Talk:Minors and abortion/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comment

I'm not sure if my wording is the best to be reverted so many times, but I'll go over it. I didn't feel that the sentence on the sole purpose of the law being to prevent pregnancies was proper, but the conjoining sentence on partial victory doesn't sound too proper in my version - I'll work on it. I do think though that my version is a bit more neutral. I talk about the reasoning behind the idea (two different reasons) make it apparent that it is a minor who is the subject and not just the parents daughter who could be thirty or fourty. Chooserr 17:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You did a major rewrite that substantially downgrades the quality of this short article. There was nothing of value added by your changes, unless you value bad English and POV. Stop edit warring. Deal with the fact that your changes are not an improvement. Alienus 18:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

My rewrite was because I didn't think that this article was neutral. The wording, and the terms, but I based it on the original, and have since made edits to my version attempting to make it fair to all sides. I don't want to edit war, but I do want to work together, and you and your friend (who've opposed me in many matters if you were to look at the history pages of dozens of articles) seem to be reverting me out of hand - not trying to make the encyclopedia better. Chooserr 18:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Your wording is not neutral. Use of the term "the child" to refer to a woman old enough to become pregnant, mentioning the POV that "Supporters of this law argue that if the child requires approval for immunisation and medication they should in turn require it for abortion" (without a citation), and the even-more-POV line "Another arguement put forth in favour of parental notification laws is that often when a parent is uninformed a minor could be forced into having an unwanted abortion by an older boyfriend." (again, with no citation of exactly who put forth this argument, besides you). Within that last sentence, the phrasing "when a parent is uninformed..." is also POV, since it implies that the parent has a right to know this information.

Moreover, your refusal to even run spellcheck before submitting your edits suggests you may be more interested in promoting your POV than improving this article. If you want to be able to continue editing Wikipedia, it would be best for you to show an interest in the project itself rather than in particular articles that relate to your POV -- checking your spelling and grammar is the easiest thing you could do towards that end. Catamorphism 18:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't site a source earlier - you can find most of my the information here, but unfortunatly I can't find any information for, "Some supporters of parental notification also support the right of adult women to choose to have abortions, but many do not." The but many do not seems particularly Weaselly. I'm sorry about not spell checking - I'll try to do so in the future. Chooserr 18:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

If you want to rewrite the article in a way that cites sources, feel free to do so. It's not my job to look at the source you gave and figure out how it fits in with your edits, though; that's your job. Catamorphism 19:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I do find it funny though that you'd bring up spell checking on just 3 words where my fingers got ahead of me...Please reply to my more pressing comments though. Chooserr 18:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't bring up spelling mistakes except for the fact that you re-added your edits to the article 3 or 4 times, and made the same spelling mistakes every single time. Surely, after looking at your edits at least 3 or 4 times (in order to revert the article), someone who was interested in the quality of their own writing would notice the mistakes. Catamorphism 19:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You're still dodging the issue over you re-adding a sentence with weaselly words, and working towards erradicating (*hope that is the right spelling*) the reasoning behind it. I think it was Nietzsche that said not to look at the subject itself, but the ideas behind it. And what is missing in your version is the "ideas behind it". Chooserr 19:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Changes

We should either use the terms pro-abortion and anti-abortion or pro-choice and pro-life, but not mix and match so it looks like pro-choice and anti-abortion. Also these laws would make it the parents decision, which is what needs to be emphasized not a way for some ellusive pro-life person to control women. Chooserr 21:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You're being coy. If a minor who gets pregnant wants to tell her parents, no law prevents her. However, these laws would compel her to, and often require that she get their written consent. If she knows her parents are pro-choice, little harm comes from their involvement. However, if they are anti-choice, then she will suffer for it.

In short, the whole point of such laws is to allow anti-choice people to control women, in the case where the woman is their minor daughter.

In the end, any attempt to violate NPOV will be reverted. Get used to it. Alienus 22:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't. It is to get parental approval, and an pro-death person can veto it just as easily as a pro-life. And I'm not violating NPOV, I'm just trying to prevent the usage of weaselly words. Chooserr 22:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there's a strong correlation between pro-choice and opposition to capital punishment, while those who are anti-choice are correlated with supporting capital punishment. This means that pro-death applies better to the anti-choicers.

By definition, a pro-choice parent is much less likely to veto an abortion than an anti-choice parent, so that doesn't make a lick of sense. Alienus 22:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

No you forget, that most truely pro-life groups are anti-death penalty. Chooserr 22:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Also the while you are most likely right that pro-death parents are more likely to allow their daughter an abortion, they still could veto it as easily as a pro-life parent. Chooserr 22:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

By Rape, according to definition, I mean sex between an adult and a minor even if the minor concents. Chooserr 22:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Question

On the statutory rape section you repeatedly readd the sentence as to the women being honest in revealing whom she had sex with. I believe that this is wrong however, because she wouldn't have be be truthful if she doesn't have the abortion. They could just preform a blood test on the fetus and potential father. It is only after there has been an abortion, that this cannot be done - that is what hids the statutory rape, not the other way around. Chooserr 22:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it should be between the child and pontential father, because it could be that this can only be done after the child has been born. Chooserr 22:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The young woman can claim the biological father is someone else, including a minor who could have legally had sex with her (in most jurisdictions, anyhow). Sure, if the pregnancy is carried further to term, amnio and a DNA test could implicate the biological father. Ditto, if the pregnancy were allowed to result in a birth.

