National Abortion Federation Blog: Saporta Reporter

NAF Board Member Caitlin Borgmann, JD, is a featured guest columnist on the legal news and research site JURIST.

Borgmann writes that parental notification “laws like the one that will now be enforced in Illinois do nothing to help teenagers, while imposing traumatic hurdles, and sometimes grave danger, on those who lack loving and supportive parents to whom they can turn.”

While parents rightly want to be involved in the decisions of their teenage daughters, good family communication cannot be legislated. “Most states recognize that mandating parental involvement for sensitive medical treatment will have the hazardous drawback of deterring many minors from seeking care at all….Minors in most states can consent to services such as contraception, prenatal care, and treatment for sexually transmitted infection. In many states, minors can even relinquish their children for adoption and consent to medical care for their children. Parental involvement laws for abortion stand out as the glaring antithesis to this trend,” writes Borgmann.

>Read the full column here.

Labels: Illinois, parental involvement, state legislation, women

A U.S. Appeals Court ruled last week that an Illinois law requiring doctors to notify a parent or adult family member at least 48 hours prior to a minor obtaining abortion care is constitutional. The three-judge panel found that state Supreme Court rules, which establish judicial procedures for an expedited bypass hearing, satisfy minors’ constitutional rights to the procedure.

However, the appeals panel said it recognized that there may be “practical problems” with the judicial bypass process. “It may be intimidating for a minor to navigate the process of presenting her case to a judge, for instance,” U.S. Circuit Judge Richard Cudahy wrote for the court.

For a pregnant teen to use judicial bypass, she must not only find a judge, she must work her way through a confusing legal system and face intense and sometimes judgmental questioning. Judicial bypass can be an intimidating process that can cause delays in care, and put a young woman’s health at risk.

“This decision…creates unnecessary, dangerous hurdles to accessing essential health care for young women,” said Lorie Chaiten, director of the Reproductive Rights Project of the Illinois chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

>Learn about parental involvement bills in the states.

Labels: parental involvement, state legislation

On Monday, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R) approved a measure establishing new mandates and restrictions on abortion in the state. One of the provisions requires that all women wait 24 hours after receiving state-mandated information to obtain abortion care. This type of biased counseling legislation is medically unnecessary and does not respect women. Abortion providers already provide women with the accurate medical information they need to make fully informed decisions.

The bill also toughens an existing parental consent law to now require minors to obtain written, notarized consent from a parent or guardian before obtaining abortion care, and allows for pharmacists and other health care professionals to refuse to distribute emergency contraception on moral or religious grounds.

Governor Brewer’s actions are in stark contrast to those of her predecessor, former Governor Janet Napolitano (D), who vetoed all legislation that would have restricted abortion during her six-year tenure as governor. Napolitano was appointed U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security in January.

>Learn more about abortion rights in the states.

Labels: parental involvement, state legislation

Parental notification laws like Proposition 4 endanger the health and safety of teens. Today, California voters once again rejected this type of dangerous barrier for teens attempting to access abortion care.

While parents rightly want to be involved in the decisions of their teenage daughters, good family communication cannot be legislated. California already leads the nation in the rate of parental communication about issues concerning sexual activity, according to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. However, involving a parent is not a realistic option for many young women seeking to terminate a pregnancy, and some young women may delay seeking care or even resort to dangerous alternatives if forced to involve a parent in their decision. That is why many professional groups in California, including the California Medical Association and the California Nurses Association, opposed this harmful proposition.

This is the third time California voters have rejected a parental notification provision. Two similar measures were defeated in 2005 and 2006, by margins of 52.6 percent to 47.4 percent, and 54.2 percent to 45.8 percent, respectively.

Labels: ballot initiatives, California, parental involvement, state legislation

Monday’s LA Times ran an editorial exposing a California parental involvement measure for its attempts to create more obstacles for women attempting to access abortion care. This is the third time such a measure has been placed on the ballot after attempts in 2005 and 2006 were defeated.

Labels: California, parental involvement, state legislation

Friday, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California and other groups filed a lawsuit to remove misleading language about a parental notification ballot initiative from material submitted for the official voter guide. The language in question includes a story used by supporters of the initiative to justify the legislation, although Planned Parenthood argues that parental notification would not have applied in the case.

