The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed The Child Custody Protection Act, and the Senate is likely to follow soon. Such is the momentum of the current anti-abortion tide that little can stand in the way of passage of this bill, but at least we should see it for what it is: Another step in a long campaign to make abortion services harder for the most vulnerable to get.

This bill does nothing to strengthen family ties and everything to endanger vulnerable teens.

Let’s look at the law. It says two things: that it is illegal for a nonparental adult to help a teen cross state lines to obtain an abortion; and all teens must wait at least 24 hours before their procedure. There are no exceptions to protect the health of the child.

As it stands today, states vary in the legal requirements they impose on teens seeking abortion care. Almost all states require that a minor involves an adult in their decision making and consent process for an abortion. There are states such as Maine that realize that teens sometimes have to turn to people other than their parents for advice and support. Our Adult Involvement Law recognizes this by allowing other adult family members or health care professionals to assist the teen in her consent process.

On the other hand, Mississippi requires the consent of both parents, and many states require at least one parent. If there are special circumstances in these restrictive states, a teen has the option to apply to the court for a judicial bypass to waive the need for parental involvement, but this can be a complicated and time-consuming legal maneuver. Let’s remember, too, that we are talking about a teenage girl who may already be quite traumatized by her experience, which may involve rape or sexual abuse. Even in cases of an otherwise uncomplicated, unplanned pregnancy, this is a very difficult time for the average teen. Since many states also have laws about how late a woman can get abortion care, the clock is running for these girls.

In this setting, it is only natural that teens will sometimes leave their home states to get the care they need if it is more easily obtained elsewhere. If they do so with anyone other than their parent, that adult, be they a grandparent, adult sibling or other adult family member, would be subject to criminal prosecution. Even a taxi or bus driver could be liable.

In the case of a teen who travels with both of her parents to another state for whatever reason, this bill will impose a 24-hour waiting period. If a teen from a state that does not require parental involvement seeks care in another state that has no requirement either, the doctor must still inform her parents 24 hours in advance either in person or by certified mail. If a teen from one restrictive state gets the state-required judicial bypass then goes to another state because the provider there is closer or more available, she must again go through a court hearing in the second state as well.

Does this sound complicated? It is meant to be.

This law does not seek to help support these young women in any way but, rather, to prolong and aggravate their stress. It succeeds only in jeopardizing their care and isolating them from adults they might turn to for help.

What are we trying to do? As a physician, I see teens every day, and when difficult issues come up, those with supportive families turn to them first for advice and support, and this is what I encourage them to do. But I also see children whose parents are abusive or unavailable, or both. Sometimes pregnancies result from sexual assaults, even sexual assaults in the home. Are we to force these girls to return home to confront those parents to get their consent? Are we going to aggravate their trauma by putting them through a punishing, humiliating legal process?

When this law passes, the unfortunate answer will be “yes” for many. It is bitterly ironic, too, that the much-trumpeted 24-hour waiting period only creates a delay that makes the procedure more risky. Add to this irony the fact that some on the right also want to make birth control methods less available to women.

Because of these hazards, the American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Public Health Association and the American Medical Women’s Association all have expressed opposition to parental consent laws.

So, while this legislation masquerades as an effort to protect teens what it really does is put the strong arm of the law into parent-child matters and invades the private relationship between a teen, her family and her health care providers.

Perhaps abortion care might for a moment be compared to other kinds of medical care, say, coronary artery surgery. We recognize that coronary heart surgery is undesirable as a first choice, and we do our best to prevent its need. We educate people about the risk factors that lead to heart surgery, and we provide medicines that reduce their risks. But when someone needs heart surgery, we do all we can to get people to the best doctors in a timely way. We hardly punish those with high cholesterol or poor approaches to exercise.

Yet in many of the ways that abortion care is regarded, the ever-increasing array of rules have the net effect of punishing our patients – your sisters, daughters, girlfriends and wives – and their doctors.

While I have written about national legislation, we are not immune from attacks on reproductive health care in Maine, either. There are currently six bills before the state Legislature that seek to make abortion care more difficult to access.

I fully realize that in today’s debate, abortion is an emotionally charged topic in ways that coronary artery disease is not. But even recognizing the moral dilemmas that are all too familiar, it is surprising to me how easy it is for some of us to forget about the real faces of those in need of abortion care.

I don’t forget them. They blend into the fresh face of a high school junior or senior, flush with the excitement perhaps of the field hockey season, her English paper and her dreams for the future. Great things in front of her but for this pregnancy. To force this young person and her unborn child to endure consequences rather than get care seems morally wrong and poor medicine. To take her childhood away from her is bad family policy in every way. To do so, we are passing judgment on not one life. but two.

Rather than a punishing approach, our goal should be to render the care that is needed in as safe and supportive a way as possible. As a society our goal should be clear and simple: “For every woman, each pregnancy is an invited guest into her body and a welcome addition to her family.”

Steve Bien is a family physician in Farmington.

Copy the Story Link