Remember, though, that without some clue of who the biological father is, all the DNA in the world is useless. Moreover, you'd need a court order to compel someone to give their DNA up for testing, and that requires probable cause. All this assumes that the parents don't believe her and have the legal and medical resources to test her claims.

In short, this argument does not fly. Alienus 23:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are partially right, but the abortion would be extra assurance on the part of the father that he couldn't be convicted of statutory rape. It also wouldn't give the mother any grounds to say who forced her to have the abortion unless there were only witnesses who could attest to that, overall your ending phrase doesn't belong. Chooserr 23:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, nobody can force her to have an abortion. At most, the bio-dad could pressure her, but he can't stop her from refusing the procedure. In fact, that comment I made about holding the woman's hand as she got her abortion is only metaphorical, because the woman is separated from anyone who might accompany her just so she can't be pushed into it.

The ending phrase is necessary to avoid POV. We can either remove the whole section, add a counter-balancing section, or add a counter-balancing sentence to each point. I chose the third option and I'm not particularly interested in doing the second one, so if you don't restore the text, I will shift to the first option. Alienus 23:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually I don't think we have to do anything of the sort because I said pressure her. You can however add the bit about not being able to "force" her to have an abortion though, because that is factual, and makes a whole lot of sense. Chooserr 23:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Moved from my own Talk page, where it doesn't belong

Your sentence on elective and medically necessary surgery is wrong, or so I believe, because while if a minor got seriously injured and had to be rushed to the emergency ward they could preform without the parents approval, there are probably instances such as a broken arm or leg, when surgery is necessary but must wait until the parent approves. If I'm wrong you need some source. Chooserr 22:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

My wording avoided that error. Read more carefully. Alienus 23:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It really didn't because some forms of necessary surgery such as a broken arm would give time for the parent to give consent. See? While a heart attack wouldn't - minors can occasionally have heart attacks. Chooserr 23:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Read the text:

• Minors must have parental approval for certain other types of medical procedures. This argument ignores the differences between elective abortion and medically necessary surgery.

Note thast they only need consent for CERTAIN types, not all. I didn't specify which, because that's more detail than we need. If the woman gets in a car accident, the hospital can operate on her without asking anyone for consent. But if she goes in for a boob job, she's going to need a guardian to sign off on it. The question, therefore, is whether abortion is more akin to emergency or cosmetic surgery. I don't offer an answer, but I do point out that there is a question. Alienus 23:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Casey

Wouldn't these two rulings contradict eachother? Chooserr 23:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

No, because one applied to SPOUSAL notification, the other to PARENTAL. A person's wife is an adult, with full legal rights. A minor child, while biologically adult enough to get pregnant, lacks the full rights of a legal adult. Alienus 23:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I understand now, sorry you had to spell it out. Chooserr 23:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

You keep removing "Some supporters of parental notification also support the right of adult women to choose to have abortions, but many do not."

Are you denying that many who support abortion rights for adults nonetheless deny it for minors? The uncited stats you quoted show that parental notification is more strongly supported than laws that ban abortion for adults, which proves that this statement is true.

Do not remove it again. Alienus 23:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It isn't vandalism, content dispute if anything, but the "many do not" is weaselly. Also I offered an alternative, but you kept removing it. Is that vandalism? I wouldn't say any more than what I have done. Chooserr 23:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It is a simple fact supported by not only common sense but the statistics you endorse. Moreover, it's part of the lead-in to where this issue fits into the abortion debate. Leave it alone. Alienus 23:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

If it statistics (which I did ask for by the way) were added, than it wouldn't be an opinion would it? I, therefore, wouldn't be opposed to putting it up - would I? So if you add some stats instead of weaselly words it'd be a fine contribution. Chooserr 23:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The very last time I'm going to move Chooserr's text from my own Talk page.

Your argument isn't retaining - oops I mean holding water. Because it only outlines the pro-life view of yet doesn't make it POV, for it clearly states these are pro-life arguments. Furthermore I'm not stopping you from adding the pro-death arguments. Chooserr 23:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually not pro-death, I'm pro-life and pro-choice. Moreover, you are stopping me from adding counterbalance by repeatedly deleting the text about the woman's ability to lie about the bio-dad. You either have to extend me the courtesy of leaving my text alone or I will be forced once againt to remove yours because it's POV. This is not negotiable.

Speaking of which, stop writing stuff onto my talk page when it concerns this article. I will not do you the courtesy of moving your text again. Next time, I'll just delete it. Alienus 23:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

If you don't want me to add anything on your talk page fine, but that is where comments to a user usually go. I'm not sure what kind of message you are looking for if it isn't about your contribution to any articles. A friend popping in to say hello?

