Under 18 and need an abortion? Go to NH

A federal judge Monday declared unconstitutional a state law that would have required parental notice before a minor could get an abortion.

My favorite part:

U.S. District Judge Joseph DiClerico said the measure does not adequately address cases in which a girl might need an immediate abortion to protect her health.

The law required that the abortion provider notify at least one parent 48 hours in advance of performing the abortion. The parent doesn't have to give consent, only be notified. Can someone explain to me under what circumstances a girl might need an 'immediate' abortion?

At what point did the government get the right to raise children for us? Don't other physicians have to have parental approval before performing medical procedures? Don't they have to at least notify the parent before they perform an emergency appendectomy? If they have to notify you before they perform other medical operations, why wouldn't they have to do the same before an abortion?

I think if it was just ""notify you"" before the abortion it would have been upheld. I think it was the 48 hours tag that shot it down.

BTW, you don''t have to be 18 in Illionis either, and I''m sure other states.

Like I said...can someone just explain what the circumstance would be that requires an ''immediate'' abortion?

Follow up - Here is the response from the Family Research Council:

""The rationale behind not including health exceptions on abortion legislation is quite simple: health exceptions are thinly veiled loopholes through which every minor seeking to evade the notification requirement can do so.

""In public schools around the nation students cannot even be given a baby aspirin without a parent''s consent. For this judge to say that parents have no business being notified of their daughter''s imminent abortion is a horrendous encroachment on parental rights, and it further endangers the young girls who have only a Planned Parenthood ''saleswoman'' from which to receive counsel.""

can someone just explain what the circumstance would be that requires an ''immediate'' abortion?

Alien implants obviously, I wouldn''t want one of those things burrowing out of my soft tummy.

How would a minor even pay for a medical procedure? Oh, now I remember. Unlike any other medical procedure around, the government pays for these.

Alien implants obviously, I wouldn''t want one of those things burrowing out of my soft tummy.

Got it. So, for immediate abortion requirements so far, we have alien implants in stomach. Gotcha. I''ll agree.

Any other suggestions?

Can someone explain to me under what circumstances a girl might need an ''immediate'' abortion?

Unfortunately, I lack the skills to explain the exact situation and constitution, but there are some cases in which it is necessary to perform an immediate abortion. I''ve worked in the surgery part of a hospital for 1 year and we''ve occasionally had such patients. It''s not that they wanted that abortion, but it was a medical necessity or else they could have died.

So basically their bodies couldn''t handle a child?

So basically their bodies couldn''t handle a child?

In that situation, yes. However, it also happened to women who already had given birth to babies before. Everything seems to work fine for months and - boom - within a short time it turns into an emergency. I don''t mean to say that there''s a high probability of this happening to anyone, but - to answer above question - there definitely are conditions under which a person needs an immediate abortion.

It''s not that they wanted that abortion, but it was a medical necessity or else they could have died.

Got it. But were any of these medical cases the types of things that a) a girl would go to an abortion clinic for, or b) a minor would have been treated for without parental consent?

Got it. But were any of these medical cases the types of things that a) a girl would go to an abortion clinic for

There''s hardly anything like abortion clinics over here. That''s usually done in ''normal'' hospitals. However, judging the situation I''d say though that - since this is an emergency - the person would rather go straight into the hospital on her own (or being brought by the ambulance) rather than heading to an abortion clinic.

or b) a minor would have been treated for without parental consent?

I''m pretty sure that if a) it''s a medical necessity and b) the girl agrees and c) neither parents, grandparents or anyone else can be reached, the doctors would perform the abortion. Afterall, the life of the patient has the highest priority and not helping her despite her wanting it and the doctors being able to do it might be considered as a crime under certain circumstances. Also, keep in mind that the babies are barely a few months old in many cases, it''s not like they could be saved would they let the mother die.

The parents'' permission is needed if it''s not a medical emergency, of course.

And frankly, I''m fine with that. I am not opposed to a doctor performing a medical procedure without the parent''s consent if it is a true medical emergency.

I would love to introduce legislation that says that the parents and father have to be notified 72 hours before the procdure is performed, unless it is a medical emergency and the life of the mother is at risk. Abortions in medical emergencies could only be performed at hospitals, not clinics (afer all, who goes to a clinic in a matter of life and death). Also, the parents have the right to ask for an independent review of the case by a panel of doctors, after the fact, if a medical emergency is declared, with penalties including revocation of license and/or jail time if there was no actual emergency.

I would love to introduce legislation that says that the parents and father have to be notified 72 hours before the procdure is performed, unless it is a medical emergency and the life of the mother is at risk. Abortions in medical emergencies could only be performed at hospitals, not clinics (afer all, who goes to a clinic in a matter of life and death). Also, the parents have the right to ask for an independent review of the case by a panel of doctors, after the fact, if a medical emergency is declared, with penalties including revocation of license and/or jail time if there was no actual emergency.

Since the term being used in this legislation is ""notified,"" not ""have to give consent,"" I pretty much agree wholeheartedly here. I also agree that these procedures should be done in hospitals, not abortion clinics.

These are children, and given how much of an impact an abortion has on anyone''s life, especially someone who is themself still a child, I''m very uncomfortable with kids being able to just take a small jaunt on down to the local abortion clinic and have the procedure done free of charge.

There are many more medical necessities that children have to have parental consent for, and which are not given for free, that I don''t understand why an abortion ranks this special status.

Last I saw, pregnancy wasn''t a terminal illness, nor even a life-threatening one in most cases. But you don''t see chemotherapy clinics hanging around for minors to get treatment for free, or even sports injuries clinics (some of those injuries can lead to disabilities if untreated).