More

Illinois Abortion Notification Law Heads Back To Courts

Abortion

First Posted: 06/18/11 03:05 PM ET Updated: 08/17/11 06:12 AM ET

Though the Illinois law requiring a teenage girl's parents be notified before she has an abortion passed in 1995, it has thus far gone completely unenforced in the decade-and-a-half-plus since it became law due to continued legal challenges.

On Friday, supporters of the Illinois Parental Notice of Abortion Act had another setback, as a state appeals court passed the matter on to a lower court, which will now have to determine the law's constitutionality. Meanwhile, it remains under injunction, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.

The decision reversed a 2009 finding by a federal appeals panel that Illinois' abortion notification law was constitutional. After that, abortion rights advocates turned to Cook County courts who, in February 2010, tossed the lawsuit but kept in place a ban on enforcing the new law. The American Civil Liberties Union, which has represented the Granite City abortion clinic and the physician at the head of the lawsuit, then turned to the Illinois Appellate Court.

Lorie A. Chaiten, director of the ACLU's Reproductive Rights Project, told the Sun-Times that Friday's decision marked an "extremely significant" moment in the ongoing suit.

“The court’s decision recognizes that there are serious constitutional issues raised by the [law] and permits our clients to return to the circuit court to present our strong case showing that the act threatens the health and well-being of young women,” Chaiten said in a statement.

"Most young women seek the advice of a parent or a close relative when deciding how to deal with an unplanned pregnancy. Young women who do not tell their parents about their pregnancy or desire to have an abortion, have good reasons, including fear for their personal safety," she added.

When Cook County Judge Daniel A. Riley tossed out the case in 2010, he described the lawsuit as flawed, but added the caveat that "so, too, is the law itself." The provision requires doctors to notify the guardians of any girl 17 years old or younger at least 48 hours before she undergoes an abortion procedure. Any girl wishing to bypass the law would need to go to a judge.

"It's likely to do more harm than good," Riley said.

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan has yet to indicate whether her office would appeal the recent ruling, according to the Sun-Times.

Thirty six states currently require some sort of parental involvement in a minor's decision to have an abortion. While some states allow avenues for minors to bypass those requirements, several states, including Florida, are currently attempting to make their abortion notification requirements more strict. So far this year, 18 states have launched such efforts, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST CHICAGO

Though the Illinois law requiring a teenage girl's parents be notified before she has an abortion passed in 1995, it has thus far gone completely unenforced in the decade-and-a-half-plus since it beca...
Though the Illinois law requiring a teenage girl's parents be notified before she has an abortion passed in 1995, it has thus far gone completely unenforced in the decade-and-a-half-plus since it beca...
Filed by Joseph Erbentraut  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 42
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
jennysez
05:31 PM on 06/20/2011
What I don't understand is if the state's age of consent is 16, making the act that created the unwanted pregnancy legal, but it's illegal for that 16 yr old to consent to terminating that pregnancy, how can the state say that a 16 yr old girl is capable of deciding to have sex without parental consent but not what to do about the consequences? A 15 yr old can become pregnant, is deemed responsible enough to carry a healthy baby to term, then physucally mature enough to squeeze it out of her 15 yr old frame, but isn't able to sign the hospital forms for her delivery?

And, does the inverse apply? Are doctors required by law to inform a teenager's parents if she decides to carry to term? Shouldn't they? Whenever we read about newborns being left in dumpsters and toilets its because the teen's parents weren't informed about the pregnancy at all, should teenagers be able to give birth without parental consent?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rwextthoughts
slowly the swamp is draining
01:09 PM on 06/20/2011
Then lets be consistent abortion on demand proponents
Other elective procedures such as tattoos and piercings and nose jobs also require parental notification.

An aspirin or Midol or cough medicine also
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
stanton89
10:58 PM on 06/19/2011
ABORTION KILLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
02:41 AM on 06/20/2011
In many cases, it saves.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rwextthoughts
slowly the swamp is draining
01:06 PM on 06/20/2011
not if done properly
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
liberalviper
All you need is Love!
06:37 PM on 06/19/2011
Come on, Illinois! We already made civil unions legal & abolished the death penalty. Let's toss this antiquated law off the books. What happens if a teen has abusive or incentuous parents? Keep these decisions between the patient & doctor.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Soundofthunder
Listen to the thunder
05:44 PM on 06/19/2011
The law makes no allowances for abusive parents or incestuous pregnancies. It places all the burdens on the girl to PROVE her parents shouldn't be notified.

FACT: a woman of any age seeks an abortion because they have CHOSEN not to be a parent, whatever the reason.

New rule: if you can get pregnant, you can decide whether or not to have a baby. It's not up for popular vote. The only vote that counts is the one who has to carry a fetus to term.

