Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Little Lip on the bubble *** Updated x2 ***
Next Post: The fallout continues *** Updated x4 ***
Posted in:
* For months, Aurora has been an exciting and contentious hotbed in the battle over abortion rights. As you may know, the row began when Planned Parenthood built a clinic in the city. Abortion opponents argued that the group violated city zoning ordinances when it built the clinic by allegedly hiding the facility’s true nature. The clinic was eventually opened, and has since been the target of protests, with the local police threatening to arrest protestors who violated city ordinances.
Anyway, city leaders have been looking for a way to mollify the pro-life activists and voters and try to calm everyone down a bit. They came up with this…
Aurora City Council members passed a resolution [last] week that urges state legislators to enforce a decade-old parental notification law.
The Illinois Parental Notice of Abortion Act, passed in 1995, requires a physician to tell a parent, grandparent or legal guardian at least two days before someone younger than 18 gets an abortion. […]
The law has been held up in federal litigation since 1996 and never enforced. […]
“Right now children who can’t even drive can come to Aurora and have an abortion performed on them without their parents even knowing,” said Julie Van Domelen, a St. Charles resident. “I don’t see this as an attempt to foster communication between parents and children; rather, parental notification gives parents the chance to do what is expected of them.” […]
Investment and dairy magnate Jim Oberweis, a Republican from Sugar Grove running for Dennis Hastert’s 14th congressional district seat, and state representative candidate Terry Hunt, a Republican from Big Rock, spoke in favor of the law, citing teenagers’ underformed cognitive skills as reason enough not to trust them with major medical decisions.
* The idea now appears to be spreading…
On the heels of Aurora’s passage of a parental notification resolution this week, Naperville City Council members likely will deal with the same item.
During discussions of the controversial resolution, two Aurora aldermen indicated Naperville could jump into the fray and debate a similar motion. Councilman Richard Furstenau said he has been in touch with elected officials in Aurora and intends to bring forth a similar resolution at Naperville’s second meeting in December.
“There are a number of Naperville councilmen who are concerned about this issue since they put that new venture (a Planned Parenthood clinic on Aurora’s far East Side) over there.”
Thoughts?
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Dec 3, 07 @ 10:03 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Little Lip on the bubble *** Updated x2 ***
Next Post: The fallout continues *** Updated x4 ***
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Enforce existing law, sounds good to me.
If you don’t like the notification law go ahead a repeal it.
Comment by OneManBlog Monday, Dec 3, 07 @ 10:09 am
Overall I am in favor of the law. As a parent, it scares me to think such a major decision could be made and carried out without my knowledge. On the other hand, I am aware of other family situations where no good would come of involving the parents, and would likely lead to extreme abuse. However that danger in the end I do not think should supplant the parent/guaridans role. I can not imagine the intense pressure that could be brought to bare by the boy and his friends, the girls own friends etc. This is not an issue that a child should be able to face alone.
Comment by Ghost Monday, Dec 3, 07 @ 10:14 am
I agree, and I think it’s unfortunate that there are those pro-abortion activists who still fight this law believe it seems that those under 18 shouldn’t notify their parents when they have an abortion.
Comment by Levois Monday, Dec 3, 07 @ 10:17 am
“Parental notification gives parents the chance to do what is expected of them…”
I’m sorry, what is “expected” of them? Using context clues I would guess that she means giving the parents ample time to persuade their daughter, in a threatening or non-threatening manner, to not have an abortion?
Comment by Bill S. Preston, Esq. Monday, Dec 3, 07 @ 10:52 am
Does anyone know what the non-parent notification exceptions are in the law?
Comment by steve schnorf Monday, Dec 3, 07 @ 11:20 am
What is required of parents? For context, look at the first statement out of Ms. Van Domelen’s mouth. A parental notification law allows parents to assert their legal rights.
How about allowing parents to sign, or refuse to sign, appropriate medical releases for their minor child? You know, the kind required in advance for any other medical procedure to be performed on a minor?
Comment by Another Esq. Monday, Dec 3, 07 @ 11:23 am
I loathe the false dichotomy of “pro-life”/”pro-choice,” and the low level of intelligence this issue receives in the public sphere. But since I don’t believe in the criminalization of abortion I fall more into the “pro-choice” camp more often than not.
That said, I think parental notification makes plenty of sense. On top of all the emotional ramifications, we’re talking about an invasive surgical procedure. I can’t think of any equivalent hospital procedure where a legal guardian’s signature/approval isn’t required, let alone simple notification.
The exception would have to be if there was genuine fear of abuse or phsyical harm from a parent or guardian. If that was truly the case, then the police and several other social services need to be contacted and involved by planned parenthood or the under-18 person in question.
Comment by Sacks Romana Monday, Dec 3, 07 @ 11:31 am
genuine fear of abuse
But of course, when a minor is impregnated its VERY likely a crime had been committed, maybe even a felony. At least one person is in jail now - he got his teenage lover on the pill at a county clinic that couldn’t notify the parents.
PP makes money off of such types, that why they fight notification laws. Far more girls get abused by lack of notification than due to it.
Comment by Pat Collins Monday, Dec 3, 07 @ 12:11 pm
The parental notification issue, spurred by the siting of the PP clinic, seems to have energized the conservative movement in Aurora and the surrounding area, which has not had much to cheer about for several years as the area has turned bluer and bluer. The pro-choice camp seems to be silently happy to sneak one under the wire with the PP clinic, but I’ll bet they are also silently concerned with the backlash this facility has caused. The area’s pro-choice D’s are notoriously silent or evasive on this issue…one more reason the 14th is likely to stay R.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Monday, Dec 3, 07 @ 12:14 pm
“citing teenagers’ underformed cognitive skills as reason enough not to trust them with major medical decisions.”