Any ways, I'm not stopping you from balancing the information it is just that you section doesn't addition don't seem to fit because it's like saying A,C,B instead of A,B,C - it is out of order. If you could explain it better than there might not be any argument over it. Chooserr 23:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments about an article go on that article's talk page. If the comment is to the user and doesn't involve anyone else who might be editing the article, it goes to the user's talk page. Likewise, if a user is not responding on the article's talk page, it's reasonable to bother them on their own. Alienus 23:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Lets talk?

I've deleted the set of sentences you added for the mean time, but intend to re-add proper versions in a moment. Under each I will give the reason why your wording doesn't make a lick of sense.

This argument ignores the differences between elective abortion and medically necessary surgery.

I've outlined at least one form of medically necessary surgery which would require the parent to give consent (a broken bone). This would give them the chance to state that they do not give there permission for certain doctors or hospitals to operate so long as they do operate eventually - or they'd be brought to court for some form of child neglect. Also how can you tell with such an early term pregnancy as you refer to in the last sentence, whether or not it is elective or medically necessary? I assume for the most part that we speak of early term pregnancies, because if she was farther along the parents would know.

This argument assumes that the minor will be honest when revealing who impregnated her.

It is only after she has had the abortion that this matters not before - how many times must I say this?

Complications from early abortion are, however, extremely rare, and such abortions are much safer than childbirth.

Are you saying that extremely rare complications are safer than childbirth or that early abortions are? I don't have too much trouble believing the latter, but you state the former. Chooserr 23:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Also we should attempt to find a better way of including the possible fault in the logic - better than seemling including it into the addressed problem. Chooserr 00:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Briefly: 1) For most elective surgery, such as breast enlargement, minors need parental consent. For medically necessary surgery, minors either do not need it or can bypass it relatively easily. The problem with abortion is neither an emergency nor cosmetic, so neither of these apply. It's actually a fairly complex issue, which is why comparing it to a school nurse distributing an analgesic doesn't really make sense.

2) If the woman says she had voluntary, anonymous sex. how are her parents going to know that she was actually having sex with a college student she knew? Even with an aborted fetus in hand, how are they going to know whose DNA to test against it? In practice, this argument depends, as I said, on the woman's honesty.

3) As it reads, it is correct. As it says, such abortions, meaning early ones, are safer than childbirth.

Now, there was actually no excuse for removing this text, so go put it back. Alienus 00:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Other uses

Has it occurred to anything that the term "parental notification" is in fact rather generic, that it's used in many many other instances, for example, within COPPA. This article should either speak of other uses of the term, or move itself to Parental notification of abortion or some such. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 06:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello, anybody? -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 06:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'm bumping this section in the hopes that someone's paying attention this time... -- nae'blis _(talk) 01:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Some perspectives - although (very ) long, I hope helps foster consensus...

This is an emotive topic and wikipedia can choose to give just a dictionary definition or try to explain the nature of the debates & issues that ensue (NB of course a neutral phrased description is required, not an attempt to use wikipedia as a soap box to win over an argument). The easiest criticisms of this article to raise are:

1. Whilst I can identify with the subject matter, this article seems exclusively US-centric, both in its specifics and on assumptions one must make about legislation, definition of terms (e.g. statutory rape), concepts of children consent, state provision and access to abortions.
2. Is it just about informing on abortion issues or more generally on any medical matter (e.g. advice on treating simple wounds in school biology lessons, reassurance by a nurse that a child has correctly applied first aid measures to themselves for a mild twisted ankle and shoud be fine by the end of the day with no additional measures required ?)

I set out below some personal thoughts of some wider issues, from a UK perspective, and how this narrows down to how cases of contraception or abortion are managed in practice (vs. just our desire that it would be easier if everyone abstained until after 16). Most of these I raise as queries rather than statements of definite opinion. If one accepts that adolescents have differing degrees of maturity, rather than instantaneous changes in personality as a clock strikes midnight on a relevant legal birthday age limit, then in extreme situations consensus is likely quite easy. However if one accepts “grey areas”, then how wide is this band and how do regulations reflect this ?

