Results tagged “parental involvement” from Blog for Choice
Today, an extreme anti-choice policy to make it even harder for young women to get an abortion in Oklahoma goes into effect.
This new law will impact women regardless of their personal, private circumstances.
Oklahoma already has several anti-choice laws on the books, including a 48-hour forced waiting period and a parental-notice mandate before a woman can get abortion care. With these new restrictions now in force, in order for a young woman to get an abortion in Oklahoma, her parents also must provide a government-issued ID and a notarized statement of consent.
That's not all. Young women who have good reason not to include a parent in their decision to have an abortion are forced to get permission from the government. If, for example, a young woman fears violence if she tells her parents about her pregnancy, in order to access abortion care without notifying her parents, a judge must determine through "clear and convincing evidence" that she is "mature and capable...based upon her experience level, perspective, and judgment."
Because a young woman may be too immature for an abortion, yet she's somehow mature enough for parenthood? That makes entirely no sense.
Anti-choice proponents of these laws may say a judicial bypass is a reasonable "alternative", but that couldn't be further from the truth. Not long ago in Nebraska a young woman was denied an abortion because the judge ruled she was "not mature enough," and that getting an abortion would "kill the child inside" her.
Check out our graphic of states that have laws requiring women to get permission from a judge before getting abortion care if she feels she cannot share her unplanned pregnancy with her parents:
While we sincerely hope that all young women are able to turn to their parents for support when facing an unplanned pregnancy, sadly, that's not always the case. We should protect those who feel they can't talk to their parents - not put them in a potentially dangerous situation. These types of laws are being passed across the country.
Not only do these horrible anti-choice policies block a woman's constitutional right to choose, they also put our young women in difficult situations right in harm's way.
Wonder what New Hampshire's House of Representatives has been up to over the past month?
If you said it passed one or two bills restricting a woman's right to choose, sorry--you're underestimating the anti-choice politicians in the Granite State.
In the past month, the New Hampshire House has passed three anti-choice bills.
These bills will now go on to the state Senate, which is under anti-choice control.
NARAL Pro-Choice New Hampshire has been leading the fight against these bills, and will mobilize to try to defeat them in the Senate.
The Granite State is a perfect example of how just one election can have devastating consequences for women's health. In 2011, New Hampshire received a grade of A- in our Who Decides? report. The Granite State had a history of strong bipartisan support for the right to choose.
In 2012, after anti-choice extremists spent a year pushing their agenda in both houses of the legislature, New Hampshire's Who Decides? grade fell to a B-.
And with a flurry of attacks on women's freedom and privacy, New Hampshire's grade on protecting pro-choice values could fall even further.
Fortunately, New Hampshire has a pro-choice governor, John Lynch. Last year, Gov. Lynch vetoed a dangerous parental-involvement mandate.
Unfortunately, anti-choice lawmakers in the New Hampshire House and Senate were able to override the governor's veto and enact a law endangering young women's health and safety anyway.
New Hampshirites are fed up with attacks on choice, and politicians pushing this extreme agenda are in for some serious trouble come this November.
Changing the New Hampshire legislature is an example of how we can end the War on Women, state by state.
It is clear that this committee is more interested in making headlines than discussing how to improve women's access to health care or create good jobs in our state. This bill could entangle Ohio in an expensive legal fight, and is out of touch with our state's values and priorities.It is beyond disappointing that the committee won't allow video testimony so they can hear from women who have made the profoundly personal decision to terminate a pregnancy. The politicians behind this bill refuse to acknowledge what Ohioans understand: Every woman's situation is different, and it's unacceptable for anti-choice lawmakers to think they should make the personal, private decisions that belong to women and their doctors.