Editorials, Opinion Piece Respond To Bill That Would Criminalize Assisting Minors To Circumvent State Parental Notification Laws

Some editorials and an opinion piece respond to a bill (S 403) that would allow federal charges to be filed against any individual who transports minors across state lines for the purpose of evading state abortion parental notification or consent laws. The Senate last week voted 65-34 to approve the bill, which was sponsored by Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.). Under the bill, people who violate the measure would be subject to a fine or up to one year in prison. The measure includes an exception if an abortion is necessary to save the life of a pregnant minor. In addition, the bill would bar a father who rapes his daughter from suing anyone who assists in her abortion, as well as bars anyone committing incest on a minor from transporting her to another state to obtain an abortion. The House in April 2005 voted to approve similar legislation (HR 748) that would authorize fines of up to $100,000 or up to one year in prison, or both, for people who circumvent state parental notification or consent laws. The House version also requires out-of-state physicians to provide 24 hours' notice to a minor's parents or they will be subject to criminal prosecution and allows parents of minors who undergo abortion to file a lawsuit against the person who performs the procedure. Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) on Tuesday prevented Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's (R-Tenn.) attempt to appoint members to a House-Senate conference committee to resolve differences on the measures, saying that the Senate bill had not yet been heard in a committee and that it would be too early to have discussions between the chambers (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 7/28). Summaries appear below.

Editorials

• Denver Post: The Senate bill is "nothing more than an election-year gambit by social conservatives who have run out of ways to encroach on abortion rights," and it might be a way for Republican legislators, who voted in favor of expanding federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research, "to appease antiabortion voters ahead of the elections," a Post editorial says. The editorial says, "Congress' focus would be better placed" on sex education, counseling, and increasing access to contraception and emergency contraception, "so girls don't have unwanted pregnancies in the first place" (Denver Post, 7/28).
  


• Hartford Courant: If the Senate and House versions of the bill are reconciled, the "resulting law could have the opposite of the intended effect" because it "could force distraught girls to seek underground alternatives to legal abortion, to run away or take other desperate measures," a Courant editorial says. "This bill is a manufactured attempt to chip away at abortion rights," but "[a]ll it does is make a difficult situation even harder for girls who may have legitimate reasons for keeping their plight from their parents," the editorial adds (Hartford Courant, 8/2).
  


• Minneapolis Star Tribune: The Senate measure would be "bad law" because it is "wildly fanciful" and "more likely to inflict harm" than help girls and parents, a Star Tribune editorial says. "The idea [of the law] seems sensible enough," but "[t]here's no reason to think such a law is necessary," the editorial says, adding that most girls inform at least one parent before undergoing the procedure. "But those who don't generally have good reason to keep quiet" their decision, such as being an incest survivor or having experienced parental abuse, the Star Tribune says, adding, "Surely teens caught in such circumstances deserve society's compassion." The editorial concludes, "Does Congress really think it's right to hound these lonely girls and those willing to help them? It must -- for that's really all this show-boating election-year bill would do" (Minneapolis Star Tribune, 7/31).
  


• Tennessean: "The saddest aspect" of the Senate version of the bill is that a "meaningful option" to fund comprehensive sex education programs, offered as an amendment by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), was rejected 51-48, a Tennessean editorial says. "When members of Congress get serious about trying to prevent teen pregnancies, they'll give citizens on both sides of the abortion issue some sorely needed middle ground," the editorial concludes (Tennessean, 8/2).



• Washington Times: The Democrats' "obstructio[n]" of the Senate bill "has very little to do with any legal or moral arguments, and everything to do with carrying out the orders of the abortion lobby," a Times editorial says. "In a devious ploy," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) last week voted for the bill and then "gave ... [Sen. Richard] Durbin (D-Ill.) the nod" to block it, "[w]hich is all pretty much par for the course with the abortion lobby." The editorial says that abortion-rights supporters "rarely se[e] a restriction on abortion for minors [they do not] theoretically support, if not for this, that and the other thing," concluding, "And so prevails the status quo, in which parents have less control over their child's abortion decision than the high school boyfriend or the sexual predator" (Washington Times, 8/1).

Opinion Piece

• Jonathan Imbody, Washington Times: "Polls show that four of five Americans support a law requiring that at least one parent be told before a girl under 16 years of age could have an abortion," so it is "amazing" that any U.S. senator would "persist in political plots" to block the legislation from becoming law, Imbody, senior policy analyst for the Christian Medical and Dental Associations, writes in a Times letter to the editor. "If the cabal of pro-abortion senators led by Durbin persists in maneuvers to kill" the measure, then "perhaps it's time to transport them across state lines -- and let them hear from their own constituents why parents have a right to help guide their daughters' futures," Imbody concludes (Imbody, Washington Times, 7/28).

"Reprinted with permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation . © 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.