• The current controversy re children consent is over sexual matters, but a society’s agreed policy on this must form part of wider issues re children’s consenting:
• The law has traditionally applied arbitrary age limits for various activities (age for voting (17), drinking (16), marriage without parental approval (18), marriage if with parental approval (16), consent for medical treatment (16)).
• However most people recognise that an individual's ability to form an informed option does not appear from nowhere on the eve of their 16th birthday. Informed decisions requires ability to understand a problem & its possible consequences, the treatment options, their possibility of success or failure and complication & side effects and the relative rates of these. Clearly some people have a mature nature and can easily undertake these aspects of making an informed decision well before their 16th birthday, whilst others after this age may seem less capable (no offence is intended to anyone, I merely indicate that one must ensure not to be, or seen to be, discriminatory – hence an adults with poor understanding, due to poor English, are no less entitled to exercise their rights to inform consent, they just need suitable interpreter. Similarly, less academically bright people need advice and discussion held at an appropriate level of language complexity for them).
  • As an aside, in English Law, no one is able to consent on behalf of a legally incapable adult, but rather Common Law is cited by doctors of "acting in the patients best interest" (i.e. Good Samaritan idea that someone found collapsed and unconscious is likely to want their broken bones fixed, or CPR started if they have had a heart attack). Obviously if the patient was previously ever capable, then any recent indication of their wishes should be considered by their doctors. Hence a collapsed pensioner with hip arthritis they had previously decided not to have replaced, should expect their heart attack to be treated but not to come-to finding that they were exposed to the risks of major hip replacement against their previous wishes just because their doctors thought it would be nice to do a "full service" whilst staying in the hospital.
  • 'Advance directives' are not a legal instrument in English Law, but certainly are likely to be a strong indicator of a patient's wish and it is a foolish doctor who completely ignores such a statement (if aware of) as complaint of professional misconduct might later be made.
  • Where no previous expressed wish is known and there exists alternative opinions as to best management, then it would be normal to seek the opinions of relatives or friends who might help the doctor decide what the "best interest" might be.
    • Consider treatment proposed for incurable terminal cancer that might only gain a small extension in life yet have side effects of considerable pain & discomfort. Most competent adults might opt against such treatment. A very mentally handicapped patient may be quite incapable of understanding any of the concepts involved and the advice of family may help the doctors appreciate that the patient would only suffer as a result of the treatment with no improvement in the quality of their life. Yet such widely rejected treatment might be sought by a specific individual who, with full understanding of the implications, might have an overriding benefit of seeing a grandchild due to be born in a couple weeks..
• Now of course we normally extend the idea of others acting in the best interest of another in the case of parents & children. We assume that a parent deciding that food must consist of something other than chocolate is in a child's best interest, even though the child might be quite vocal against the imposed balanced diet.
• But we have never held absolutely that parents always act in the child’s best interest, and would expect social services to act in cases where parents through dereliction of care give a child needs less food than maintains normal growth rates, or chastisement is so vigorous that serious injuries have occurred.
• The UK Children Act 1989 was mostly about both parents sharing responsibility for their children (re financial support etc) and making decision about custody & placement after divorces in the Best interests of the child. However this principle of 'Best interest' also was required to apply in all decisions pertaining to children, including treatment.
  • We may all agree about a physically very frail child who is a suitable match for a live kidney donor to their sibling with chronic renal failure - clearly the risks to the health and life of this frail child should not be subordinate to the sibling on long term dialysis, just because the parents favour one child over another. In this example the doctors would declare the frail child unfit for such major surgery and refuse to carry out the procedure. Of course for an adult who wishes to donate to a family member, but who has a very small degree of frailty, their doctors may be unsure whether or not to consider them fit enough for the procedure and would need to involve the patient’s opinions on risk assessment cost & benefits.
• The hard decisions come when a child, with suitable insight, has views about treatment that conflict with their parents.
  • Hence parents’ natural desire to preserve the life of their child at all costs may conflict with a terminally ill child's refusal to undergo yet further painful courses of chemotherapy that are proving to give increasingly short periods of remission. There comes a point when the inevitable must be accepted and the quality of life rather than quantity of life becomes overriding (i.e. switch from cure-at-all-cost to good quality-of-life or palliative care aiming to relieve suffering and needless distress). UK courts have applied the Children’s Act in favour of some terminally ill children whose parents sought to force doctors to continue chemotherapy treatment (I would need help on trying to locate a citation for this media reported case)
• Similarly parents might refuse a child to have a certain treatment that a competent child strongly requests, e.g. removal of a facial deformity that is causing the child psychiatric harm.
• Returning to attitudes re children and contraception & abortion, what are the wider attitudes to sex ?
  • What is the sexual Age of consent. In the UK this is 16, but varies world-wide and indeed between different states in the USA.
  • What is the Age of criminal responsibility, i.e. if those younger than the age of consent are breaking the law, how young before they are not responsible for their actions ? If they are younger than this, then would any suggest that they can make informed decisions on treatment or what to keep confidential – it is how one manages children between these 2 age definitions that is contentious.
  • Aside from legal definitions that get uniformly applied (i.e. we decide the law will state that only those over 17 can drive), what age do we think some specific individuals might show ability to make informed consent decisions? Taking the UK, if 2 sensible people one day away from their 16 birthdays are in a steady relationship, hope to get married shortly and have sex with contraception:
