Cook County Judge Tosses Abortion Lawsuit, But Calls Parental Notification Law 'Unfortunate'

A Cook County judge tossed out a lawsuit Monday that aimed to block the state's never-enforced law that would require a young woman to notify her parents before she can get an abortion.

In 1995, Illinois passed the law--but it has never been enforced in the state due to appeals. The most recent attempt to block it was a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, whose attorneys argue that the law is unconstitutional.

The law would require doctors to notify the guardians of a girl 17 or younger 48 hours before she gets an abortion.

Cook County Judge Daniel A. Riley tossed the suit, but kept in place a ban on enforcing the new law, according to the Chicago Sun-Times. Riley said the lawsuit was flawed, but "so, too, is the law itself."

"The law in question is a rather unfortunate piece of legislation," Riley said in a brief, noon-hour hearing. "It's likely to cause more harm than good."

Riley explained the law discriminates against a class of minors who are pregnant, in that those who are seeking an abortion must get parental notification but those who choose to have a child or even to adopt don't have the same requirement.

The ACLU is expected appeal, and Riley said he will then decide what to do with the restraining order in place. The Sun-Times reports:

Attorneys for ACLU call the law an invasion of privacy, saying it could threaten a teen's safety if she lives in an abusive home.

Lawyers from the Illinois Attorney General's Office, which is defending the law, say parents should have the right to give their child advice in the face of a difficult decision. Similar parental-notification laws are in place in 44 other states.

The case has attracted national attention from women's organizations, who agree with the ACLU in that the law threatens the safety of many teens. When the U.S. Court of Appeals decided to dissolve the injunction that barred the implementation of the Illinois Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 1995 last summer, Planned Parenthood issued a statement:

Planned Parenthood agrees that in an ideal world, parents would be involved in their teens' health care, and engaged in healthy dialogue around responsible decision making. Most teens seek their parents' advice and counsel when making decisions about their health care. But in some cases, safe and open communication is not possible. In those cases, research shows mandatory parental notice laws do not enhance parent-teen communication, but they may be harmful to teens' health and well-being. If our government and the courts really care about our teenage sons and daughters, it should focus on giving them the information they need to make responsible decisions and continue to encourage healthy family communication, not erect barriers to critical health care services.

Comments

[strawbarry3]

10:12 AM on 03/31/2010

To the Editor:

For years abortion has been illegal in America, and although it is legal now, we need to fight to keep it that way. Washington D.C's Congressman, Bart Stupak, has proposed an anti-abortion bill to be added to Obama's healthcare plan. Abortion should be banned because women have rights and nothing should get in the way of our rights.

According to Cecile Richard's (president of Planned Parenthood) this is what she had to say about the issue, "There was a lot of rhetoric about the unborn, but not even a whisper about the rights of women to determine their future." Continuing to say, ". . . it was pretty poignant that all those who spoke in favor of the ban were male members of congress, none of whom have ever personally faced an unintended or medically difficult pregnancy."

Abortion should not be banned and programs like Planned Parenthood should be included in the healthcare bill. The government should cut funding from 'Just Say No’ programs because it has been proven that they failed to reduce teen pregnancy rates, and yet the federal government has spent 50 million dollars on abstinence programs. Women deserve rights, and nothing should get in the way of them, especially individuals who have never experienced the situation or do not fully understand it. Religion should not get in the way of women’s rights either, because everyone has their own beliefs, and it's necessary for individuals to respect that.

Sincerely,
Shayla T.

[candlepin2002]

11:17 AM on 03/30/2010

I'm a little confused, this is parental notification, not consent. The minor still makes the decision, not the parents. I understand the desire for individual freedom, but where does it start? This is a major decision, and a minor needs real counseling with professionals to make an informed choice.

[metalcrafter]

09:57 AM on 03/30/2010

an abortion is surgery and as a parent I want to know. Not to mention destroying a baby.

I am resposible for my children until they are 18. NOt the anti american ACLU. GO support the terriorist you losers!

[Radarman]

12:13 AM on 03/30/2010

What a silly argument the Judge makes, "in that those (children) who are seeking an abortion must get parental notification but those who choose to have a child or even to adopt don't have the same requirement."

