Publication Date: Wednesday, June 08, 2005
Board of Contributors: Delving into sensitive turf -- like abortion -- evokes parent/child dilemmas
Board of Contributors: Delving into sensitive turf -- like abortion -- evokes parent/child dilemmas
(June 08, 2005) by Jeff Blum
I confess that I conceal information from my teenage daughters, Emily and Julia. We all have our inner mysteries. Am I afraid of revealing secrets that might make me look weak? Perhaps I am frightened they will not care about what I reveal to them.
Maybe I keep so much to myself because when my buried thoughts pop up they quickly recede and are lost due to the hustle and bustle of everyday life.
But part of my failure to speak about my deeper inner self comes from not knowing how to begin. It is ironic -- a family law attorney who gets tongue-tied with his own children. What is so painful is that I know I can impart more wisdom to them than I do.
The concealment of inner secrets goes both ways. Although my daughters are aware they may safely confide in me (no matter how serious the issue may be) without serious repercussions because I am generally a good, patient and uncritical listener, I know they are much more likely to seek counsel from friends than from me.
These are opportunities lost. As my older daughter, Emily, knows from planning Intergenerational Week celebrations with me, each generation has much knowledge and insight to offer the others.
The quandary over how much of our private lives my daughters and I should share with one another increases markedly for them when put in the context of a potential invasion of their constitutionally protected privacy rights.
Currently, several ballot initiatives seek to amend our state constitution's protections against invasion of privacy by requiring teenage girls to inform their parents prior to obtaining an abortion.
I do not doubt that my teenage daughters would benefit from my adult guidance if faced with an unwanted pregnancy. But what ultimately persuades me that these initiatives should be rejected is that they may endanger the health and lives of many young women who do not have understanding parents, or who may fear seriously disappointing parents with whom they are close.
For a number of reasons -- including fear of parental maltreatment or abuse -- many teenagers just cannot tell their parents about their pregnancies.
A minority of teenage girls do not involve their parents in the decision to obtain an abortion. The vast majority of those who do not involve their parents have compelling reasons, including histories of family violence or a fear of being forced to leave home.
If parents must be informed before teenagers can obtain an abortion, those girls who cannot tell their parents must either travel out of state for an abortion or obtain a "judicial bypass." The resulting delays can increase the cost of the abortion and the physical- and emotional-health risk to the teenager.
Many states recognize that minors have the capacity to consent to their own medical care and that in certain important areas (such as mental health, drug and/or alcohol addiction, treatment for sexually transmitted infections, and pregnancy) entitlement to confidential care is a public-health necessity.
Many laws allow minors to obtain treatments involving greater medical risk than a first-trimester abortion, such as surgical interventions during pregnancy and cesarean sections.
Evidence, including surveys, suggests that lack of confidentiality in accessing sexual-health services severely delays or curtails minors' use of such services.
The "judicial bypass" option written into the California initiatives is of doubtful value. It allows a minor to avoid informing her parents about the proposed abortion in certain circumstances. But reports by the American Civil Liberties Union and others indicate that states enforce judicial-bypass laws erratically.
Moreover, the California initiatives require that the minor show, by clear and convincing evidence, that she is mature or that the waiver is in the minor's best interests. The burden of proof is thus extremely high and the tests are vague -- and therefore may be difficult to overcome.
It is a sign of how difficult it must be for a minor to confide in a parent about a proposed abortion that my daughters did not want to discuss this hyper-sensitive issue when I raised it in the context of asking them to review this column. I can only begin to imagine the anguish they would endure if they had to actually confide in me about a needed abortion.
Anti-abortion advocates are getting more sophisticated in their approach to the abortion issue. These initiatives are a perfect example. They place parents in the awkward position of weighing their children's privacy and safety rights. It is enough to keep parents and pro choice advocates awake at night.
Jeff Blum, a family law attorney practicing in Redwood City, is chair of the Palo Alto Human Relations Commission. He can be e-mailed at blumesq@aol.com.
E-mail a friend a link to this story. | 
