Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Borrow and spend
Next Post: Dart, Topinka and Rutherford all praised
Posted in:
* Big news on the abortion front…
A federal appeals court in Chicago on Tuesday breathed new life into a long-dormant Illinois law that requires physicians to notify the parents of teenage girls before performing abortions.
Attorneys on both sides of the issue said the law — which was passed in 1984 and updated in 1995 — would take effect within weeks unless its critics ask for a stay and the three-judge panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agrees to put its order on hold pending a rehearing. […]
The law does not require parental consent, only that parents be notified 48 hours before an abortion for a girl 17 or younger. A provision of the law allows girls to bypass parental notification by notifying a judge instead, a procedure the ACLU argued would not be practical.
The General Assembly passed the 1995 law, but left it to the state Supreme Court to issue key rules governing how minors could seek waivers in court. The Supreme Court never issued rules — opening the door for the lengthy delay and legal challenges.
More…
Robyn Ziegler, a spokeswoman for Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, said she couldn’t immediately comment. Madigan previously said she supported the measure, which the appeals court called “a permissible attempt to help a young woman make an informed choice about whether to have an abortion.” […]
The appeals panel said it recognized that there may be “practical problems” with the expedited procedures created by the Illinois Supreme Court for bypassing the notice requirement. “It may be intimidating for a minor to navigate the process of presenting her case to a judge, for instance,” Cudahy wrote.
Today, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit dissolved the federal injunction against the Illinois Parental Notice of Abortion Act. As a direct result of the court’s decision (Zbaraz v. Hartigan), Illinois parents will be entitled, for the first time since Roe v. Wade was decided, to notification before their minor daughters are taken for abortions. The decision is the culmination of four years work by the Thomas More Society, particularly TMS Special Counsel Paul Linton, who devised the legal strategy which ultimately led to the lifting of the injunction.
“This is an incredible victory for Illinois parents and their children,” said Peter Breen, Executive Director and Legal Counsel of the Thomas More Society. “Parental involvement laws enjoy overwhelming public support. These laws promote the integrity of the family and ensure that parents are consulted so that their children are not forced into an abortion decision. A wealth of social science data indicates that parental involvement laws lead to lower pregnancy rates, out-of-wedlock births and abortions.”
The Parental Notice Act has been in legal limbo for more than ten years because of the Illinois Supreme Court’s refusal to issue the rules necessary to make the Act effective. Since the passage of the Act in 1995, over 50,000 Illinois minors have obtained abortions, more than 4,000 of whom were 14 years old or younger, without any requirement to notify their parents beforehand.
Following Linton’s legal strategy, representatives of pro-life organizations met with DuPage County State’s Attorney Joseph Birkett in the spring of 2005 to ask him to petition the Illinois Supreme Court to adopt the rules required by the 1995 Act. Birkett agreed and filed his petition in June 2006. On September 7, 2006, the Thomas More Society, representing a range of interested organizations, filed a supplemental petition with the state supreme court. Less than two weeks later, the Illinois Supreme Court, under the leadership of Chief Justice Bob Thomas, unanimously adopted Supreme Court Rule 303A.
After various delays, Attorney General Lisa Madigan returned to federal court in March 2007 and petitioned Judge David Coar to lift the permanent injunction which had been issued eleven years earlier. After Judge Coar denied the petition, the Thomas More Society intervened in the case on behalf of State’s Attorneys Stu Umholtz (Republican, Tazewell County) and Ed Deters (Democrat, Effingham County) to press an appeal against the injunction.
* The ACLU’s response…
Today’s decision reviving the dormant Illinois Parental Notice of Abortion Act creates unnecessary, dangerous hurdles to accessing essential health care for young women facing an unintended pregnancy in the State of Illinois. In the decades while this law (and its predecessors) were not enforced, we know that most young women in Illinois consulted with a parent or guardian when making the difficult decision about whether to continue a pregnancy. In those instances where young women did not tell a parent, often because of fear of abuse or neglect, most consulted with a trusted adult family member.
