Abortion among teenagers should be made less necessary, not more difficult and dangerous. Many young women are fortunate to have loving and supportive parents and these teens overwhelmingly include their parents in their reproductive health decisions. However, pregnant teenagers also come from troubled homes, where they risk physical and mental abuse by disclosing to one or both of their parents that they are pregnant or are terminating the pregnancy.  . New Mexico should be most concerned with protecting the most vulnerable teens—teens who have been or are at great risk of physical and sexual abuse from their families –from unwanted pregnancy. Mandating parental involvement does not solve the problems associated with teenage pregnancy. Instead it unnecessarily puts our most vulnerable youth at risk of harm

REQUIRING PARENTAL CONSENT/NOTIFICATION IS UNNECESSARY

• Most parents are already involved in a teen’s decision to terminate a pregnancy.ⁱ Only 10% of all abortions are performed on minors and, of those, 7 out of 10 minors involve their parents.
• Laws mandating parental notice or consent actually harm the young women they purport to protect by increasing illegal and self-induced abortion, family violence, suicide, later abortions and unwanted childbirth.

REQUIRING PARENTAL CONSENT/NOTIFICATION IS DANGEROUS

• Over half of formerly-abused pregnant teens report assaults during their pregnancy, most often by a family member. ii 67% of rapes reported to law enforcement in NM in 2009 were children.iii 48% of rape victims who reported to service providers in 2009 in New Mexico were children.^iv 88% of all rape victims know the offendersand 35% of these offenders are family members.

• The American Medical Association has noted that “[b]ecause the need for privacy may be compelling, minors may be driven to desperate measures to maintain the confidentiality of their pregnancies. They may run away from home, obtain a ‘back alley’ abortion, or resort to self-induced abortion. The desire to maintain secrecy has been one of the leading reasons for illegal abortion deaths since . . . 1973.^v
• Requiring parental consent or notification endangers young women by forcing some women to turn to illegal or self-induced abortion, to delay the procedure and increase the medical risk, or to bear a child against their will.^vi
• Teenage girls are more than 24 times more likely to die from childbirth than from first trimester legal abortions.vii
• Fewer than 60 percent of teen mothers graduate from high school by age 25—compared to 90 percent of those who postpone childbearing.viii Additionally, among African-American and Hispanic teens, those who postpone childbearing until age 20 are more likely to complete some college education.^ix
• Twenty-five percent of teen mothers live below the federal poverty line.^x Nearly 80 percent of teen mothers eventually go on welfare.^xi Teens that give birth also spend a greater length of time receiving public assistance— an average of three years longer than older mothers through age 35.^xii Teen mothers are also more likely to have lower family incomes later in life.^xiii

STATE AND FEDERAL LAW PROTECT YOUTH’S PRIVACY IN MAKING SIMILAR HEALTHCARE DECISIONS

• 50 states and the District of Columbia authorize minors to consent to the diagnosis and treatment of sexually transmitted infections without parental consent.^xiv
• The United States Supreme Court recognized that confidential access to contraceptives for minors is protected by their constitutional right to privacy.^xv Federal law requires confidentiality for minors receiving family-planning services through publicly funded programs such as Title X and Medicaid.^xvi

JUDICIAL BYPASS PROVISIONS FAIL TO PROTECT YOUNG WOMEN

• Court proceedings are intimidating and difficult even for adults represented by capable attorneys. For young women without lawyers, seeking a court order is even more daunting and overwhelming and at times impossible.
• Requiring teens to go to court violates their privacy, particularly in rural areas.
• Court intervention delays healthcare, thus increasing the health risks associated with termination of a pregnancy.^xvii
• In states requiring court intervention, judges have denied young women the ability to terminate their pregnancies due to their personal biases and beliefs. xviii

GROUPS OPPOSING PARENTAL CONSENT/NOTIFICATION LEGISLATION:

• The American Medical Association states “Physicians should not feel or be compelled to require minors to involve their parents before deciding whether to undergo an abortion. . .”^xix
• The American Academy of Pediatrics also opposes parental-involvement laws.^xx
• American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) opposes requiring parental consent/ notification.
• The New Mexico Coalition for Choice, including the New Mexico Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, Planned Parenthood New Mexico, ACLU-NM, the American Association of University Women (AAUW), the League of Women Voters, Women’s Policy Agenda, Young Women United.