    • Is this legally "rape" (i.e. if a legal arbitrary limited is applied that consent for sex can only be made after 16, then by definition those under 16 can't legally be thought to have consented)
    • How do we, as adults, feel we should act? Report to the police ? Support the two for showing maturity and taking on responsibilities as they transit from childhood to adulthood ? Tell them not to publicise their actions for fear of encouraging those considerably younger, or publicise such “mature” behaviour to hope others learn responsibility and reduce the incidence of unwanted teenage pregnancies ?
    • How do we feel about a girl one day short of being 16 having similar sex within a long-term relationship, with condoms, with intention to marry, yet the boyfriend is fractionally older than her and is one day older than 16 ?
    • Similarly girl one day before 16th birthday, but boyfriend 17, 18 or 45 - i.e. when do we start considering this Paedophile, given that if everything starts just two days later then the law would only be interested in the issue of free mutual consent as being given..
    • How about a 15 year old girl with a 15 year old boy, or two 12 year olds ?
  • If we have uncertainty as to clear cut-offs as to our actions in scenarios above, then at what point do we feel a child's expressed statement of their best interests become overriding to our own uncertainty or personal feelings.?
• Now consider children’s rights to privacy. The issues are about respecting a persons wishes (i.e. deciding how far along spectrum of toddler to adult one feels they have matured) vs. that a child is under the care of adults who therefore have responsibility to that child. In order for an adult to correctly perform their responsibilities they need to be kept abreast of issues to do with that child to make informed decisions both on specific matters and general upbringing issues (e.g. need take child to emergency room, discuss school progress to help at home with difficulties or homework, provide guidance on religious, moral, legal or behavioural matters).
  • Hence a child who has unhygienic eating habits at school (e.g. eating food that has fallen to the ground, or refuses to wash their hands before eating) may warrant teachers advising the parents so that appropriate parenting skills may be employed. Few would expect a troublesome 9 year old's insistence not to tell their parents to be adhered to here.
  • In a case of chest infection when a doctor needs to examine a patient's chest we would not seek to shield a baby from being "exposed" to their sibling who may have accompanied along with the baby's parents to the doctors surgery, yet an adult women would be accorded privacy behind a screen if attending with a chest injury for which a male friend has transported her to casualty. So at what age does an adolescent girl asking to be examined behind a screen away from the taunts of her brothers be respected? If the girl during her normal chest examination points to an entirely innocent looking mole that causes her some concern on her breast, is the doctor right in a reassuring smile and dismissive wave of the hand, or should they cause her embarrassment in the presence of her father, who observing from behind the girl, may have missed the non-verbal gestures ?)
• What about cases of advice? Do we report all information to the parents however minor - if so does this undermine the child’s gradual maturity and separation from their parents. But where is the dividing line?
  • We might all feel that a teacher gently requesting a child to move a pot of paint away from where others might accidentally knock it over should not result in a full detailed report to the parents for "corrective actions at home" - such a child would soon feel belittled.
  • How about a child stating that they are scarred that harm may come to their friend who is off sick with a common cold ‘’’infection’’’ after reading about people dying in the past from outbreaks of the plague ‘’’infection’’’. We would expect the teacher to explain that there are different types of infection and not all are serious. We also expect the teacher to reassure the child that their friend is likely to be well and back at school in a couple of days. Again, a full report to the parents seems unwarranted as repetition of the issues may just re-ignite the child’s fears which were previously laid to rest with the education . (by re-ignite I mean that a child may feel that if people repeating tell it that something is not bad, then it probably is; e.g. repeated claims that an injection wont hurt is clearly going to be seen by a child as not true).
  • If one accepts a continuum of transition of responsibility for personal actions from childhood to adulthood, then does the same also apply to emotional advice as well as factual advice as in the previous example? Consider an adolescence unsure of what action to take on witnessing a misdemeanour by another (nothing / learn from the action how to act better themselves / try to engage with the other person to help them understand the consequences of their action / inform teachers / inform police). Certainly at the lesser end of the spectrum do we except a full report to parents ? If so will children learn never to discuss minor issues for fear of disclosure showing they are unable to form confidences and respect the confidentiality of their friends (something one hopes they learn to do for the right reasons in the right circumstances in order to eventually live and engage in the adult world)
  • How about a child wanting to discuss others bullying her ? A policy of automatically informing parents might make many not open up and discuss the issues. Obviously in some scenarios no intended verbal hurt was intended and the child needs either to learn not to take every comment personally, to accept some people are just not friendly towards one (but are not necessarily deliberately bullying) or that mildly taunting might be best ignored. So depending upon circumstances, all that might be required is just a similar level of support by teachers as might equally come from a friend. Obviously in cases of real deliberate bullying, hurt being caused or fear of reprisals, then a duty lies with teachers who are responsible for that child, to take strong actions to both protect the victim & punish the attackers.
• In the UK, the Childrens Act applies to medical confidentiality. Hence a responsible minor is able to seek contraceptive advice (see Gillick competence following a mother seeking assurance that her children would not be offered contraceptive advice without her knowledge). In the UK there has been similar debate over the rights of offering those under 16 Emergency (Post-coital) contraception at doctors surgeries, family planning clinics or some pharmacists without parental involvement. The doctor is expected to consider the individual child's ability to understand and make an informed choice. There are Fraiser rules (?spelling - I failled to find references) re ages of consent, respecting confidentiality and requirement to diclose possible paedophile action (anyone able to give specifics, rather than my somewhat vague recollection)David Ruben ^Talk 05:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

