Comments on: Ayotte, Pharmacists, and Alito Friday Round-Up

By: Mary

Mary — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 14:07:52 +0000

“I’m curious as to how performing an abortion on a minor without parental consent ever became legal in the first place. Don’t all medical procedures require parental consent? Your kid needs consent to have his/her ears pierced.”

Your kid doesn’t need your consent to get prenatal care, obstetric care, midwife services, etc.

By: CG

CG — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 02:20:46 +0000

Thanks for the answer. I’m definitely pro-choice and agree that there has to be protection for minors from possibly abusive or overly religious (for lack of a better term) parents. But it seems to me that the norm should be parental consent with exceptions in place, though I’m not sure how that would work in real life. I guess in all practicality, most kids will tell their parents if they don’t fear their parents freaking out.

By: RonF

RonF — Tue, 06 Dec 2005 17:04:41 +0000

I’m curious as to how performing an abortion on a minor without parental consent ever became legal in the first place.

I would not call myself an expert on this, so if anyone else cares to comment, go ahead (not that you need my invitation …). But my impression is that the proponents successfully painted a picture of a) how the young lady might be in danger from her parents if they were to know of her pregnancy, and b) that it would be a horrible violation of the young woman’s rights if the parents were to withhold permission.

By: CG

CG — Tue, 06 Dec 2005 01:38:58 +0000

I’m curious as to how performing an abortion on a minor without parental consent ever became legal in the first place. Don’t all medical procedures require parental consent? Your kid needs consent to have his/her ears pierced.

Having said that, I watched the press conference after the case was argued and both sides seem to agree. If a girl’s health is in immediate danger and she needs an abortion, go ahead and do it. According to the attorney general of NH, the doctor won’t be prosecuted. Really. She promises. So why don’t they just put that in the law? Why did NH purposely leave out an emergency health provision.? I understand they didn’t want just any old health claim to be good enough to bypass parental consent, but we’re talking emergencies here.

By: RonF

RonF — Mon, 05 Dec 2005 16:46:37 +0000

Seems to me that these pharmacists have the right to refuse to dispense medications that they think are morally repulsive. It also seems to me that the pharmacy has the right to fire them for that.

By: RonF

RonF — Mon, 05 Dec 2005 01:26:31 +0000

I don’t have a problem with a law allowing a medical procedure to be performed on a minor whose life is at risk if the risk is such that there is no time to contact the parents. But:

1) unless there is a very strong indication that notifiying the parents would risk the child’s life, the parents should be notified afterwards, as they would be after any other medical procedure, and

2) the same standards that would be applied in any other medical procedure should be applied in this case as to whether or not there’s time to contact the parents first.

The objective should be to take the procedures necessary to save the child’s life, not to take the procedures necessary to enable the child to deceive or avoid conflict with her parents.

By: john howard

john howard — Sat, 03 Dec 2005 18:24:20 +0000

Then they should say the law needs to allow for the notification to be done after the procedure if there is an emergency situation.

But I bet there are other laws that could get in the way of saving someone’s life if they were scrupulously followed, and we don’t call them unconstitutional, like speeding, or driving without a license, or breaking and entering, in order to save someone’s life. Does every law need a “life” exception? Why are abortion laws different ?

And what about the right to self-defense? We already say it is OK to kill someone if they were going to kill you and it was ’self-defense’? Why is it any different if the person is threatening your life unintentionally? Are you supposed to let them kill you just because they don’t mean to be killing you?

By: Echidne of the snakes

Echidne of the snakes — Sat, 03 Dec 2005 10:34:55 +0000

Wouldn’t the fact that the teen’s life is threatened make notifying the parents even more of an imperitive? I would think a law that required parental notification when any minor is seeking a medical procedure because their life or health of the teen would make sense - that’s when the teen needs their parents most, and the parents should certainly know about it.

It is a question of time. If something happens in the middle of the night and the teen is taken to a hospital there may be no time to find a parent or a judge to get around the parental requirement. Though the proposed law does have an exception for life-threatening causes.

By: john howard

john howard — Sat, 03 Dec 2005 07:33:13 +0000

Yeah, that should be the exception, but it isn’t what they seem to care about.

By: alsis39

alsis39 — Sat, 03 Dec 2005 01:22:25 +0000

Of course, there are cases in which it’s notifying the parent that itself would threaten the girl’s life. But I guess we won’t talk about that.

By: John Howard

John Howard — Fri, 02 Dec 2005 22:40:19 +0000

What makes the New Hampshire case so controversial is that it does not include an exception for the health of the mother

By: Aaron V.

Aaron V. — Fri, 02 Dec 2005 22:20:28 +0000

Those pharmacists shouldn’t just be suspended - they should be fired.

Could you imagine a Mormon clerk refusing to sell pop because it has caffeine? Or a Muslim clerk refusing to sell alcohol in a grocery store? Or a non-smoker like me refusing to sell cigarettes? They’d be canned in an instant.

Jesus freaks get special rights in many instances - hopefully not in this. Two cheers for Walgreens…