We now turn our attention to counseling teens and medical providers to minimize the harms of the notice and by-pass requirements upheld by the court today.
Thoughts?
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Jul 15, 09 @ 8:45 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Borrow and spend
Next Post: Dart, Topinka and Rutherford all praised
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
It is logically ridiculous that IL law requires parental CONSENT for a tattoo if under 18 but has prohibited parental NOTIFICATION for an abortion. This is long overdue!
Comment by Suburbs Wednesday, Jul 15, 09 @ 8:53 am
The ACLU’s statement that they will turn their attention to counseling teens to “minimize the harms of the notice” makes me sick.
Comment by Captain Fuzz Wednesday, Jul 15, 09 @ 9:13 am
==we know that most young women in Illinois consulted with a parent or guardian when making the difficult decision about whether to continue a pregnancy==
How does the ACLU know this?
Comment by Brennan Wednesday, Jul 15, 09 @ 9:20 am
It’s about time!
This law in its current form was passed and approved fair and square 14 years ago. It was acceptable to enough legislators and to the governor at the time (Edgar) to gain approval. It is in line with the kind of abortion restrictions most Americans — even those who consider themselves pro-choice — believe to be appropriate. The only thing holding it up is the Supreme Court’s tardiness in drawing up rules for an aspect of its administration.
Comment by Bookworm Wednesday, Jul 15, 09 @ 9:21 am
You have to draw the line somewhere between childhood and adulthood, so the law strikes me as reasonable.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Jul 15, 09 @ 9:44 am
Dear Illinois Legislature: please pass a piece of legislation that allows girls 17 and younger to have an abortion without parental notification.
Comment by Amy Wednesday, Jul 15, 09 @ 9:52 am
Bad news for the clinic down in Granite City. The lack of parental notification made it a magnet for several states.
Bye bye
I wonder how the ACLU explains that EVERY state around IL has Parental consent/Notice, and none of the bad things they mention happen in those states?
Comment by Pat collins Wednesday, Jul 15, 09 @ 9:52 am
FYI: There are very good arguments that question how effective judicial bypass can be, but the studies that have examined it are overlooking the Roberts court. The studies claim that the judicial bypass is yet another “undue burden” due to the behavior of judges, the courts, and the process by which they are tasked with protecting minors. The ACLU wants these laws thrown out altogether. These assertions are baseless. The ACLU’s real fight is with those court systems that they claim are unreliable. They’re free to engage in reform and I’d love to host them in Chicago to review the Circuit Court of Cook County.
Chief Justice Roberts has a judicial philosophy that statutes should be challenged through a limited and precise application to certain aspects of a statute and not the entire law or the entire bill itself. I’m expecting an appeal of this decision to the 7th circuit court of appeals may apply the Roberts reasoning in Ayotte v Planned Parenthood.
Comment by Brennan Wednesday, Jul 15, 09 @ 10:05 am
What is the purpose of judicial notification?
Are we to suppose that a judge is a reasonable substitute for a parent?
Comment by Yellow Dog Wednesday, Jul 15, 09 @ 10:11 am
YD, I believe the judicial route is for young women who have reason to believe they would come to some harm by notifying their parents. In the most extreme cases, it would be for victims of incest.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Jul 15, 09 @ 10:13 am
=== It is logically ridiculous that IL law requires parental CONSENT for a tattoo if under 18 but has prohibited parental NOTIFICATION for an abortion. ===
Except that one in four girls in Illinois is sexually abused before the age of 18, most often by a family member or family friend.
Worth noting as well that the Illinois General Assembly is poised to slash funding for counseling programs that would aid these young victims and other sexual assault survivors.
And, for the record, I think laws REQUIRING parental permission for tattoos and ear-piercings are absurd. Its a parent’s job to make sure their kids know what the boundaries are, and that there a steep consequences for crossing them. But these laws don’t punish kids for crossing those boundaries — they punish the small business that gives them the service they paid for.