S
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gemini68
04:04 PM on 06/20/2011
Faved.
04:14 PM on 06/19/2011
It's interesting that anti-choice advocates believe that personhood and autonomy apply to the fetus but not to an adolescent female under age 17.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
liberalviper
All you need is Love!
06:38 PM on 06/19/2011
And it's interesting that once the baby is born, conservatives feel they have no right to proper health care.
07:05 PM on 06/19/2011
I don't really see them advocating for proper health care even before they're born. They seek to cut off medical access to the mothers to end the pregnancy while at the same time they're cutting off aid so that a pregnant woman can afford to feed and shelter herself and her fetus, not to mention preventing access to pre-natal care.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gemini68
04:05 PM on 06/20/2011
That's always been my argument. They want young poor women to have babies they can't take care of but once they're born? You're on your own.
photo
morefreethings
fixed income analyst
09:10 AM on 06/20/2011
its pro life....

and personhood applys, as in a life, but not being capable to make such decisions.
09:26 AM on 06/20/2011
Indeed it is not at all "pro-life" in anything other than trademark. It is anti-choice, since not a single policy advocated by this group is either in favor of "life" or against abortion. How is capability decided upon? I've met quite a few 12 year olds who possessed more intelligence, education and maturity than quite a few so-called adults.

Autonomy also applies, for the record, and that implies the capability to make such decisions. These laws are merely there to intimidate and threaten the health and well being of that teenager, hardly a "pro-life" action.
photo
BlindChance
Have another cherry...
02:48 PM on 06/19/2011
Any female of age (i.e. can get pregnant) should be able to decide what to do with her body without parental consent. It is outrageous to give parents the power to MAKE their daughter have a baby she doesn't want to have. And believe me, once denied the right to have an abortion, these girls will find a way to terminate their pregnancies.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
arkymorgan
Nobody knows the trouble I've been...
04:27 PM on 06/19/2011
and in so doing, many will terminate themselves.

It is so unutterably sad and unnecessary.
10:51 AM on 06/19/2011
This is not just about religious views. I am an atheist and really don't care about any moral spin on abortions. That said, I am a father. The government says parents can be held responsible for their childs behavior. We can go to jail for things our kids do. We can be fined for things our kids do. Child services will come down on us about things concerning how we are raising our kids. Until such time my daughter was of the age and the responsibility to make that decision, I have something to say about it. I'm not even saying I would not agree to her having an abortion. That is not the issue.
If I found out a doctor performed a medical procedure on my child without my consent and it was an elective procedure, that doctor had better run the next time he or she sees me.
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
02:08 PM on 06/19/2011
I am a Christian but the moral spins on abortion are so conflicting only the idiot ideologist think otherwise. The biggest conflict is that in many Christian denominatins the sould is not given until birth - so how can HUMAN life start at conception. The second biggest conflict is the presumption that an unwanted child will be better off alive.
But you comments about being a parent and legally responsible for you child are straight to the point. There are so many times we are NOT allowed to raise our kids yet are responsible for what they become.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
carmenalex
!Mamá caliente humanista!
04:34 PM on 06/19/2011
When I see on the news parents killing their born babies via microwave, or abuse 10 months old children with cigarettes, and burning towels that rip the skin off and when the autopsy shown multiple broken bones and rape, I go why oh why didn't they just abort when it was only a blastocyst or zygote? I'd rather they choose to abort than put a baby through months of torture.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
ChiGuy
Just an earthbound misfit, I
10:20 AM on 06/19/2011
Those who insist on inserting themselves into the private lives of others are merely compensating for frustration that there is something in their own lives over which they cannot assert control.
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
fjg
a jolly good fellow
09:39 PM on 06/19/2011
Shame on you for striking my comment, comrade. Such a tolerant, open-minded individual you are.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
ChiGuy
Just an earthbound misfit, I
10:42 PM on 06/19/2011
A little newsflash for ya': I didn't do it.
I'm not so petty as to delete comments from people with whom I merely disagree. Particularly those to which I had already replied. Like yours.

I'll repeat....Your use of the term "cavalier" is irresponsible.

In the future, try to avoid making uninformed assumptions.
03:07 AM on 06/19/2011
This is an outmoded law that needs to go. it is the person pregnant, and not their parents, that has to deal with the outcome of an unplanned pregnancy.The fact that religious extremists try to pretend that this is about helping a pregnant girl is sick. They don't care about that girl at all, only that she have a baby.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
liberalviper
All you need is Love!
06:39 PM on 06/19/2011
Agreed!
photo
Alwayspissedoffatsomeone
Fighting for Common Sense
12:07 AM on 06/19/2011
It doesn't matter what the public votes for, the vast minority believes it knows what's best for the majority. If laws are not enforced or enacted within a reasonable time frame then why vote?