Why “parental notification”
I’ve been giving a great deal of thought to Parental Notification laws, which require that parents be notified either in person, by phone, or by certified letter before an under age young woman can terminate her pregnancy. The hope, I believe, is that upon receiving that information, the parent will lock the girl up and prevent her from receiving an abortion at all.
But therein lies the verbal hedging. What they’re looking for, but not saying, is Parental Permission, to in effect give the parent veto power. The logical step beyond that is to remove the young woman from the decision completely, and turn that power over to her parent or guardian. But the anti-choice movement will never allow their efforts to be worded that way.
Why?
Because if the control were strictly in the parent’s hands, the parent would not only have the right to forbid an abortion, but also to compel one. That they can’t allow.
The push for “notification” is just rhetoric. They want someone of their own beliefs making the decision. Parental notification doesn’t affect pro-choice families. Those parents are unlikely to take steps to prevent their daughter’s abortion. Only those girls from anti-choice households would have their decisions preempted by the adults.
Should parental power be codified in law, it could be used against their cause, so we’ll never see it proposed. The pregnant woman should only have control over her body so long as her she decides to continue her pregnancy. Should she chose wrongly, they want someone else to be able to overrule her, whether her parents or the man who impregnated her, in the case of husband notification laws which Samuel Alito found just fine and dandy.
Casting the debate in terms of parental rights is a smokescreen. It’s all about control.

In the fairy tales Snow White and Sleeping Beauty, a princess is awakened from near death by a kiss from a charming prince. Sadly, that was not the case for a 15-year-old girl in Quebec. The kiss she received was fatal.