And I find it hilarious that the conservatives who most brashly complain about Illinois becoming a Nanny State are the ones to argue most loudly that we should have a law that allows a 16 year-old girl to go to a judge to get an abortion.
Comment by Yellow Dog Wednesday, Jul 15, 09 @ 10:21 am
==What is the purpose of judicial notification?==
If the minor believes that notifying their parents will potentially bring harm to them, the judicial bypass is there as the alternative. It’s a health and safety exception. It’s usually difficult to place in a bill. Even a judge is considered “too extreme” by the opposition to the statute. They tend to argue that any exception outside the parent could be filled by a social worker or school counselor.
==Are we to suppose that a judge is a reasonable substitute for a parent?==
In some cases, yes.
Comment by Brennan Wednesday, Jul 15, 09 @ 10:25 am
I understand the intent, Wordslinger, but I’ll ask the question again:
Is a judge a reasonable substitute for a parent?
Because I just saw a judge in Cook County give a Chicago cop probation for beating the crap out of a bartender.
And our downstate counties are packed with judges who won’t approve adoptions by gay couples, despite a mountain of children in foster care in need of loving homes.
A judge in Central Illinois just gave visitation rights to a father who went on to slay his children.
And, as everyone in downstate Illinois knows, if you live in a county of fewer than 50,000 people, there’s a pretty good chance that your step-father hangs out at the same bar as all the judges in town.
Moreover, the judge is a complete stranger, what exactly is his role once he is notified? Is he supposed to ask her HOW she got pregnant? Who the father is? Advise her on whether or not to have an abortion? This doesn’t sound like the proper role of a judge to me.
Comment by Yellow Dog Wednesday, Jul 15, 09 @ 10:28 am
YDD, judging from the numbers of girls and boys with tattoos at my kids high school, and the conversations I’ve had with honked off parents, I think the tattoo consent law is quite easily circumvented.
The amount of ugly ink these kids are injecting themselves with is bizarre. Whoever can invent a truly painless tattoo removal method will be the next Bill Gates.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Jul 15, 09 @ 10:28 am
==they punish the small business that gives them the service they paid for.==
Are you suggesting an exemption for merchants that fail to enforce requirements to ask for identification when purchasing prescription drugs, tobacco products and alcohol?
Comment by Brennan Wednesday, Jul 15, 09 @ 10:30 am
Apart from the merits of the law, I was very troubled many years back when Neil Hartigan refused to enforce an abortion restriction law (which I most definitely thought was without merit, but I didn’t like the AG apointing itself a super-legislation). Lisa Madigan should have gone to the fed courts whether she liked the bill’s merits or not (and for all I know she would have, that’s not a swipe at her, just a comment on the AG’s role).
Comment by lake county democrat Wednesday, Jul 15, 09 @ 10:33 am
super-legislature, sorry.
Comment by lake county democrat Wednesday, Jul 15, 09 @ 10:33 am
despite a mountain of children in foster care in need of loving homes.
But most of those kids are NOT adoptable, as the parental rights have not been terminated.
Central Illinois just gave visitation rights to a father ,
And one in McHenry let a mom ake the kids to mexico, and surprise, surprise, she’s not coming back. Judges blow it at times.
one in four girls in Illinois is sexually abused before the age of 18
And your way lets the abuser take her to a clinic, get rid of the evidence, and keep on abusing.
Comment by Pat collins Wednesday, Jul 15, 09 @ 10:35 am
==Because I just saw a judge in Cook County give a Chicago cop probation for beating the crap out of a bartender.==
Judicial misconduct? I thought the judge really failed the people in that decision. So why not apply the recourse mechanisms available to us. We don’t have to renew the judge. We can play a greater role in the selection process.
We can’t just assume that all the powers that be will do things in the interest of the people when they show time and time again they act in the interests of their benefactors.
I think what we as people are doing is failing to walk down all the roads our Federal Republic and our Democratic States provide to establish and police our own institutions. We can do so much better.