The initiative would prohibit minors from obtaining abortion care until 48 hours after a physician has notified the minor’s parents or legal guardian. The measure is supported by the same group that has supported similar initiatives, which were rejected by voters in 2005 and 2006.

>Learn more about how parental involvement laws affect women.

Labels: California, parental involvement

Yesterday, a grand jury refused to issue an indictment against a Kansas Planned Parenthood clinic concerning allegations of parental notice and informed consent violations.

"We are once again vindicated, as we have been any time there is an objective review of these allegations," said Peter Brownlie, president and chief executive officer of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri. "The jury investigated all of the allegations that were in the petition that resulted in the grand jury being formed, and they found no evidence of any wrongdoing."

Normally, a prosecutor would decide when to convene a grand jury, but Kansas is one of just six states that allow citizen-petitioned grand juries. Abortion opponents in Kansas have recently used this law to impanel grand juries against two abortion providers in their state.

Labels: Kansas, parental involvement

In New Hampshire, two legislators are drafting bills that would restore the state’s parental notification law. This summer New Hampshire was the first state to repeal its parental notification law. The legislators said their bills would enact a slightly different version of the law that was repealed.

The repealed law never took effect because of a successful challenge by Planned Parenthood of Northern New England that was argued in U.S. Supreme Court.

>Learn more about how parental involvement laws affect women.

Labels: New Hampshire, parental involvement, state legislation

The Ohio First District Court of Appeals reversed a ruling Friday that would have required a Planned Parenthood clinic to present lawyers representing the family of a minor patient with the medical records of all minor patients provided with abortion care at their clinic. The court said the burden of disclosure on Planned Parenthood and its patients would exceed the value of the records and that even if the records were blacked out, “it is arguable that disclosure would result in a privacy invasion.”

This ruling is an important step in protecting the privacy of women and their medical records. The appellate court unanimously decided the records were not necessary and that there is no evidence that shows the clinic systematically and intentionally evaded its legal duties.

Labels: parental involvement

New Hampshire Governor John Lynch signed legislation Friday repealing the state’s parental notification law.

The law, which would have required doctors to notify parents at least 48 hours before a minor obtains an abortion, was passed in 2003, but never took effect due to legal challenges reaching all the way to the Supreme Court in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England.

Parental involvement bills threaten the health of young women, and restrictive abortion laws may worsen family communication rather than promote it.

“The Supreme Court found this law unconstitutional because it fails to protect the health and safety of all women, which is why I am signing its repeal," Gov. Lynch said.

Labels: New Hampshire, parental involvement, state legislation

Last week, the New Hampshire Senate voted to repeal the state’s parental notification law by a 15 to 9 vote. The law, which would have required doctors to notify parents at least 48 hours before a minor obtains an abortion, was defeated in the House in March. Governor John Lynch has said he will sign the bill, making New Hampshire the first state to repeal a parental notification law.

The law was passed in 2003, but never took effect due to legal challenges reaching all the way to the Supreme Court in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. In January 2006, the Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower court to determine if the state legislature would have passed the law with a health exception.

>Learn more about how parental involvement laws affect women.

Labels: New Hampshire, parental involvement, state legislation

This week Idaho Governor Butch Otter signed a bill into law requiring parental consent before minors in the state can obtain abortion care. The law is effective immediately and does allow a minor the option to seek judicial bypass in cases of rape, incest, a medical emergency, or if a minor is mature enough to decide on her own. Idaho’s previous parental consent laws have been ruled unconstitutional in court challenges.

>Learn more about the dangers of state parental involvement legislation.

Labels: parental involvement

Yesterday morning the New Hampshire House of Representatives voted to repeal the state’s parental notification law by a 226-130 vote. The mandate, which would have required doctors to notify parents at least 48 hours before a minor obtains an abortion, passed in 2003 by six votes in the state House and by one vote in the state Senate, but never took effect due to legal challenges reaching all the way to the Supreme Court in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England.

