Child Interstate Abortion Notification Bill - Research Paper Example

 Child Interstate Abortion Notification Bill Introduction Abortion is legal in most states in America. However, there are different regulation and by-laws that govern abortion in different states. There are some states that require the notification of the parent by a minor of the abortion because it is their right to know what is going on in their daughter’s life. However, other states do not require this notification. As a result, there are some minors who conduct the abortion without the knowledge of their parent (United States 2005). The Child Interstate Abortion Bill was proposed as a way of protecting the parental rights by ensuring that a notification of their consent was presented before their daughters engaged in abortion. This bill number H.R. 732 is cosponsored by Roger Wicker, David Vitter, Pat Roberts, Jim Risch, Charles Grassley, Deborah Fischer, Mike Enzi, Bob Corker, Tom Coburn, Saxby Chambliss, Richard Burr, Roy Blunt and John Boozman. The bill was reintroduced by Senator Marco Rubio and Mitch McConnell, Senator Orrin Hatch (Hussey 2011). This is because at the age below 18, the girl is considered to be a minor and the parents are required to make decision regarding major medical operations. The same should apply in the case of abortion because it is major undertaking and in some rare cases if complication occurs it can cost the life of the child. This law would thus be protecting the parent and the young girls who with the parental knowledge may change their decision to carry out the abortion. Related Bill The related bill to the current bill is the Child custody Protection Act of 2013. This act amends the code that prohibits the transportation of minors across states to obtain abortion and makes an exception to when the procedure is crucial for saving the life of the minor. Background and Significance of the Problem The CIANA bill has passed in both the senate and the house of congress before. It was first introduced in 1998, then 1999 and 2002 and it was passed in both houses. It was again reintroduced in 2006 and 2006 when it was again passed in the two houses. Nevertheless, the recent bill which is now being reintroduced had died. However, the bill never passed and now it was reintroduced in both the current congress and senate and falls under the several legislation that have been enacted in relation to abortion and the protection of both the parent and the child’s right. Over 35 states already have the laws that require a parental consent before the abortion procedure is taken (United States 2005). However, there are still some states where this is not a requirement and teenagers travel to these states to have the procedure done without the knowledge of the parent. A lot have been said about the 112th version of the bill with a large number supporting it. Current polls indicate that 71% of the parents are for the bill as it protects the vulnerable girls and the parental rights. Michael, A prolife authors in his testimony gives several reasons why the bills are a major step in promoting life. You find that as much as abortion has been legalized, it is not the best option since it endangers the life of the minor undergoing through the procedure. Moreover, the girl may live with guilt for the rest of their lives especially if the procedure creates a complication and they are not able to give birth in future. When the parent is aware of the girl’s state of pregnancy, they can help them make the right decision and if the girl decides to keep the baby then the parent can help finance the upbringing of the new born. Being pregnant at a tender age when one is still growing up can be a trying time and the child needs their parent the most at this time (United States 2005). However, if the child fails to notify the parent, they go through this problem alone and are major decision that may mar the rest of their lives. Moreover, parents have right over the child since they are still under their care and should have a say in case of such a serious procedure (Mason, Leavitt & Chaffee 2007). This is because in case an underage girl is pregnant, the parent is responsible for both the minor and the unborn child and has the right to make the right decision regarding the unborn. Moreover, when the parent in aware of the pregnancy, they can be able to educate the child about safe sex that they can practice in future to avoid getting pregnant or even getting HIV. Most parents still perceive their teenage girls as children and are shocked when they get pregnant. It is the role of each parent to give sexual advice as early as possible (Hussey 2011). However, in a case where the mistake has been made and the girl is already pregnant, it gives the parent the chance to guide them accordingly (Curtis & Waldfogel 2009). However, if the teenager hides this issue from the parent, then they do not get the right advice and risk getting pregnant again. Members of the public who are prolife are supporters of this bill. According to them, the procedure that should be applied in this case is that of “the parent knows best”. However, you find that this amendment is against the objectives of Planned Parenthood which discourages the carrying into terms of unplanned pregnancy (Henshaw et al 2009). Their aim is to ensure that teenager and even older people do not carry into terms unplanned pregnancy as a way of controlling population growth. This is also used as a way of promoting economic development because teenage mothers with their little education would not be able to get a good job. They also drop out of school to take care of the child and rely on welfare money. This naturally results in a decline in the child’s standard of living which could have been better if their education was not disrupted by pregnancy (Bitler & Zavodny 2001). Moreover, even in cases where the parent of the minor decide to