ⁱ Stanley K. Henshaw & Kathryn Kost, Parental Involvement in Minors’ Abortion Decisions, 24 FAMILY PLANNING PERSPECTIVES 197, 199-200 (1992).

ⁱⁱ American Psychological Association, Parental Consent Laws for Adolescent Reproductive Health Care: What Does the Psychological Research Say? (Feb. 2000), citing A.B. Berenson, et al., Prevalence of Physical and Sexual Assault in Pregnant Adolescents, 13 J. OF ADOLESCENT HEALTH 466-69 (1992).

ⁱⁱⁱ Caponera, Betty, Ph.D., “Sex Crime Trends in New Mexico: An Analysis of Data from the New Mexico Interpersonal Violence Data Central Repository 2005-2009,” (July, 2010).

^iv Id.

^v Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs American Medical Association, Mandatory Parental Consent to Abortion, 269 JAMA 83 (1993).

^vi Advocates for Youth, Adolescent Childbearing and Education and Economic Attainment (Oct. 1995), at http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/factsheet/fsadlchd.htm, citing Plotnick & Butler, Attitudes and Adolescent Nonmarital Childbearing: Evidence from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth, 6 J. OF ADOLESCENT RESEARCH 470 (1991).

vii. Howard W. Ory, Mortality Associated with Fertility and Fertility Control: 1983, 15 FAMILY PLANNING PERSPECTIVES 59 (1983).

viii. Namkee Ahn, Teenage Childbearing and High School Completion: Accounting for Individual Heterogeneity, 26 FAMILY PLANNING PERSPECTIVES 18 (1994); Saul D. Hoffman, The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, By the Numbers: The Public Costs of Teen Childbearing (October 2006).

^ix Advocates for Youth, Adolescent Childbearing and Education and Economic Attainment (Oct. 1995), at http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/factsheet/fsadlchd.htm, citing Plotnick & Butler, Attitudes and Adolescent Nonmarital Childbearing: Evidence from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth, 6 J. OF ADOLESCENT RESEARCH 470 (1991).

^x Advocates for Youth, Adolescent Childbearing and Education and Economic Attainment (Oct. 1995), at http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/factsheet/fsadlchd.htm, citing Plotnick & Butler, Attitudes and Adolescent Nonmarital Childbearing: Evidence from the National Longitudinal Study of Youth, 6 J. OF ADOLESCENT RESEARCH 470 (1991). citing Hoffman, et al., Reevaluating the Cost of Teenage Childbearing, 30 DEMOGRAPHY 1 (1993).

xi. Annie E. Casey Foundation, supra note 36.

^xii Saul D. Hoffman, The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, By the Numbers: The Public Costs of Teen Childbearing (October 2006).

xiii

THE ALAN GUTTMACHER INSTITUTE, SEX AND AMERICA’S TEENAGERS 61-62 (New York: 1994); NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, RISKING THE FUTURE:

ADOLESCENT SEXUALITY, PREGNANCY, AND CHILDBEARING 130 (Cheryl D. Hayes ed., National Academy Press 1987).

^xiv The Alan Guttmacher Institute, Minors’ !ccess to STD Services, STATE POLICIES IN BRIEF, Oct. 1, 2008

^xv Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678 (1977).

^xvi New York v. Heckler, 719 F.2d 1191 (S.D.N.Y. 1983) (striking down regulation requiring parental notification within 10 days of a Title X-funded family planning center providing prescription drugs or devices to unemancipated minor because such law conflicted with the program requirements of Title X); Planned Parenthood Association of Utah v. Dandoy, 810 F.2d 984 (10^th Cir. 1987) (holding state law requiring parental consent for Medicaid conflicted with federal law, which requires states participating in the Medicaid program to provide family planning assistance to eligible minors without parental involvement).

^xvii Hodgson v. Minnesota, 648 F.Supp. 756, 763-64 (D. Minn. 1986).

xviii Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417, 420 (1990) (requiring a bypass procedure for a two-parent notification statute); Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 497 U.S. 502, 510 (1990) (requiring bypass procedures for parental consent statutes).