In the US, the phrase "parental notification" is usally associated with parental notification and consent for an abortion. I'm not opposed to moving this page to "parental notification and consent for abortion" or somesuch, so long as the original phrase leads to either a disambiguation page or a full article that references this one. However, until there is some ambiguity due to other articles that might match that search term, I feel that such a move would be premature. Alienus 20:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Religioustolerance.org

Please see Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org for some background on the fact that this website is rather controversial as a reliable source. I'm not saying that we should or shouldn't use it here, just pointing out that it's not cut-and-dried obvious whether or not it's an acceptable source. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to have somebody replace this link with a print source (that is, a book or journal article discussing parental notification laws). However, simply removing it, as Chooserr did (partially justified by the fact that an advertisement for an abortion clinic appeared on their page -- sites don't control the content of advertisements), is not acceptable. In the meantime, the only citations in this article are to web sites, and as web sites go, this particular article on ReligiousTolerance is a pretty good one. Catamorphism 07:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Alienus 20:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

'Corse you would alienus, but that doesn't mean they cannot control who they take money from. If their "bills are paid" by abortion how can you expect them to say that it isn't a good thing. Have you heard the phrase, don't bite the hand that feeds you? Chooserr 02:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain why you think this specific article is not neutral -- preferably using specific quotes from and references to the article -- rather than just assuming it must not be based on the fact that the site it's on receives money from advertising? Catamorphism 02:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Catamorphism, I think saying that "sites don't control the content of advertisements" is pretty naïve. They absolutely do control it - they can agree to sell each ad or not. I agree that it would be preferable to find a more neutral source, regardless of how neutral this particular article seems. Check out Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Evaluating secondary sources:Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident. Religioustolerance.org is a controversial source for a reason. They certainly aren't experts in parental notification laws. However - did anyone notice that their article has a whole slew of sources at the bottom of it? Why not chase some of those down? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Why I revert

My latest reversion - of a reversion by catamporphism - is due to the fact that while we are currently disputing whether or not religious tolerance is a "neutral" source my other edits were decent and not given a thought. I believe that the first sentence which alienus labels a lead in for the section on what pro-choice groups believe is inappropriate because it would instantly set anyone who categorizes hisself "pro-choice" against the laws. It is inflicting a disguised but thoroughly POV section into the article. And my end sentence after what the anti-life people believe would balance the sentence showing how it is viewed by the pro-life community. Chooserr 02:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You're not really improving anybody's opinion of whether you're capable of writing in an NPOV manner by using the term "anti-life", you know. As for the clause "a way for parents to help their children through a difficult decision", this is POV. Among the many assumptions it embodies, one of them is that parents are always concerned about their children's welfare; the use of "children" to describe women old enough to become pregnant is problematic as well. Indeed, assuming that the decision whether or not to have an abortion is necessarily "difficult" is also POV. Catamorphism 04:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I think many people in society would classify people 12 - 18 children even though they are capable of having children of their own. So if I use the word "children" please don't make such a big deal out of it.

As for your comment on my use of "anti-life" I'm not pertrubably bothered about what they think of my tone on a talk page. I can be biased here so long as I don't bring it over to the talk - some people throw around the word anti-choice. I just want to show that I can be just as petty :) Chooserr 06:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

P.s. while I liked my way of version the first paragraph of the second section I'm not offended by yours.

P.P.S. I wouldn't read too much into the word "difficult" if I were you.

New Study in the New England Journal of Medicine

Here is a link to the full text of a study called Changes in Abortions and Births and the Texas Parental Notification Law. I do not know if any of this information can help this article. The summary is that Parental Notification Laws seem to reduce the number of abortions in the 17 1/2 and under age group. As they point out, if abortion rates decline, births should increase "unless minors increase the use of contraception or decrease sexual activity in response to a parental notification or consent law." This study also shows the birth rates to decline as well (except for Hispanics). However, women in the 17 1/2 to 17 3/4 age group are more likely to wait until they turn 18 and have a risker 2nd trimester abortion or carry the pregnancy to term. --Andrew c 01:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Advocacy groups?

G&E added the term "advocacy groups" to the arguments against section to parallel the structure of the arguments for section. However, what are these groups advocating? I understand that a group can advocate for parental notification laws, but is it possible to advocate against something? That said, one of the points mentions medical societies. Are these advocacy groups? --Andrew c 21:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Move

Propose moving to "Parental notification (abortion)" or "Parental notification for abortion" or something equally clarifying, but I would like consensus first. We could redirect there, until a relevant article about parental notification in general or something.

• Support as nominator Karwynn (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support - I think Parental notification (medical) could work, unless that would still be conflating two issues. -- nae'blis 17:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm moving it then, since there are no objections. I will move to "Parental notification (abortion)" and redirect "Parental notification (medical)", however, I think both "Parental notification" and "Parental notification (medical)" should be ther own articles. Karwynn (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Parental notification is not the correct title for this entry. It should be entitled "Parental Involvement." There are in fact two kinds of laws - there are parental notification laws, which require a minor notify (but not seek the consent of) her parents before having an elective abortion. And there are parental consent laws, which require a minor to acquire the consent of her parents (one or both, depending on the state). Presumably, this entry is meant to discuss both of these. I would like to propose we change the title to reflect these differences. Scunning 13:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I haved moved it to parental involvement (abortion) and included a clarification of the difference types of parental involvement laws (ie, consent vs. notification) with a source for support. Scunning 13:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Parental Involvement and Sexual Behavior Section

I've added a section entitled "Parental Involvement and Sexual Behavior" because the previous entry failed to discuss the most recent literature on the economics of fertility and abortion. I only mentioned three sources in the section, because I wanted to first get it down before elaborating on it. I'm not sure if readers think it is appropriate to actually review the literature or not. For now, I just focused on Philip Levine's work on abortion. You can link through to learn more about what that actually is.