help in the upbringing of the child this places an extra burden on them which has negative economic implications on the family. The national federation of abortion is one of the non-supporters of this bill. They feel that this is among the different acts that have been put in place to endanger the life of the teenager. They feel that the passing of such a law is a violation of the teenager’s rights. They feel that is the bill is passed to law; it would stress out the teenager who may decide to pass more than one state to get the procedure done. It would also waste a lot of time as it creates unnecessary bureaucracy and time is of essence when having an abortion as its progression to later stages makes more complicated and even illegal. They feel that the teenager has the right to opt to involve the parent or not since the burden of carrying the child to terms falls more on them than on the parent (Althaus & Henshaw 1994). This law creates unnecessary obstacles to doctors who are out to help their patients and other people such as aunts or friends who may decide to help a teenager during this trying time. Nursing/ Human Service Perspective The nursing views on this issue are that pregnancy is a personal affair and if the child does not want to involve the parent, they should be given the option not to (Medoff 2009). A girl old enough to get pregnant is in a position to decide whether they want to carry the baby to terms or not. Personal Views on the Issue I think that the presented bill is a good bill. It is important to involve the parents in decision that teenagers make and parents are always there to ensure that the teenager have a good life. There are mistakes that children commit and feel that their parent would not understand. However, it is possible that the parent may have gone through the same and can provide the support that the teenager needs at this time. It is also the right for the parent to know what s going on in their daughter’s life in order to provide the right guidance. Recommendations The current bill is okay but it needs amendment to allow for abortion in case the pregnancy is in advanced stage and the parent is out of touch. However, some girls may use this as a loop hole so necessary precautions should be taken to ensure that the unavailability of the parent is verified. This is because time is an important factor when undertaking abortion and it is even illegal to abort a pregnancy in the third trimester. References Althaus, F. A., & Henshaw, S. K. (1994). The effects of mandatory delay laws on abortion patients and providers. Family Planning Perspectives, 26(2), 228-233. Retrieved April 16,2014 from http://www.palgravejournals.com/jphp/journal/v33/n3/full/jphp201212a.html Bitler, M., & Zavodny, M. (2001). The effect of abortion restrictions on the timing of abortions. Journal of Health Economics, 20(6), 1011-1032. Retrieved April 20,2014 from http://ecademy.agnesscott.edu/~mzavodny/documents/jhealthecon_abortiontiming_000.pdf Curtis, Marah A., and Jane Waldfogel (2009). “Fertility Timing of Unmarried and Married Mothers: Evidence on Variation across U.S. Cities from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study.” Population Research and Policy Review 28 (5): 569–88. Retrieved April 15, 2014 Dennis, A., Henshaw, S. K., Joyce, T. J., Finer, L. B., & Blanchard, K. (2009). The impact of laws requiring parental involvement for abortion: A literature review. New York: Guttmacher Institute. Retrieved April 18,2014 from http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/ParentalInvolvementLaws.pdf Henshaw, S. K., Joyce, T. J., Dennis, A., Finer, L. B., & Blanchard, K. (2009). Restrictions on Medicaid funding for abortions: A literature review. New York: Guttmacher Institute. Retrieved April 17,2014 from http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/MedicaidLitReview.pdf Hussey, L. (2011). Is welfare pro-life? Assistance programs, abortion, and the moderating role of states. Chicago Journals 85(1), 75-107. Retrieved April 19,2014. Mason, D. J., Leavitt, J. K., & Chaffee, M. W. (2007). Policy & politics in nursing and health care. St. Louis, MO: Saunders/Elsevier. Medoff, M. H (2009). Biased abortion counseling laws and abortion demand. The Social Science Journal 46(4), 632-643. Retrieve April 20, 2014. Medoff, M. H. (2010). State abortion policies, targeted regulation of abortion provider laws, and abortion demand. The Review of Policy Research, 27(5), 577+. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA240487606&v=2.1&u=vic_liberty&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w&asid=796ea640f5edaa224f3af443b6a9e47e NARAL. (2009). Who decides? The status of women's reproductive rights in the United States. Washington, DC: NARAL Foundation. Retrieved April 20, 2014 from http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/assets/download-files/2013-who-decides.pdf Needle, R., & Walker, L. E. A. (2007). Abortion Counseling: A Clinician's Guide to Psychology, Legislation, Politics, and Competency. New York: Springer Pub. Co. Ros-Lehtinen, I. (2013, February 14). Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (H.R. 732). GovTrack.us. Retrieved April 19, 2014, from https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr732#summary United States. (2005). Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act: Hearing before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Ninth Congress, first session, on H.R. 748, March 3, 2005. Washington: U.S. G.P.O. United States. (2005). Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act: Report together with dissenting views (to accompany H.R. 748) (including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office). Washington, D.C: U.S. G.P.O. United States. (2005). Providing for consideration of H.R. 748, Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act: Report (to accompany H. Res. 236). Washington, D.C: U.S. G.P.O. Read More