^xix American Medical Association, Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, Mandatory Parental Consent to Abortion, CODE OF MEDICAL ETHICS 1996-1997 EDITION, § 2.015 (issued June 1994) (based on the report, Mandatory Parental Consent to Abortion (issued June 1992) 269 JAMA 82-86 (1993)).

^xx American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Adolescence, The Adolescent’s Right to Confidential Care When Considering Abortion, 97 PEDIATRICS 746 (1996).

Micah McCoy, Communications Specialist

Most people know the American Civil Liberties Union as one of the oldest and fiercest defenders of religious liberty in the nation. However, Steve Smothermon, the pastor of Legacy Church in Albuquerque, was recently quoted in the Journal accusing the ACLU of attacking his religious beliefs. If Smothermon examined the situation more closely, he’d see that the ACLU’s concerns have nothing to do with his faith, but with defending the freedom of all people to practice their faith – or no faith at all – without governmental interference.

Today the national ACLU released a video featuring Ruthell Frank, an 81 year-old woman living in Brokaw, Wisconsin, a tiny hamlet of just over 100 people. Ruthelle has been voting in elections since 1948 and serves on the village board. But since the Republican controlled Wisconsin legislature passed a law requiring a photo ID to vote earlier this year, Ruthelle may for the first time in over 60 years be unable to vote. Watch the video to learn why:

Politicians all over the United States are attempting to ram these Voter ID laws through the legislature ostensibly to prevent voter fraud. Of course investigation after investigation shows that there is no widespread voter fraud anywhere in the United States-and that includes New Mexico. Essentially, these vote-suppressing “Voter ID” laws are a solution in search of a problem.

Here in New Mexico we can be sure that legislators will once again attempt to foist the stale and debunked specter of fraud on us in an attempt to pass a Voter ID restriction in the upcoming 2012 legislative session. Secretary of State Dianna Duran’s well-publicized but opaque (and ultimately empty handed) fishing expedition through the voter rolls these past nine months is a clear preamble to the bill’s introduction. So when the session rolls around this coming January, we need to be prepared to ask our legislators why they want to make it harder for New Mexicans to vote?

As we saw in the video, Voter ID bills disenfranchise the elderly, the poor, the homeless, Native Americans and other minority groups who may not have valid photo IDs. Many people, like Ruthelle, may not even have access to or are unable to afford the documents that are needed to obtain a valid photo ID. Obtaining copies of birth certificates, passports or other documents required can be expensive-sometimes hundreds of dollars-and acts as a de facto poll tax on those who are least able to afford it. Voting is not a privilege, it is a constitutional right, and no eligible citizen should have to pay to vote.

Even though there is no evidence that photo IDs would be effective in preventing fraud, Voter ID apologists often use the line, “Even one instance of voter fraud is too many” to justify their crusade to impose roadblocks to the poll booth. But how many cases of voter disenfranchisement are too many? One? Two? Ten? Demographically, thousands of eligible New Mexicans stand to be disenfranchised by Voter ID legislation.

There are already hefty federal criminal penalties to deter people from committing voter fraud-and it works. There has never been a documented case of voter fraud in the state of New Mexico that would have been prevented by photo IDs. This coming January, let’s ask our representatives to focus their energy on coming up with real solutions to the real problems we face-not ginned up issues designed to disenfranchise large swaths of the electorate.

On November 15,

Panelists: Jennifer Podkul from the Women's Refugee Commission, Tania Chozet from the ACLU of New Mexico, and Danielle Alvarado from No More Deaths.

advocacy organization representatives and congressional staffers gathered in a small room in the Canon House Office Building for a congressional briefing on No More Deaths’ “Culture of Cruelty” report.  As we have reported previously (here and here), No More Deaths conducted interviews with nearly 13,000 migrants and documented 30,000 incidents of abuse and mistreatment by the U.S. Border Patrol in short-term detention over the course of three years. At the briefing, Danielle Alvarado from No More Deaths, Jennifer Podkul of the Women’s Refugee Commission, and Tania Chozet from the ACLU of New Mexico’s Regional Center for Border Rights each spoke about their experiences working with migrants near the border and their frustration surrounding the Border Patrol’s flat out denial of the report’s findings.

