Here we go: My beloved New Hampshire is before the Supreme Court for our parental notification abortion law. I wrote a short piece for this week's Courier on the same topic.
Quote from my piece:
It was deemed unconstitutional because the bill did not contain a so-called "health provision," which would allow the notification to be bypassed if the minor's health would be endangered by delay.
I oppose the health provision because of its slippery-slope nature. Doctors' opinions of what constitutes a health risk may vary widely and the provision leaves too much room for interpretation. So much room that a health provision may prove to be a loophole allowing abortions under nearly every circumstance.
So this brings us back to the main law as it is currently written. Am I to believe that the same governor who recently approved a bill mandating bicycle helmets for minors thinks these same minors are competent to choose an abortion?
If someone could explain how the bicycle helmet - abortion thing makes sense, I'd be more than happy to listen.
Quote from my piece:
It was deemed unconstitutional because the bill did not contain a so-called "health provision," which would allow the notification to be bypassed if the minor's health would be endangered by delay.
I oppose the health provision because of its slippery-slope nature. Doctors' opinions of what constitutes a health risk may vary widely and the provision leaves too much room for interpretation. So much room that a health provision may prove to be a loophole allowing abortions under nearly every circumstance.
So this brings us back to the main law as it is currently written. Am I to believe that the same governor who recently approved a bill mandating bicycle helmets for minors thinks these same minors are competent to choose an abortion?
If someone could explain how the bicycle helmet - abortion thing makes sense, I'd be more than happy to listen.
posted by Joshua @ 7:39 PM
1 Comments:
Shockingly, I completely disagree with my internet friend Josh and with this law in the first place. Abortion is not something you can just run in and do in 5 minutes, there’s enough blocks in there as is to prevent someone from making a rash decision. And while the instance of a young girl being afraid for her own safety if she had to tell her parents she was pregnant is slim, it is still a possibility, and something that must be addressed. This law does not provide any outlet for that unfortunate circumstance, and should rightfully be stricken because of it. Yes, doctor’s opinions very wildly on health, but we should trust their opinions as medically trained doctors and let them do their job, not tie their hands because we don’t like what the outcome might be. Also, I guarantee you most of the supporters of this law support it not because they’re concerned teenagers might make wrong decisions, but because it provides another blockage to women getting abortions. And I’m sorry, but do we seriously think teenagers aren’t adult enough to make a decision about abortion and yet are adult enough to carry a child? Overall, I think this is over-legislating something that is the business of the girl, the father, their families, and her doctor. We rightfully don’t legislate that teenagers must notify their parents before going on birth control, and the law shouldn’t enter into this.
And while I think requiring youths to wear a bike helmet is going a bit far with the legislating, it’s obviously in the spirit of trying to keep our kids healthy and safe, as is the decision to strike down the parental notification law.
Post a Comment
<< Home