Comment by Brennan Wednesday, Jul 15, 09 @ 10:36 am
==And I find it hilarious that the conservatives who most brashly complain about Illinois becoming a Nanny State are the ones to argue most loudly that we should have a law that allows a 16 year-old girl to go to a judge to get an abortion. ==
And some might find it hilarious when people defend the nanny state against conservatives who don’t think that adults should be treated like children by pointing out that some of those same conservatives think children should be treated like children.
Comment by Anon Wednesday, Jul 15, 09 @ 10:41 am
If the ACLU wants to take over parenting everyone’s kids so bad, they should be forced to pay child support to the parents!
Comment by Segatari Wednesday, Jul 15, 09 @ 11:07 am
{”we know” that most young women in Illinois consulted with a parent or guardian when making the difficult decision about whether to continue a pregnancy. In those instances where young women did not tell a parent, often because of fear of abuse or neglect, most consulted with a trusted adult family member.}
Did anyone bother to ask for the empirical data to support these contentions, or were these simply accepted as fact, and left unchallenged?
Comment by Quinn T. Sential Wednesday, Jul 15, 09 @ 11:27 am
Pat:
1) You are incorrect about termination of parental rights. Illinois terminates parental rights within a year, and has the BEST record in the country for moving kids into permanent homes. Despite that, older children, siblings, and those with developmental disabilities, special health needs, or mental health needs find it next to impossible to find permanent homes.
2) Glad we agree that some random judge is the last person you want to send a 16 year old, unaccompanied by a lawyer, to see.
3) Under parental notification laws, the step-father or father who is abusing his daughter can STILL take her to have an abortion. So what problem, exactly, have you solved?
Anon -
If, in fact, that’s your real name…
If conservatives want to argue that a pregnant teen is still a child, and the law should “treat children like children,” fine. But conservatives most certainly AREN’T arguing that. If they were, they would insist that the law require parental permission, not just notification, as we require parental permission for not just for other medical procedures but also tattoos, ear piercings, even educational field trips.
When a student is allowed to go to a judge to get a signature for a school field trip, then I’d agree that your parental notification law merely treats “children like children.”
But the contorted logic of notification v. permission and the creation of any bypass system — judicial or otherwise — is a recognition that a pregnant teenage girl is more than just a child. She is also an expectant mother, faced with a decision that will impact the rest of her life.
Every one of those pregnant teens faces a unique and complex set of circumstances, yet conservatives seek to impose a one-size-fits-all solution. It just doesn’t work.
Good parents don’t need a parental notification law, because good parents talk to their kids about sex and its consequences, and in return their kids talk to them — without a law in place.
And bad parents? How does forcing kids to talk to a bad parent fix anything?
Comment by Yellow Dog Wednesday, Jul 15, 09 @ 11:55 am
As further proof, let me point to this Kaiser Family Foundation study.
- Only 51% of parents have discussed with their teens “how to know when you are ready to have sex.”
- 43% of parents had discussed how to talk to a boyfriend or girlfriend about sexual health issues, such as pregnancy, birth control, and STDs;
- 52% of parents had discussed condoms with their teens; 49% had discussed other forms of contraception.
If the state wants to reduce the number of teenagers having abortions, we’d be a heckuva lot better off educating parents than curtailing the rights of expectant mothers.
Comment by Yellow Dog Wednesday, Jul 15, 09 @ 12:10 pm
==If they[conservatives] were, they would insist that the law require parental permission, not just notification, as we require parental permission for not just for other medical procedures but also tattoos, ear piercings, even educational field trips.==
They have. The courts see this as an unconstitutional statute. Conservatives still try to insert this language, but many are persuaded to drop it in exchange for parental notification until “settled law” is altered by the SCOTUS.
Off Topic: But when I reload this page I see new comments with timestamps that predate the last known comment that was loaded in my browser.
Any CFB readers know if this is a bug or just the standard operating procedure?
Comment by Brennan Wednesday, Jul 15, 09 @ 12:50 pm
Human life is precious. It is fitting and proper for society to place safeguards to protect it. Whether we are discussing capital punishment or abortion, we are to err on the side of protecting human life.