In January 2006 the Court issued its ruling in Ayotte, and unanimously recognized and upheld its own precedent that abortion laws must protect women's health and well-being. The Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower court to determine if the state legislature would have passed the law with a health exception. If not, the Court agreed that the law should be struck down. Supporters of the parental notification law introduced two amendments intended to salvage the law by adding an exception to protect the mother’s health, but both were defeated.

Labels: New Hampshire, parental involvement, state legislation

According to a study published in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine, one in seven doctors surveyed said they would not mention a procedure they believed to be morally wrong to patients as a viable treatment option. Fifty-two percent of the doctors in the study said they opposed abortion, and 42 percent opposed prescribing birth control to 14- to 16-year-olds without parental approval. The study, conducted by University of Chicago researchers, is the first to examine how the religious or moral beliefs of physicians might affect patients' care—especially when dealing with abortion, teen birth control, and emergency contraception.

Labels: Contraception, parental involvement, studies

Indiana Attorney General Steve Carter and Planned Parenthood of Indiana signed a settlement agreement Thursday, ending almost two years of legal battles over the medical records of minor patients. Carter has agreed to return patient records his office obtained from Planned Parenthood and refrain from further record requests following a ruling from the Indiana Court of Appeals in September, which stated a minor's right to privacy trumps the state's desire to search for evidence of abuse. In March 2005, the Attorney General’s Medicaid Fraud Control Unit attempted to seize the records of over 80 minor patients visiting Planned Parenthood clinics across the state for services including birth control, pregnancy tests, and counseling. At first Planned Parenthood surrendered partial records of eight patients to comply with the investigation, but sought an injunction when the unit expanded its request.

Labels: Contraception, Medicaid, parental involvement

Democrats in New Hampshire, who now have a majority in the state House and Senate, announced they will attempt to repeal the state parental notification law during the next legislative session. The law, which passed in 2003 by six votes in the state House and by one vote in the state Senate, requires doctors to notify parents at least 48 hours before a minor obtains an abortion.

In November 2003, Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Concord Feminist Health Center, the Feminist Health Center of Portsmouth, N.H., and Manchester, N.H.-based ob-gyn Wayne Goldner filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of this law because it did not include an exception in cases where a minor's health was at risk. The 1ST U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the law in its entirety, but the case was appealed to the Supreme Court. On January 18, 2006, the United States Supreme Court issued its ruling in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, upholding its own precedent that abortion laws must protect women's health and well-being. The Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower court to determine if the state legislature would have passed the law with a health exception. If not, the Court agreed that the law should be struck down.

> Learn more about the dangers of mandating parental involvement.

Labels: New Hampshire, parental involvement, state legislation

Today, a three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned an Ohio abortion regulation that limited minors to one request per pregnancy when seeking a judicial bypass of the state’s parental notification law. The court also upheld a ruling that requires women to have an in-person counseling session with a physician for informed consent purposes prior to obtaining abortion care.

> Learn more about the obstacles facing teens seeking abortion care, including judicial bypass laws.

Labels: parental involvement

Voters in California, Oregon and South Dakota rejected anti-choice ballot initiatives on Election Day.

> Read NAF's press release about the vote on the South Dakota abortion ban

> Read NAF's press release about the vote on Oregon's parental notification ballot initiative

> Read NAF's press release about the vote on California's parental notification initiative

Labels: abortion bans, anti-choice, ballot initiatives, California, Oregon, parental involvement, South Dakota

Oregon voters will also be asked to consider a parental notification ballot initiative this November. The Oregon proposal would require 48-hour written notice to a parent before a teen between the ages of 15-17 has an abortion. Oregon law already requires teens who are 14 or under to obtain parental consent for any medical treatment. This new provision could endanger our most vulnerable teens – those from abusive families, or victims of incest.

Visit the No on Measure 43 website to learn more about this harmful initiative.

Labels: ballot initiatives, Oregon, parental involvement

Last November, California voters rejected a parental notification ballot initiative by a margin of 52.6% to 47.4%. Unfortunately, proponents of the initiative managed to place it on the ballot with similar wording again this November. If the proposition passes, the health and safety of California teens may be placed in danger. While parents rightly want to be involved in the decisions of their teenage daughters, good family communication cannot be imposed by the government. Rather than tell their parents, some young women may resort to self-induced or back-alley abortions, risking serious injury and even death.