What I wanted to emphasize is a balanced, neutral portrayal of where that scientific literature currently stands. Levine's theory of abortion contains a moral hazard component. That is, if you raise the price of abortion, people will try to avoid becoming pregnant in the first place. And if you lower the price, then the "cost" of pregnancy has fallen also, thus a downward sloping demand curve would predict an increase in pregnancy risk. That could mean more sex, less condoms, or less precaution along some spectrum of pregnancy risk.

The empirical literature on this is a bit mixed. At the moment, I only include references to Levine's conflicting evidence. Two studies, done differently, found weak evidence for parental involvement increasing condom use among adolescents, whereas the other study found no effect at all. Using a different strategy, Klick and Stratmann in a forthcoming article (2008) show that parental involvement reduces risky sexual behavior among adolescent females. They show this by virtue of the fact that parental involvement appear to reduce gonorrhea rates among White and Hispanic women 19 years and younger, but have no discernible effect on those 20+ years and older. The data they use is from the Centers for Disease Control.

I think that this should be included here, because these are scientific studies published in peer-reviewed academic journals. The previous entry, as it stood, did not address the moral hazard argument, and that argument appears to have some scientific support. Scunning 22:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

recent page move

The recent page move is problematic for a number of reasons. First of all, it broke process. There was no formal proposal to move, or even an informal request here on talk. Typically, it is seen as bad form to make a controvesial move without prior discussion. (Uncontroversial moves are a different matters). Especially because there has been debate over the title of this article before, the article shouldn't have been moved without talking it out first. Second of all, the title is problematic because it has an unnecessary parenthetical comment. Parenthetical comments are for disambiguation purposes. IF there were an article titled Parental involvement already, then we would need to DAB, but since there isn't, the title is unnecessarily long. And finally, the term "parental involvement" is NOT the primary term used in the abortion debate (neither by the pro-choice or pro-life movements, nor in the legislature). I understand that there are both "Parental Consent" and "Parental Notification" laws. And if we are covering both topics here, maybe a title change is needed, but I find the current title problematic. I am going to revert it and then request other editors' imput in this matter. I'm sure we can come to a reasonable title that we can all agree upon.--Andrew c 22:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

"Parental notification," in my opinion, is a problematic title, as this article is designed to cover both parental notification and consent legislation. "Parental involvement" is the broader alternative term I used in titling my map of U.S. state laws, "Minor Abortion & Parental Involvement Laws in the United States of America." Sometimes, Wikipedia opts for less-used terms in titling for reasons of NPOV or accuracy (See female genital cutting. "Female genital mutilation" or "female circumcision" might be more familiar terms to most readers, but the former is not NPOV, and the latter is not accurate). -Severa (!!!) 04:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I know it is a bit wordy, but what about Parental involvement legislation in the United States? or Minor abortion law or something which is a bit more descriptive? And then have parental consent and parental notification redirect here?--Andrew c 21:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I would discourage Parental involvement legislation in the United States on the basis that I believe the U.S. is not the only nation to have such restrictions on abortion. The Center for Reproductive Rights' map, "The World's Abortion Laws, includes several other countries with parental consent laws. This article needs to be expanded to be less Amerocentric in this regard. Thus, I'd recommend Minor abortion law, or perhaps Minors and abortion, after Religion and abortion and Paternal rights and abortion. We could create a disambiguation page at Parental consent, to create a placeholder/stub for an article about parental consent in contexts other than abortion (i.e. in the context of other medical procedures, body modification, early marriage, or academic activities, etc.), and then link to the retitled Minor abortion law article from there. -Severa (!!!) 21:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Minors and abortion sounds good. When I read the Paternal rights article at first, I thought I saw Parental rights and abortion which also may work. Creating disambig pages could also be helpful. Good ideas!--Andrew c 22:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Parental rights and abortion would be a good title. However, I think "paternal" and "parental" are close enough in appearance (in fact, they're anagrams) that it might be confusing for quicker readers to see them side-by-side in an alphabetized "See also" list. My vote is with Minors and abortion or Minor abortion law as being the most accurate and least problematic. -Severa (!!!) 03:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

One possibiliity would be to reimagine this title as inclusive of all abortion restrictions, and have a heading for "parental involvement" as such. This way, we could have a single legal background section that detailed the evolution of abortion regulations. Since many of the cases that forced the Court to clarify the extent to which abortion could be regulated were fundamental for parental involvement, but also other laws like mandatory delay, it might be more efficient. For instance, if we named it "abortion regulation," we could talk about Medicare Funding, Parental Consent, Parental Notification, and Mandatory Delay on the same page. That would also solve the problem of the name.Scunning 05:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

First, apologies are in order. I'm a neophyte and did not know that protocol on moving existed. In retrospect, it's obvious that such protocol would exist and I should've anticipated that. I am glad you reverted the page to its original. That being said, I don't think that this page should be entitled parental notification. You note that politically these laws are bundled under parental notification. But other communities use parental invovlement. For instance, economists and demographers routinely use the latter when describing the laws. "Parental Notification" is incorrect, since consent laws are different from notification laws. If we include consent on the same page as notification - and I strongly believe we should - then we should use "parental involvement." It would make the page consistent with some scholarly community's taxonomy (e.g., economists and demographers), and it would also be clearly. And, "parental involvement" does describe these two laws very well, unlike "notification" which simply does not. Scunning 05:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Move proposal

I'd like to propose, officially, that we move this entry to "Parental Involvement" or "Abortion Restrictions." My reasons are as follows: as it stands, the named "Parental notification" is inaccurate, since there are two types of parental involvement laws - notification and consent. Thus we should attempt to fit this entry under some that encompasses the two types of laws. Notification is only one of the laws, so we should not use it to mark the page. Secondly, there is a literature among demographers and economists that call these two types of laws "parental involvement". Since this is an encyclopedia, it seems reasonable that we maintain continuity with scientific literature.

