Abortion ruling: Illinois' parental notification law is cleared...

A federal appeals court in Chicago on Tuesday breathed new life into a long-dormant Illinois law that requires physicians to notify the parents of teenage girls before performing abortions. Full Story
First Prev
of 17
Next Last
Manila Mike

Lake Zurich, IL

#324 Jul 19, 2009
Mathius L wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously, you do not have children. What parent in their right mind would not want to be notified?
Ohhhhh...pick me, pick me...please, I know...I know...

You live in a fantasy land if you believe all parents are concerned and devoted to Christian/Judeo parenting ethics. I simply cannot believe you are this clueless.
INMO

AOL

#325 Jul 19, 2009
SharonD wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you post a link to the opinion? Thanks.
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/
Click on opinions, then past month, look for Zbarez, David v. Madigan, Lisa #08-1620

It's not updating the wording of the bill. This was a challenge to the bill-probably not the last. Although they are upholding it, it seems to me, that they are making it clear that minors have rights. That's kind of the short version and purely my opinion. It seems no one is happy with this law-IIRC, even the court is saying that. People who are pro-parental notification don't like the "escape clause", on the other hand, people think the "escape clause" poses too big of a hurdle.

I found the opinion interesting because it kind of gave the history behind it and mentioned the Consent by Minors to Medical Procedures Act. I would give the link but it's very long and I don't know how to shorten it. Sorry-but if you Google it-it's 410 ILCS 210-you should find it.

A very small part of it says: "...a parent who is a minor, a pregnant woman who is a minor, or any person 18 years of age or older, is deemed to have the same legal capacity to act and has the same powers and obligations as has a person of legal age. " this is for themselves and her own children.

So a minor who is a mother can give consent for her child to have a medical procedure but must get judicial bypass to avoid notifying her own parents if she wants a certain procedure for herself.

A pregant woman is considered an adult but if she wants to have an abortion, which an adult woman can do without parental notification, she can't without judicial bypass. Is it because by that procedure she isn't pregnant anymore? One of my typos was that the court said something about it was ok to pose restrictions on minors that you wouldn't on adults.

It also has this section:...drug abuse programs ...who provides counseling to a minor patient who has come into contact with any sexually transmitted disease referred to in Section 4 of this Act may, but shall not be obligated to, inform the parent, parents, or guardian of the minor as to the treatment given or needed. Any person described in this Section who provides counseling to a minor who abuses drugs or alcohol or has a family member who abuses drugs or alcohol shall not inform the parent, parents, guardian, or other responsible adult of the minor's condition or treatment without the minor's consent unless that action is, in the person's judgment, necessary to protect the safety of the minor, a family member, or another individual.
Any such person shall, upon the minor's consent, make reasonable efforts to involve the family of the minor in his or her treatment, if the person furnishing the treatment believes that the involvement of the family will not be detrimental to the progress and care of the minor. Reasonable effort shall be extended to assist the minor in accepting the involvement of his or her family in the care and treatment being given. "

What if the pregnant minor also fall into this category?

Again, I just found this interesting because it posed some ideas and situations that I hadn't thought of-I'm not trying to argue with anyone. I'm not an expert on ANY kind of law-I just think this is interesting and I like any input that helps me understand the issues better or clear up what I am not understanding. I do have my personal opinion-in a perfect world parental support would be great but I don't think we live in one, and I think the bypass is a burden. Especially since it seems the 7th is kind of relying on this working by kind of crossing their fingers.
Harmony

AOL

#326 Jul 19, 2009
Sorry-I was posting to another discussion and used "INMO" for that. But in case anyone is wondering-I didn't use different IDs in this discussion.:-) I may change from discussion to discussion but I never change within one.
SharonD

Saint Charles, IL

#327 Jul 19, 2009
INMO wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/
Click on opinions, then past month, look for Zbarez, David v. Madigan, Lisa #08-1620
It's not updating the wording of the bill. This was a challenge to the bill-probably not the last. Although they are upholding it, it seems to me, that they are making it clear that minors have rights. That's kind of the short version and purely my opinion. It seems no one is happy with this law-IIRC, even the court is saying that. People who are pro-parental notification don't like the "escape clause", on the other hand, people think the "escape clause" poses too big of a hurdle.
...
Again, I just found this interesting because it posed some ideas and situations that I hadn't thought of-I'm not trying to argue with anyone. I'm not an expert on ANY kind of law-I just think this is interesting and I like any input that helps me understand the issues better or clear up what I am not understanding. I do have my personal opinion-in a perfect world parental support would be great but I don't think we live in one, and I think the bypass is a burden. Especially since it seems the 7th is kind of relying on this working by kind of crossing their fingers.
Thanks for the link.