>Learn more about the dangers of mandating parental involvement and visit the website of the No on Proposition 85 Campaign to learn more about this initiative.

Labels: ballot initiatives, California, parental involvement

Last night NAF issued this press release:

Washington, DC - Today, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a measure that combines the Child Custody Protection Act, which was passed by the U.S. Senate this past summer, with provisions substantially similar to the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, which was passed by the House of Representatives last year. This callous legislation, more aptly called The Teen Endangerment Act, could endanger teens and violate their constitutional rights. Vicki Saporta, President and CEO of the National Abortion Federation, released the following statement condemning this harmful legislation:



Tonight, Members of the U.S. House of Representatives chose anti-choice politics over protecting the health and safety of our teens with their passage of the Teen Endangerment Act. This legislation would make it a federal crime for a person other than a parent to help a minor from certain states obtain an abortion in another state if the minor has not fulfilled the parental involvement requirements of her home state.

In many cases where a teen is not comfortable involving her parent, she reaches out to trusted aunts, sisters, grandmothers, or other friends as a resource. However, the Teen Endangerment Act effectively removes this alternative and prohibits anyone except a parent from taking a minor across certain state lines for an abortion if the teen has not already met her home state's parental involvement requirements. As a result, a teen may be compelled to pursue drastic alternatives in order to avoid involving her parents, or she may encounter dangerous delays as she attempts to navigate the legal system and obtain a judicial bypass.

The Teen Endangerment Act also places burdensome restrictions on doctors, and puts them at risk for criminal and civil liability. On behalf of health care providers, and the teens for whom they care, we condemn the House for passing this dangerous legislation.

Labels: anti-choice, criminal penalties laws, federal legislation, parental involvement

Here is the press release we issued today on the Teen Endangerment Act

Today, the U.S. House of Representatives will consider a federal parental notification law that combines the Child Custody Protection Act, which was passed by the U.S. Senate this past summer, with provisions substantially similar to the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, which was passed by the House of Representatives last year. This callous legislation, more aptly called The Teen Endangerment Act, could endanger teens and violate their constitutional rights. Vicki Saporta, President and CEO of the National Abortion Federation, released the following statement condemning this harmful legislation:



In most instances, parents know about a teenage daughter's decision to terminate a pregnancy. However, the government cannot legislate good family communications, and parental involvement may not be a realistic option for teens who come from homes that are emotionally or physically abusive, or for those who are victims of rape or incest.

In many cases where a teen is not comfortable involving her parent, she reaches out to trusted aunts, sisters, grandmothers, or other friends as a resource. However, the Teen Endangerment Act effectively removes this alternative and prohibits anyone except a parent from taking a minor across certain state lines for an abortion if the teen has not already met her home state's parental involvement requirements. As a result, a teen may be compelled to pursue drastic alternatives in order to avoid involving her parents, or she may encounter dangerous delays as she attempts to navigate the legal system and obtain a judicial bypass.

The Teen Endangerment Act also contains onerous notification requirements that place an unprecedented burden on health care providers. Its requirements operate differently depending on the laws of the teen's home state, and compliance with this provision essentially would require doctors to become experts on every U.S. state's abortion laws. In addition, teens may be forced to comply with two different state's laws; in other situations, some teens may not even have the option of seeking a judicial bypass in lieu of informing their parents.

The Teen Endangerment Act threatens the welfare of young women by isolating them from trusted adults and creating delays and burdens that could endanger young women's health. Further, it places burdensome restrictions on doctors, and puts them at risk for criminal and civil liability. On behalf of health care providers, and the teens for whom they care, we are urging Representatives to oppose this dangerous legislation.

Labels: criminal penalties laws, federal legislation, parental involvement

A state law intended to discourage teenagers from obtaining out-of-state abortions will be argued September 13th before the Missouri Supreme Court.

The law would allow parents to sue individuals who assist teens in avoiding Missouri's parental consent abortion requirements. The law has not taken effect and has been under a court injunction since it was passed last September.

