In this case, it's statutory rape and covered under those laws.

But would Planned Parenthood (or whoever) report that to the authorities? I thought that they didn't, and that pro-life activists had been making a big fuss about that fairly recently.

IF it's a dichotomy between protecting the rights of the girl raped by her step-father and protecting the rights of the loving mother? I pick the girl.

On the other hand, it could be argued that in protecting the girl, you're also protecting the stepfather.

As I've said, my feelings on this are complicated. In the end, I come down on the side of less regulation of abortion vs. more, but I would hope Planned Parenthood and similar programs would offer more help to girls who were victims of incest or rape than just the abortion.

Also, I think the parental notification law furthers the notion that children are chattel, who have no agency of their own, no control over what goes on in their lives.

The law gives a lot of authority to parents of minor children. I can see Cindy's point that it doesn't make a lot of sense to allow a minor to decide to have an abortion without parental notification but not to make a million other decisions. (Though there's also an argument that, once the child has reached the legal age of consent to have sex, the child is also old enough to consent to an abortion. But I've been fighting a cold for several days, and my sinuses are still plugged up, so I don't have the energy to make it.)

A question for the hivemind -- What would happen if the minor makes an investigation-worthy claim that her parents would hurt/kill her if they found out she'd become pregnant? What are the odds that she'd be sent back to her parents while an investigation went on? Because there's a built-in time limit to reach a decision -- she could only hide the pregnancy for so long.

On the other hand, it could be argued that in protecting the girl, you're also protecting the stepfather.

Letting the girl have the abortion now does not keep her from going to the police later. Anyway, I don't really think that the person who's been raped and not gone to the police is going to tell Planned Parenthood how they got pregnant.

I think back to a friend who had an abortion withut telling her parents in high school. I can't imagine what would have happened if she had told them, as they kicked her out of the house when she later came out as gay to them--being told "you are no daughter of mine" is hard at any time, but even worse when you are adopted as she was. She lived in a tent for a few weeks, and then my parents persuaded her to move into our house for six months, at which point she was grudgingly allowed back home.

I think I'm with Cindy on this. Despite the very good arguments for not having parental notification, I think Cindy's right, that there's a deeper problem there than just allowing minor's to get abortions on their own, be it child abuse or molestation. I also want to have the right to parent my child. So if she wants to have an abortion I or my wife (not necessarily both of us need to know) have a chance to counsel her and support her. And I would be pretty annoved if my child's school gave her so much as an aspirin without my consent.

Also, if society feels my 17 year old doesn't have the maturity/responsibility to drink, vote, gamble, view pornography, or enter into binding legal agreements, why would she automatically have the maturity/responsibility to make as important a decision as getting an abortion done? I'm not saying she wouldn't. But the presumption is that most 17 year olds don't. That's why minors are supposed to have parents.

That doesn't negate the fact that there are situations where parental notification is wrong and could be dangerous for the welfare of the minor. In those situations, I think an agency like CPS should be enlisted to evaluate making an exception.

I have to say, I'm amused (or something) by the school nurse example, because why wouldn't a high school kid just buy their own aspirin?

but I would hope Planned Parenthood and similar programs would offer more to girls who were victims of incest or rape than just the abortion.

They do.

I hate the stereotype of Planned Parenthood as some kind of drive-through abortion Wal-Mart. They offer counseling, they offer adoption services, they offer prenatal care. They are NOT just about giving secret abortions to pregnant teens. Really.

why wouldn't a high school kid just buy their own aspirin?

In my high school, it was detention if you got caught with any medication, OTC or not. Teachers usually looked the other way to a certain point, but technically it's a zero tolerance rule.

Cindy, I don't think parental notification would be an issue between you and your daughter. In any event, you're not the reason teenage girls might need to get an abortion without talking to their parents.

I might be inclined to agree, except I have women dear to me, who were pregnant and aborted while minors, who didn't tell their parents, simply because they were ashamed and afraid they'd disappoint them. They weren't the children of abusive or otherwise unreasonable people, either. No loving parent is going to say, "Woo hoo, you're underage and pregnant with a child you didn't plan, can't provide for, and don't want. I'm so proud of you." An unintended pregnancy is a miserable situation. Now parenting is a journey, and ideally, it's made clear over the years, that you love your kids, and want to help them, even/especially when they need help because they've screwed up. But sometimes, kids are just too ashamed to think clearly about it all, and too proud to admit they're still kids and need the help of their parents.

At the time my friends aborted (actually, I think the minors had to go to NH at the time), I thought it was wonderful that they could do this without their parents knowledge. But I know the parents involved. Not one of them would have ultimately forced their child into one choice or another. Every single one of them would have given their daughters support they needed and never got after the fact, and at least in one case, the parents might have given her the support to not choose the choice she has regretted. The girls wouldn't have had to sit around crampy and crying an unable to be open about what they were going through.

The government does not have the right to take away the rights and reponsibilities of law-abiding parents to parent their children. It damages the children of law-abiding parents, when it does so--puts them at risk--because it removes from them the real love and support they need, and replaces it with moments with a clinic worker, instead. God, or nature, either way, something much bigger than any state or federal goverment, put these kids in my care. My rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ought to extend to not having my government help my children go behind my back, right when they need me most.

Would the parents have tried to influence their daughters in one way or another? Some. Would they have then restricted their social lives? Probably, at least some of them would have. It is arguable that these girls needed more limits, more guidance on contraception, and/or closer supervision than they were getting, in the first place. But they weren't not getting it because of any real pathology in their families. They weren't getting it because parents are often clueless, and kids are great at being secretive. Would the kids have liked the more alert parenting that may have resulted? Probably not. Their parents would have also seen to it that they got better medical care, and didn't have to rely on their buddies skipping school to drive them out of state, to a clinic, with no easy way to follow up, after.

Would the parents have loved them, and been able to counsel them? Yes. Would they have given them the emotional support they needed, where all we could think to do was get them drunk, and let them cry, laugh, puke and probably not mention it much ever again? Yep.