I'm sorry I shortened your post; I've exceeded the Trib's length limits. For anyone who wants to read the full text of INMO's post, it was #325.

I find particularly interesting the wording you quoted from the Consent by Minors to Medical Procedures Act"

"pregnant woman who is a minor"

It would seem to me that "woman" and "minor" are mutually exclusive. If she's under 18, wouldn't she be a "pregnant girl?" (Clearly, if she's emancipated, she's a woman, but then she wouldn't be also considered a minor).

Like you, I don't claim to be an expert; I just find it interesting and difficult. Children do not have all the same rights as adults, and while some minors are mature enough to make this decision, not all are. I agree that the bypass is a burden, but I don't think it's an insurmountable one.
INMO

AOL

#328 Jul 19, 2009
SharonD wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for the link.
I'm sorry I shortened your post; I've exceeded the Trib's length limits. For anyone who wants to read the full text of INMO's post, it was #325.
I find particularly interesting the wording you quoted from the Consent by Minors to Medical Procedures Act"
"pregnant woman who is a minor"
It would seem to me that "woman" and "minor" are mutually exclusive. If she's under 18, wouldn't she be a "pregnant girl?" (Clearly, if she's emancipated, she's a woman, but then she wouldn't be also considered a minor).
Like you, I don't claim to be an expert; I just find it interesting and difficult. Children do not have all the same rights as adults, and while some minors are mature enough to make this decision, not all are. I agree that the bypass is a burden, but I don't think it's an insurmountable one.
You may also be (if you haven't already)interested in reading the editorial in today's Sun-Times. Basically it says that the courts aren't ready to deal with this, but organizations like Planned Parenthood are trying to help and that it really should be up to the state of Illinois. In the recent opinion, I can't remember exactly, they tried to test-it didn't work right, courts didn't know about this. So while I might not describe this as "insurmountable" it begs the question-how does it make sense that people expect a minor to navigate this-to possibly prove her maturity no less-while the State of Illinois-presumably staffed by adults can't handle it?
SharonD

Saint Charles, IL

#329 Jul 19, 2009
INMO wrote:
<quoted text>
You may also be (if you haven't already)interested in reading the editorial in today's Sun-Times. Basically it says that the courts aren't ready to deal with this, but organizations like Planned Parenthood are trying to help and that it really should be up to the state of Illinois. In the recent opinion, I can't remember exactly, they tried to test-it didn't work right, courts didn't know about this. So while I might not describe this as "insurmountable" it begs the question-how does it make sense that people expect a minor to navigate this-to possibly prove her maturity no less-while the State of Illinois-presumably staffed by adults can't handle it?
First, with the amount of buzz this law has generated, I find it hard to believe that any court in Illinois isn't aware of it--regardless of what one clerk tells a reporter. The editorial also wrings its hands that the courts only have three weeks to get ready for this, when, in fact, they should have been thinking about it since January. Back then, Madigan asked the Circuit Court to appoint a "Special Master," specifically to help courts get ready for this law (I have to admit, though, that I'm not finding any follow up to that request). What court worth his or her salt hasn't been keeping at least one eye on this since the January decision?

Honestly, I would expect the new enforcement of most laws to have some startup issues that need to get worked out. What will happen the first time a girl gets a lawyer to file a petition and the court doesn't give a decision within 48 hours? Unless memory fails me, no decision is the same as a waiver granted.

My position is, in a nutshell, any girl who gets pregnant as a result of rape or incest should be able to have an abortion. Any girl who reasonably fears that telling her parents will result in physical injury should be able to receive a waiver.