Labels: parental involvement, state legislation

Unmarried girls under the age of 18 in Texas who wish to obtain abortion care will now need a parent to sign a six-page consent form and get the form notarized before they can have the procedure.

Parental involvement laws pose a serious threat to the health of young women, and restrictive abortion laws may worsen family communication rather than promote it. Even without state laws, most parents know about their daughters’ decisions to have abortions. The young women who do not tell their parents often do so for compelling reasons such as emotional or physical abuse or incest. Rather than tell their parents, some teenagers resort to unsafe, illegal abortions, or try to perform the abortion themselves. In doing so, they risk serious injury and death.

In addition, teenagers are already more likely than older women to delay seeking reproductive health care. When teens know that they are forced by law to tell their parents or get their permission before obtaining care, they are less likely to access reproductive health care services in a timely manner. When teens know that they are forced by law to tell their parents or get their permission before obtaining care, that delay is compounded Although abortion is extremely safe, it is safest when completed earlier in pregnancy. Delays caused by these laws can result in increased health risks.

> Learn more about the dangers of parental involvement laws

Labels: access, parental involvement, state legislation

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has refused to issue an injunction against a 2005 Oklahoma parental notification law that mandates physicians notify a parent or guardian at least 48 hours before a minor can receive abortion care.

The Center for Reproductive Rights had filed the lawsuit on behalf of a Tulsa clinic to block enforcement of the law because it did not create a proper judicial bypass system for minors to challenge the notification requirement.

Parental consent or notification laws which are now enforced in over half of the 50 states can violate the privacy of young women by forcing them to involve their parents in their decisions, even when that may endanger their lives or health.

>View stories on how women have been affected by these parental involvement laws

Labels: parental involvement, state legislation

NAF condemned the U.S. Senate’s 65-34 passage of the Child Custody Protection Act (CCPA), more aptly called the Teen Endangerment Act. The Teen Endangerment Act would make it a federal crime for a person other than a parent to help a minor from certain states obtain an abortion in another state if the minor has not fulfilled the parental involvement requirements of her home state. By preventing teens from receiving the help they need from trusted family and friends, this legislation may cause teens to delay seeking care or pursue dangerous alternatives.

>View NAF's press release

Labels: federal legislation, parental involvement

On July 20, 2006, the Senate will take up consideration of the Child Custody Protection Act (CCPA). This unconstitutional legislation makes it a federal crime for any person, other than a parent, to accompany a teen to an out-of-state doctor if the teen’s home state parental involvement laws have not been met.

The Child Custody Protection Act threatens the welfare of teens by isolating them from trusted adults and creating delays and burdens that could endanger their health. NAF urges you to contact your Senators today and express your opposition to this law that endangers teens and violates their constitutional rights.

>Take Action Now!

Labels: parental involvement

Last year, California voters considered Proposition 73, which proposed to amend the California constitution to require minors to notify a parent or legal guardian at least 48 hours before an abortion. Californians rejected Proposition 73 recognizing that these measures can endanger teens.

Abortion opponents have collected enough signatures for a ballot initiative that will place a dangerous measure similar to Proposition 73 on the ballot this November.

>View the California Healthline article on the 2006 ballot initiative

For more information on this measure and Proposition 73, visit the Campaign for Teen Safety.

Labels: ballot initiatives, California, parental involvement, state legislation

Salon.com has an article examining the deceptive practices of crisis pregnancy centers.

A new parental consent law took effect in Utah yesterday. The Salt Lake City Tribune reports on how doctors and judges are struggling to comply with the confusing legislation.

The Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from anti-abortion extremists seeking to reduce the damages they owe to the abortion providers they terrorized. The protestors, who put abortion providers’ faces on “wanted” posters, were convicted of violating the Freedom of Access to Clinics Entrances (FACE) Act.

Labels: access, crisis pregnancy center (CPC), FACE act, parental involvement, violence

The Idaho legislature is considering a bill that would require teens to have parental consent before obtaining an abortion. Read the local story.

Today is day three of a four day conference in Ethiopia about unsafe abortion in Africa. Read the news on allafrica.com.

The Mississippi legislature is considering an abortion ban bill. Read about it.

Labels: abortion bans, Africa, parental involvement, safety, state legislation