Funny. I was thinking we shouldn’t trust Oberweis with a seat in Congress for exactly the same reasons.
Comment by Will Monday, Dec 3, 07 @ 12:23 pm
I agree with Sacks Romana. The point I was trying make with my comment was that this debate is fueled by people’s high octane emotions - which both sides appeal to regularly. Had the quote been given initially in terms of parental rights, instead of Another Esq. interpreting it for everybody, it would have made a lot more sense and been much more persuasive. Instead, the argument was made by evoking imagery of a tween ditching school and taking the bus 4 towns over to get an abortion and insinuating that it is “expected” that parents will convince or force their children not to get an abortion. I’m guessing that Ms. Van Domelen wouldn’t be so happy if the parental notification led to the parents taking their daughter to Planned Parenthood…
I may be accused of reading too much into the quote of an innocent layperson, but it’s these kinds of comments that fuel the fire and make this issue so impossible to find common ground on. I’m pro-choice and pro-parental notification - but not when parental notification is bastardized into anti-abortion propoganda.
Comment by Bill S. Preston, Esq. Monday, Dec 3, 07 @ 1:16 pm
… it’s these kinds of comments that fuel the fire and make this issue so impossible to find common ground on. I’m pro-choice and pro-parental notification - but not when parental notification is bastardized into anti-abortion propoganda.
As someone already pointed out, Planned Parenthood makes big bucks providing abortions to minors without their parents’ knowledge or consent. Read their own websites for the evidence. Planned Parenthood is the best friend of the child molester and the statutory rapist.
As for the idea of finding “common ground” on the abortion question, it’s not emotional arguments that make that impossible, it’s the simple fact that the question of whether a human life in utero is a person possessed of rights that must be respected, or not, is a purely binary question. It’s not a question of emotion, faith, or “choice”, but of objective fact. Either she is, and abortion is an intolerable evil, or else it isn’t, and abortion has no more moral significance than an appendectomy.
But even in the latter case, a minor needs parental consent, not just notification, to get an appendectomy.
Comment by Paul, Just This Guy, You Know? Monday, Dec 3, 07 @ 2:44 pm
Women and girls should have the right to decide what’s best for them. That may include an abortion. The state needs to stay out of it. Parental notification laws chip away at a woman’s basic right to determine her reproductive future.
Comment by Thinking Woman Monday, Dec 3, 07 @ 2:56 pm
Do you think it is appropriate for an organization that builds abortion clinics to hide this fact when applying for building zone approvals? Do you think it is appropriate for any organization to deliberately hide their intentions when seeking zoning approval, knowing that the purpose for their building wouldn’t be approved if they were open and honest?
Would you approve of an organization that pollutes to deliberately obfuscate this when seeking zoning approval?
Just how much do you wish to empower citizens in regards to what is built in their towns?
Exactly who has decided that abortion is so special it over rides our legal processes?
We just had a governor claim that having the Morning After pill available to all, anytime, anywhere, and so important a civil right, it over rides pharmaceutical procedures and grants the abortion pill purchasers rights nothing else has.
And now we have people saying that it is just dandy that abortion clinics hide behind generic sounding organizations in order to get around zoning laws.
Since when has abortions become sacrosanct? We wouldn’t accept a move by the US military deemed vital to our national security without whining, but abortion is OK? Since when has our priorities become so wacked and stupid?
Even this posting has folks focusing on abortion itself, instead of the under handed means that this clinic used to circumvented our local laws. Why are you so willing to give up some of your rights?
Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Dec 3, 07 @ 3:32 pm
I am dismayed by the bulk of the above posts and strongly agree with Thinking Woman.
There is ample evidence that parental notification laws force women in those states to seek the procedure in states that do not require notification, significantly increasing their hardship.
This is akin to the pre - Roe v Wade situation where women were forced to get back alley abortions.
Comment by Nick Monday, Dec 3, 07 @ 3:38 pm
Parental notification laws are not designed to give parents the opportunity to persuade their daughter against abortion, or to make sure the woman has her parents’ consent. The law is designed to make it more difficult for a woman to obtain an abortion, and ultimately to compromise every woman’s right to a safe, legal, timely abortion in the event it is needed.
Comment by Rita Monday, Dec 3, 07 @ 3:59 pm
Rita - I really hate to find myself arguing on this side of the issue - but I think the point is that in the eyes of the law, a female under 18 is not a “woman”… she’s a girl and a minor.
I welcome all arguments to the contrary.
Comment by Bill S. Preston, Esq. Monday, Dec 3, 07 @ 5:45 pm
Paul,
PP is the “best friend of the child molester and the statutory rapist”? That sort of statement is a good example of what makes it difficult for a rational person to even listen to this debate, much less take part in it. How do you have a discussion with an imbecile?
Comment by steve schnorf Monday, Dec 3, 07 @ 6:42 pm
All this wouldn’t have been a problem if Aurora Mayor Tom Weisner had just issued the permit for PP. Personal PAC threw a big fundraiser for him before the election(when he was still pro-choice.) Now three Aldermen who wnat to Mayor in 2009 have a platform with which to run on.
Comment by BlueGirl Monday, Dec 3, 07 @ 9:01 pm