In what imaginary world does the judge think a child can adopt another child without her parents knowing about it and where the courts will approve the adoption? Not even in the worst AFTER SCHOOL SPECIAL does this happen. There cannot be a provision in any state law that allows for a 13 year old to adopt a baby with or without the parents consent.

[jamilk99]

10:22 PM on 03/29/2010

Parental consent laws are always invalid unless there is a judicial bypass provision.

[phase4]

09:01 PM on 03/29/2010

It is an invasive procedure. I understand the desire for privacy, but for minors, parental notification seems like an intelligent stance, so long as this at no point requires parental consent.

[etcetc]

10:30 PM on 03/29/2010

it does not have to be invasive. some abortions are done chemically, by taking an overdose of hormones. in such a case, you have no gripe?

[Dnietz]

11:42 PM on 03/29/2010

Parents overall have the most authority over their children, but they do not have infinite authority.

Society has rules governing the behavior of parents because we acknowledge that it is possible for parents to be harmful to their children.

If this is true, then it is possible for parents to be harmful to their children in ways that either technically are not illegal or they are able to avoid evidence of illegality.

That is why in all cases it is necessary to consider the welfare of the children as individuals and not simply subordinates of their parents.

It is possible for parents through a combination of neglect and/or abusiveness or other bad behavior create an environment that is hostile for the child where the child does not feel the trust necessary to discuss the topic of abortion with parents. In such a case, the will of the child to self determinate should take priority over the parents right to decide for the child.

Understand that the parents would be making a decision for the child that will have repercussion beyond the 18th birthday of the child. Therefore it is unjust to purely put all the decision making power in the hands of the parents.

[Radarman]

12:16 AM on 03/30/2010

The same argument applies for both Tats and Piercings right? As you said "the will of the child to self determinate should take priority over the parents right to decide for the child."

[TheSojourner]

06:09 PM on 03/29/2010

In an ideal world, all parents would be supportive, loving and caring. Unfortunately, all parents do not fit that description. Some are abusive, miserable, violent and horrible. Those are the parents that these teens must be protected from. What do those teens do? They could be beaten, killed, or even thrown out on the street. Who will protect them? They might be pregnant because of being raped by their own father. What then, force their child to carry the pregnancy to full term anyway? This isn't an ideal world, and those who advocate this law are living in lala land! All families are not the same. I hope they repeal this law altogether.

[Dnietz]

11:45 PM on 03/29/2010

I completely agree

and more than that

If it was just withstanding verbal abuse then I would say perhaps a child can tough it out and learn and then when they are 18 they are free to do whatever with their life

but this decision made by the parents will affect the child for many years down the line beyond the 18th birthday.

it is not just to put all the decision making power in the hands of the parents.

[Radarman]

12:20 AM on 03/30/2010

Besides in real life as is so often the case concerning underage abortion the ban makes it so much easier for the 35 year old boy friend to get the 15 year old expectant mother to just take care of the problem.

[Miriam Breslauer]

05:29 PM on 03/29/2010

What happens when the guardian that is notified is the father of the fetus in the child's body?

[phase4]

09:02 PM on 03/29/2010

They are hopefully beaten with sticks and thrown in prison for raping their children/children under their protection.

[Radarman]

12:25 AM on 03/30/2010

What happens when the father of the teenage boyfriend just takes the girl down the the clinic and fixes the problem before it ruins his con's life? The effect on the girl's life is of little concern to him, after all he already thinks she is just a little sl_t who got his boy into this mess to began with.

[FutureUnperson]

05:25 PM on 03/29/2010

Parents are responsible for every other other aspect of their childs lives, and health care should not be excluded.

[Dnietz]

11:49 PM on 03/29/2010

what if the parents are the source of the problem?

what if the parents are strictly anti abortion and will not at all consider aborting?

the pregnant child is then potentially faced with someone else making a decision for them that will radically alter the direction of their lives for many years to come (twenty plus years at least). the parents are in effect making a decision for someone in the adult age not just when they are sub 18.

so all adults are free humans that get to decide what they want to do with their lives, unless you parents are strictly against abortion. then they get to decide what you will do for your whole life.