While the report presents a multitude of alarming statistics about the situation on our southwestern border (for example: “out of 433 incidents in which emergency medical treatment or medication were needed, only 59 (14%) received it before being deported – the other 86% were deported without receiving needed medical care”), yesterday’s briefing focused on the actions that members of Congress can take to alleviate the situation.

Despite the report’s disturbing findings, the Border Patrol has been unwilling to meet with No More Deaths locally.  This is not an isolated incident–Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) has a reputation for being unresponsive to both civil society and congressional information requests.  The only existing oversight mechanism–the Department of Homeland Security Office for Civil Rights & Civil Liberties (CRCL)–is understaffed, does not have the authority to issue penalties or make binding recommendations, and is not independent enough to truly hold the agency accountable.  Consequently, no one is asking questions about questionable Border Patrol policies.

In contrast, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has introduced access policies to allow advocacy groups to visit their detention facilities and conduct independent monitoring.  This program allows ICE to benefit from the expertise and advice of the advocacy community as well as fosters dialogue about ICE policies.  This model could provide similar accountability for Border Patrol policies and facilities.

The panelists emphasized that they are not asking that the laws go unenforced, just that they be carried out in a humane way.  This kind of abuse and mistreatment is inexcusable, particularly in the United States of America.  Moreover, though these policies are conducted under the guise of national security, human rights abuses do not make us safer.  Congress can do a number of things to hold the Border Patrol accountable for their actions including adding oversight and reporting conditions in budget bills and calling for oversight hearings.  Our members of Congress need to start asking the tough questions and requiring the executive agencies to take responsibility for the abuses occurring on their watch.

This blog post originally appeared on the website of Standing on the Side of Love, a Unitarian Universalist public advocacy campaign that seeks to harness love’s power to stop oppression.

——————————————————————————————————————–

Want to do something about Border Patrol abuse?  Sign the petition.  Call the White House and ask the administration to launch an investigation.  Contact your members of Congress and ask them to call for an oversight hearing.  Make your voice heard!

Dear Friend of Liberty,
I’m writing you today to ask you to stand up to an organization that is willing to go to any length to take away a woman’s right to safe, legal abortion care here in New Mexico. I’m talking about Kansas-based “Operation Rescue,” a group of extremists with a track record of violence, harassment and intimidation towards abortion providers and women seeking abortions.Dear friend of liberty,

Their main target was once Kansas late-term abortion provider Dr. George Tiller. Dr. Tiller is now dead, murdered as he ushered Sunday worship at his church, and Operation Rescue followed Tiller’s surviving associates to Albuquerque where they relocated to continue providing late-term abortion care to women in need.

Stand up for women’s right to access reproductive health care and keep Operation Rescue’s extremist agenda out of New Mexico.

Operation Rescue recently made headlines in Albuquerque when they released recordings of 9-1-1 calls made from two health clinics where abortions are performed and demanded that the New Mexico Medical Board investigate several local physicians for alleged “unsafe” practices.

This is not a new tactic for Operation Rescue. The organization has used bogus complaints to medical boards in several other states in an attempt to harass and intimidate doctors. The person responsible for most of these complaints is Cheryl Sullenger, Operation Rescue’s Senior Policy Advisor, who served two years in U.S. federal prison for conspiring to bomb an abortion clinic in 1987.

In 2009, Sullenger lied about and then later admitted to feeding information regarding the whereabouts of Dr. Tiller to an anti-choice extremist named Scott Roeder. On Sunday, May 31, 2009, Roeder walked into the Reformation Lutheran Church in Wichita, Kansas and shot and killed Dr. Tiller.

Making repeated complaints to the medical board and demanding endless investigations of abortion providers is the same strategy Operation Rescue used in Kansas to harass Dr. Tiller before he was murdered. Now Operation Rescue is using the same strategy here in New Mexico.

This has a serious chilling effect on abortion providers because time and expense required to hire attorneys, respond to an unending stream of subpoenas, and repeatedly appear before the medical board makes it extremely difficult to run a medical practice. And that is exactly what Operation Rescue is counting on.

Help keep our medical board from being hijacked by anti-choice extremists. Remind the Executive Director of the NM Medical Board that they should make decisions based on medicine – not the political agendas of out-of-state extremists.

Sincerely,

Peter Simonson

Executive Director