The first option stated in the law for a waiver, the maturity test, seems to me a Catch-22. If the girl doesn't want to face her parents' disappointment, or doesn't want to deal with angry but not abusive parents, she has to prove her maturity in order to get a waiver. But a truly mature person can face the music. So if she can't tell her parents, is she really mature?
INMO

AOL

#330 Jul 20, 2009
"First, with the amount of buzz this law has generated, I find it hard to believe that any court in Illinois isn't aware of it--regardless of what one clerk tells a reporter.
The editorial also wrings its hands that the courts only have three weeks to get ready for this, when, in fact, they should have been thinking about it since January. Back then, Madigan asked the Circuit Court to appoint a "Special Master," specifically to help courts get ready for this law (I have to admit, though, that I'm not finding any follow up to that request). What court worth his or her salt hasn't been keeping at least one eye on this since the January decision? Honestly, I would expect the new enforcement of most laws to have some startup issues that need to get worked out. "

It's more than one clerk talking to a reporter. But the court sems to agree with you: In the opinion it's noted that the clerks are unfamiliar-the court sort of dismisses it because the law is "nascent".

"What will happen the first time a girl gets a lawyer to file a petition and the court doesn't give a decision within 48 hours? Unless memory fails me, no decision is the same as a waiver granted.
My position is, in a nutshell, any girl who gets pregnant as a result of rape or incest should be able to have an abortion. Any girl who reasonably fears that telling her parents will result in physical injury should be able to receive a waiver.
The first option stated in the law for a waiver, the maturity test, seems to me a Catch-22. If the girl doesn't want to face her parents' disappointment, or doesn't want to deal with angry but not abusive parents, she has to prove her maturity in order to get a waiver. But a truly mature person can face the music. So if she can't tell her parents, is she really mature?"

But if she can navigate the court system doesn't that prove her maturity? LOL. It seems that the court is using a very broad definition though-it almost seems that if the minor knows what an abortion is, that's enough.

Since: Apr 07

Somerset, NJ

#331 Aug 25, 2009
Christine wrote:
This is an excellent way to increase domestic violence in the state! It's too bad they didn't focus on educating the kids that are already here first. Isn't it wonderful that our politicians and lawmakers are so morally upright (cough, sputter) that they can give guidance to the rest of us. They must have finally found a way to charge a fee for this. Illinois is in shambles. The only reason the population is increasing is because citizens can't afford to move out. More nickle and dime revenue and nanny laws and cameras than any other state in the union and the most corruption. Anyone see a correlation?
You're saying they're hypocritical, worthless scumbuckets?

Yeah, agreed.

But they know that that's what people think of them. They're well aware. That's why they posture and pretend they have something of value to say while being told to keep their mouths shut and their snouts out of people's business.
Soooo

Naperville, IL

#332 Nov 30, 2011
beatrice wrote:
this has nothing to do with parental rights or proper healthcare - it's yet another attempt at an end run around reproductive rights. don't these zealots have anything better to do, like trying to ban the pill or slashing funding for poor families yet again?
Minors don't have reproductive rights, they don't even have the right to consent to sex in the first place. Wrap that around your f-d up agenda.
Soooo

Naperville, IL

#333 Nov 30, 2011
Manila Mike wrote:
<quoted text>
Ohhhhh...pick me, pick me...please, I know...I know...
You live in a fantasy land if you believe all parents are concerned and devoted to Christian/Judeo parenting ethics. I simply cannot believe you are this clueless.
Clueless? You are absolutely 100% f-ing STUPID if you think the vast vast majority of parents who do are going to sit idle as the faceless state carves out a lone exception for minors in regards to a MEDICAL PROCEDURE. Face it, you are outnumbered by even liberal minded parents regarding this subject. Your assertion assumes parents are guilty of apathy as reason to take away their rights.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 17
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Court rules against gay marriage bans in 2 states 8 hr WasteWater 24
Stay issued in Indiana gay marriage ban case Sep 17 KiMare 21
Wisconsin, Indiana set to defend gay marriage b... Sep 12 DNF 32
Lawsuit Over Walker-Related Probe To Be Argued Sep 9 Cracker 2
32 states ask Supreme Court to settle gay marriage Sep 5 Marcavage s Emission 32
Judge critical of states defending gay marriage... Aug 29 Frankie Rizzo 57
Judges chide state lawyers over gay marriage bans Aug 28 radiofreeamerica 9
•••

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••