A story out of New Zealand tells of a school nurse booking a student for an abortion, driving her there during school hours, bringing her home late, and lying about why they were late. A year later, as the girl deteriorated emotionally and physically, it came out to her parents that she had received an abortion. The surgery damaged her uterus and she will now never be able to have a baby.
Any parent reading this story will feel outrage at having a school employee go behind your back to encourage your 15-year-old daughter to get life-changing surgery in secret. But legally, just as in Canada, the school did not have to notify the parents. There was no requirement of parental consent for a minor to have an abortion.
The fact that underage girls in Canada can get an abortion without parental consent or notification means stories like this can happen here too. Parents need to stand up for their right to protect and guide their children. No one should encourage your children to make major life decisions in isolation, or counsel them to hide things from you. As this story shows, parents can be left wondering why their child is struggling, and be unable to provide the best care and support.
We believe parental notification should be ensured before performing an abortion for a minor. Parents are involved in virtually all other medical decisions, and may have valuable information about a child’s medical history. Doctors, school nurses, or private abortion clinic employees should not play counselor and parent to teens in crisis.
A legal opinion prepared on the topic on parental consent for abortion stresses that parents are ultimately responsible for the care and guidance of their children. Under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child parents have primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of their children, with the best interests of the child being their primary concern. Article 18 indicates that this “best interests” measure includes taking into account a child’s maturity and capacity for decision-making; it does not, however, preclude parental involvement with mature minors.
The fact that a school needs permission to take your child on a field trip, but not for surgery, is beyond ridiculous. That same teen needs parental consent before getting a tattoo or using a tanning salon, and needs legal consent before being allowed to drink, smoke, or drive a car. Has abortion really become such a taboo subject that we are willing to just ignore legal oversights rather than face the wrath of abortion advocates?
Undermining parental authority undermines the best interests of children. It tells parents they don’t need to be involved in their children’s lives, and tells teens not trust their parents for support. If someone can take my child for surgery and I only find out about it later, they can expect to hear from me. I expect they’d hear from you too.
It is important to consider what this argument says in relation to minors. “Her choice” may sound supportive, but is it really? Should a young teen want to be left to make such a choice alone? If she fully realized the long term impact of this choice, would she choose to carry such a secret, choose to have no one to turn to for support? Is her choice really a choice if she felt there was only one option?
We all want what is in a minor’s best interests. Yet some argue a parent or guardian should not be involved when their daughter has an unplanned pregnancy. Why is it, at a time when a young teen has to make an irreversible decision, we think that anyone but the parents should be deciding what is in her best interests? Who, if not parents or guardians, can genuinely protect the best interests of our children? Doctors? Governments or courts? The teens themselves?
Doctors are well educated in the physical realities of abortion. In this way, they are well-positioned to inform girls about the procedure, as well as other options. They are not, however, in a position to offer counselling and emotional support to anxious girls, nor should we ask them to be. The reality is, for a teen in a vulnerable position, doctors can be intimidating and their opinions overwhelming.
Perhaps the government could objectively determine the benefits of an abortion for a particular individual. Even in the unlikely event that they could, this would take away a long-recognized legal right to parental authority. Parents would be deemed secondary authorities, while the government usurped their responsibility. If this was acceptable when deciding who should have an abortion, why not in deciding who should be allowed to have kids at all? Why not in deciding where your children should be educated? State control over the nation’s children can never be the answer.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, what about the teen herself? Many teens are as mature emotionally as they are physically. Should these young women not have a voice? Indeed, they should. However, their voice should not be the only one they hear. Science is clear that the teenage brain is still developing, particularly the pre-frontal cortex, the area of the brain which allows for future planning and decision-making. The adult brain has a deeper capacity for this kind of thought, making adults a better choice than peers when grappling with such an impactful decision as abortion.
In addition, adults can offer resources. These resources are not only financial, but also include resources such as a driver’s license and vehicle to get to doctor appointments, time they are willing to give to babysit a child that could be born, support they are willing to give to their new grandchild, and access to follow-up care post-abortion or post-partum. A parental consent law in Canada would recognize the value of adult support and involvement in a teen’s pregnancy, as well as recognizing parental authority and responsibility.
Parents and guardians, then, are really the only option when it comes to consent for minors to have an abortion, just as parents are the ones who need to consent to a teen getting a tattoo, using a tanning salon, or even going on a field trip from school.
What about parents who are incapable of making good decisions, you ask, or whose relationship with their children is strained, or worse, abusive? This is a legitimate concern when requiring parental consent. But does that mean we should strip all parents of their rights for the sake of those few who may be inept? Certainly not. What it means is that we build safeguards into the law, where teens have the option of bypassing parental consent with good reason. In these cases, be it of abuse, incest, or fear of reprisal, we can allow doctors, government, or courts to step in and assist an adolescent in making a good medical decision. Parental consent should be the standard to which exceptions are made, not the exception itself.
“What are we teaching our adolescents when they find persons in authority willing to help them deceive their parents? What does it teach these adolescents with regard to the respect owed to any adult, least of all a deceitful doctor or a duped parent?”
Intentionally removing a teen’s parent(s) from the decision-making process misleads the teen toward the false notion that parents are nonessential, simply obstructive to the process, and that the teen is completely capable of making mature, wise decisions without the parent’s advice.”
The College of Pediatricians makes it clear that the special secrecy given for abortion needs to end.
“Medical care of children and adolescents uniformly requires written and verbal parental consent for any procedure – inside or outside of a medical office. For example, written parental consent is required for minor children to receive over-the-counter medications when in day care or at school. This is because appropriate medical care can only be provided within the context of the patient’s family and medical history.”
Ignoring medical history and family relationships to accommodate abortion does no one any favours. Recognizing the ongoing development happening in an adolescent’s brain, the paper concludes:
“Legislation mandating or encouraging parental involvement in decisions related to a minor’s pregnancy protects adolescents during a very vulnerable time in their lives. Society recognizes this need, and often requires and encourages parents to be a positive resource for their adolescents in matters of health, and other issues of consequence. Therefore, excluding them from a minor’s decision about abortion cannot be justified.”
You can read the full statement, with supporting sources, here.
It’s time for us to bring our laws in line with decades of common law, and common sense. Parental notification and consent should be mandatory for girls under the age of 16 seeking an abortion. Parents need to be informed so they can counsel their daughters, as well as get them the medical care that may be needed during and after the pregnancy. Abortion potentially has both physical and psychological side effects, and parents are best positioned to act in the best interest of their daughters (and potential grandchildren). Keeping parents out of the picture isolates young teens at a particularly vulnerable time, leaving them open to pressure from virtually anyone attempting to influence their decision.
Consent and notification laws are one way to show that families are valuable, protecting both parental rights and the best interests of children.
]]>