To allow the termination of human life without barriers or boundaries is uncivilized. We are not barbarians.
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Jul 15, 09 @ 1:18 pm
Vanilla, you know that not everyone agrees on what constitutes a human life (physical separation from mother, heartbeat, fingernails, etc).
What almost everyone can agree upon is that the state and society as a whole would benefit from fewer abortions, Democrats and Republicans alike. Don’t you think that would be a better way to approach the issue? I’m not challenging you, but rather trying to find some common ground here.
Comment by Obamarama Wednesday, Jul 15, 09 @ 1:32 pm
As a parent who raised daughters, I think the key thing here is that the children stop being referenced as “young women”. They are girls, children, adolescents. Taking a decision from a young woman is one thing. Taking it from a child is another. Once the terminology is correct, the issue becomes clearer. That’s my two cents.
Comment by Cranky Old Man Wednesday, Jul 15, 09 @ 1:41 pm
==If conservatives want to argue that a pregnant teen is still a child, and the law should “treat children like children,” fine. But conservatives most certainly AREN’T arguing that. If they were, they would insist that the law require parental permission, not just notification, as we require parental permission for not just for other medical procedures but also tattoos, ear piercings, even educational field trips.==
Yes, anon really is my name. And who says conservatives don’t want to impose a parental consent requirement? The fact is, with the current crop of judges in this country, they can hardly get notification laws enforced, so why be surprised if “notification” is where the arguments focus?
Comment by Anon Wednesday, Jul 15, 09 @ 1:45 pm
So what problem, exactly, have you solved?
Comment by Pat collins Wednesday, Jul 15, 09 @ 1:54 pm
Well, that was random. Let’s try again.
So what problem, exactly, have you solved?
The problem where the abuser is a teacher, neighbor, coach, or anyone OTHER than the father. That’s a high percentage of the problem.
Comment by Pat collins Wednesday, Jul 15, 09 @ 1:56 pm
I find it hard to understand the underlying philosophy of the ACLU when it takes “abortion at any cost” positions. That seems no more reasonable than the NRA’s “bullets and guns at any cost” position. At times these groups are equally goofy.
Comment by Keyser Soze Wednesday, Jul 15, 09 @ 2:46 pm
I am a staunch supporter of a woman’s right to choose - and increasingly frustrated by the refusal of many pro-choice supporters to work toward the rare part of safe, legal and rare. IMHO the rarest of abortions should occur among girls. The age of consent in Illinois is 17. Doesn’t that make a pregnant girl under 17 the victim of a crime? Someone, whether in addition to, or exclusive of her parents, needs to be notified when a 14 year-old child is pregnant and seeking an abortion. I don’t know if that notification should be to DCFS, law-enforcement or the judicial system, and I am sure those agencies best able to handle it are already overworked and/or undertrained. But by letting a child make the decision to have an abortion alone, we are telling her that we don’t really care that she has been victimized and that she can, and perhaps should, bear the consequences of the crime committed upon her alone. Maybe if parents and “boyfriends” and abusers are forced to face the consequences of their actions/inaction we can start to move toward rare.
Comment by 10th Indy Wednesday, Jul 15, 09 @ 2:51 pm
When a parent has a right to force a 15-16 year-old to have an abortion against her will, then a parent has the right to force her to have a baby against her will.
Either that or the decision rests with that teenager. Its really that simple.
Comment by Yellow Dog Wednesday, Jul 15, 09 @ 6:04 pm
–What almost everyone can agree upon is that the state and society as a whole would benefit from fewer abortions, Democrats and Republicans alike. Don’t you think that would be a better way to approach the issue? –
Good luck with that, brother.
Pharmacology and sensible birth control education had the problem solved quite a while ago.
Abortion is a direct mail cash cow on both sides of the equation. I’m convinced that both sides are quite happy with the status quo.
Shame on them.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Jul 15, 09 @ 7:39 pm