

I went to school right here in the metro area, Susan. As do my kids.

A school that is repeatedly infringing on my parental rights by offering a secret alliance with my daughter to keep important matters about her health and sexual relationships from me.

Luckily, she loves to come report to me everything they try to do, so I know all about it. Whether it be passing out condoms, offering counseling on sexual identity, letting her know that if she needs any reproductive services that I need not be informed and they will arrange for it - the school is constantly inserting itself in places inappropriate.

All the while completely dropping the ball on the academic stuff. If she were to want to slide by academically, she would find a willing partner in that endeavor in her high school.

But they won't let sexual matters slide by; no way! I cannot count the times she has reported one or another attempt by the school to involve her in some kind of training or session on the topic of informing her about various sexual matters. I can EASILY count the times she has been approached to enhance her academic program: ZERO.

They seem to want to involve themselves in everything except for what parents expect them to do.

Parental notification? Duh!

I think the lower age for medical permission relates to the age at which youth can become emancipated minors if need be--at one time it probably also tied into a lower legal marriage age; otherwise the circumstances might come up where you have a married sixteen year old who needs maternity services but, because she's married, is not at home and is not under parental control (yes, it does happen, yes, I've known a few of these folks, yes, I had a friend in the 70s who married at sixteen).

More often these days this is also used as a transitional stage to teach kids how to manage their own medical protocols while still allowing for parental information and input, especially for kids with challenging or life-threatening conditions. My son developed Crohn's Disease just as he turned 16; between Kaiser and Doernbecher I don't recall a time when they turned to me first to sign a medical procedure permission; if anything, they got us both to sign.

Ok, Sasha, so have you actually received phone calls saying that your daughter has a headache and is being given an ibuprofen? (Or does she carry a bottle of her own and self-medicate?) That was the point you were trying to make, remember, that the schools don't trust her to tell you when she's got a cold, but leave it up to her to tell you about more important matters.

Actually, you can't count the times she was approached about her academic program -- just the number of times she's told you about. Perhaps what you need is a law requiring that you be notified every time a teacher offers her advice about her performance?

Susan raises a good point.

My son required both prescription and OTC medication in high school. In both cases, I had to provide signed permission slips to the school, and that was something monitored by the Multnomah ESD. Even a simple thing like an asthma rescue inhaler requires permission. He had to provide his own Tylenol and a permission slip for the nurse to dispense.

This is common in all school settings. At my school parents even have to provide permissions and the school secretary must dispense throat lozenges.

Zero tolerance, y'know.

And a further comment on Sasha's comment--it's been my experience, from parents with similar attitudes, that often the academic stuff just doesn't get passed on to parents. I can't begin to tell you the number of times a parent has confidently said similar things--only to discover the offending permission, assignment, or information hiding in the student's locker or backpack.

<h2>Her experience didn't match mine. Then again, I also aggressively monitored the backpack, even in high school (as a teacher--and my experience is that other teachers are the same way with their kids--I know that I don't get told everything, and my fellow teachers and I just plain dig it out and swap stories about our dang kids. It's a phenomenon common to honors kids and ordinary kids alike).</h2>