Another possibility is to create a new page entitled "Abortion Restrictions" Parental involvement are one kind of abortion restriction in the US. Others inclue state bans on Medicare funding for abortion, mandatory counseling and mandatory delay legislation, and increasingly, "partial birth abortion" bans. Instead of rehearsing again and again what the precise wording for the parental notification/involvement law should be, a single page on abortion restrictions would allow us to build an article that could bridge the various laws. This would also allow us to talk about the legal evolution of abortion regulation since Roe v. Wade, with various laws being the result of that process. I think this would decrease redundancy across various pages, too, since mandatory delay and parental involvement share much of the same legal background. Scunning 18:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The U.S. is not the only country which has parental consent or notification laws. Wikipedia is written from a global perspective, and, as it stands, this article is far too U.S.-centered. Creating a new article for the specific purpose of "talking about the legal evolution of abortion regulation since Roe v. Wade" would only worsen the problem. If you want to chronicle the evolution of U.S. abortion law, I'd recommend Abortion in the United States.

Point taken. Ignore what I wrote below.Scunning 05:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

"Parental involvement" is vague. It could refer to parental involvement in just about anything, from other medical decisions, to body modification, to academic concerns. "Abortion restrictions," also, is too vague, as any country which does not have "yes" across the board at abortion law technically has restrictions on abortion. And, even in countries without legal restrictions, there are still other factors which limit access (see Abortion in Canada). Thus, an "Abortion restrictions" article could technically include everything from Nicaragua's no-exceptions policy to Canada's province-by-province funding and access situation. This is why I would recommend a sub-article with a targetted title, such as Minors and abortion. -Severa (!!!) 21:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

At first I said I hadn't seen the term "Parental Involvement" used by any organization involved in the debate. I stand corrected [1]. However, this term is ambiguous. I like Minors and abortion because it has a similar format as other articles in this series. However, we have to consider, since this is an actual term, how many users looking for this topic would search the term "parental involvement"? I'm not sure if that would be a real issue. I'd support either, but I favor Minors and abortion. Scunning, could you live with that title, or are there some specific issues with it?--Andrew c 22:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

If "parental involvement" is ambiguous, then "minors and abortion" may be an improvement. I do not think "parental involvement" is ambiguous, but I do research in this area and use the phrase all the time. So I'll trust you as being impartial in that regard. As to the page being currently too US-centered, that is definitely a problem. It will need considerable expansion, though, to make it more global. I am also still inclined to make this entry about "abortion regulations" or "abortion legislative restrictions" as opposed to merely about minors. If we made it about abortion legislative restrictions, then we could show (for instance) the relationships between subsequent rulings that ultimately allowed innovations like parental consent legislation, mandatory counseling, etc. Ideally, I think a more general entry is needed of that kind. Scunning 05:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Andrew - to your point about searching. I do think people will search for "parental involvement" or "parental consent" or "Parental notification" but probably not "minors and abortion." Maybe we can make everything route to "minors and abortions" from those keyword searches? Scunning 05:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Parental involvement can mean a number of things (as a google search can demonstrate; the first abortion related link shows up as the 23rd hit for this term). A parent's involvement in child development, a parent's involvement in their child's education, etc. This is what I meant by saying the term was ambiguous. I agree completely that parental consent and parental notification are the more common words that may be searched, so having disambig pages or even simply redirects could be helpful. However, we have an article already called Abortion law. I think it may be helpful to have somewhere information on informed consent laws, and waiting period laws, and fetal rights/fetal anesthesia, provider regulations, etc. I'm not sure how I feel about having a spinout article for just the parental consent and notification laws, but not these other issues. But this article, as it currently stands, could benefit from being renamed (or maybe even have the total scope of the article opened up, or merged with Abortion law or something else).--Andrew c 15:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved the article to "Minors and abortion" and created a disambiguation page at Parental consent. I have also created several redirects to this page, including "Teen abortion," "Teenage abortion," "Underage abortion," "Minor abortion," "Minor abortion law," "Teenagers and abortion," "Teens and abortion," "Parental notification (abortion)," "Parental notification abortion," "Parental consent (abortion)," "Parental consent abortion," "Parental involvement (abortion)," and "Parental involvement abortion." Hopefully, this covers all of the bases, and will allow users to reach this article through more intuitive keyword searchs. This article is now ready to be expanded upon, which might include adding information on abortion-related parental involvement laws around the world, statistics on the number of minor women undergoing abortions from country to country, and information about studies regarding the effect of abortion or parental involvement laws upon minors. -Severa (!!!) 15:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Archive 1