Underage girls need guidance from parents

By: JIM TRAGESER - Staff Writer | Wednesday, October 19, 2005 10:31 PM PDT ∞

It's a strange sort of compassion that argues underage teen girls in California should be allowed to face important decisions about their health without the guidance of their parents.

Yet that's exactly what opponents of Proposition 73 ---- the Parental Notification initiative ---- propose.

They argue that underage girls should continue to be allowed to authorize medical providers to perform abortions on them in secret, without their families' knowledge or involvement.

It is surely a mark of the politicization of health care in this state that such a situation exists to begin with. Girls too young to see an R-rated movie or obtain a driver's permit are nonetheless allowed to make serious health care decisions without any assistance from those who care for them most.

Abortion advocates argue that modern abortions offer very little risk; that it is a minor procedure performed by skilled professionals ---- and therefore rightly exempt from the normal rules governing medical care.

But the fact remains that women die every year from legal abortions. Abortion is an invasive surgical procedure that involves risk, including the risk that the woman/girl may die from a variety of complications arising from the procedure.

Because of this risk inherent in any surgery, every other such procedure in this state requires a minor to have a parent's permission before undergoing it.

Why?

Because a humane, liberal society recognizes that our minors do not yet possess the experience or judgment to be able to fairly represent their own best interests when making life or death decisions. That when faced with such a serious, perhaps overwhelming decision, minors need the guidance of the adults who have been legally entrusted with their welfare.

And so an underage teenage girl can't have any surgery (but one) without her parents' or guardians' permission or, as an alternative to protect her best interests, a judge's exemption.

No permission, no surgery ---- right down to truly minor procedures like having a mole removed, an ingrown toenail cut out. Or even nonmedical procedures like having her ears pierced.

Yet she's able to face a procedure with a lot more risk to her longterm health or even life without any guidance, all in the name of protecting her rights.

Such compassion.

We're going to hear a lot in the coming weeks about girls who come from abusive families, or those who have been impregnated by their fathers or other adult relatives ---- girls who presumably can't afford to let their families know they want an abortion.

But Prop. 73 specifically contains exemptions for such cases. More importantly, is the current system of letting a girl get an abortion to avoid confronting molestation truly the best we as a society can offer her? How about some real protection from the abuser?

At heart, Prop. 73 isn't about denying girls their rights; it's about restoring common sense to medical practices in this state.

If, as pro-choice advocates are so fond of arguing, abortion is no more than another surgical procedure ---- no different than having a wisdom tooth removed ---- then let's at least be honest enough to treat it as we treat those other procedures.

Contact staff writer Jim Trageser at (760) 740-5424 or jtrageser@nctimes.com.

First name only. Comments including last names, contact addresses, e-mail addresses or phone numbers will be deleted. Attempts to misrepresent your identity or impersonate any person will not be approved. All comments are screened before they appear online, so please keep them brief. Comments reflect the views of those commenting and not necessarily those of the North County Times or its staff writers. Click here to view additional comment policies.