Senate passes interstate abortion bill
Just moments after the Senate passed its version 65-34 late Tuesday with the support of 14 Democrats Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., used a procedural motion to halt its progress.

Moreover, there are significant differences between the Senate bill and the House version passed last year.

For his part, Bush urged Congress to resolve the differences and send him the bill.

“Transporting minors across state lines to bypass parental consent laws regarding abortion undermines state law and jeopardizes the lives of young women,” he said in a statement.
[Source: (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060726/ap_on_go_co/interstate_abortion;_ylt=AoN4CwGu2ZsadbpcwGVqb3CyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--)]

To my bones, any sort of governmental prohibition or restriction on pregnancy termination feels inherently wrong. I can sympathize with a parent’s wish to be informed of their child’s actions and interactions. I can understand the possibility for abuse when a young gal is involved (i.e. being forced to terminate a pregnancy by a relative or partner or abuser [if there is a distinction involved]). However, the passage of this restriction not only “jeopardizes the lives of young women” but all women of all ages.

This is a difficult issue for me because what is age? Does the age of a person wholly dictate a maturity level?

This bill would restrict access for women under the age of 18. I do not think making such a sweeping restriction is the answer or even a viable solution. I’ve known “young” women aged 17 who were capable of making their own life decisions apart from their parent’s influence.

If the issue is women under a certain age being raped and then forced to terminate the resultant pregnancy, then we have other issues we need to find solutions for that do not involve placing restrictions on pregnancy termination.

Both bills are designed to make it a crime to help a pregnant girl cross state lines to get an abortion in an effort to evade parental notification and consent laws in her home state.

The Senate bill would protect the girl and her parents from prosecution, as well as provide an exception for anyone who helps a girl end her pregnancy when the pregnancy poses a threat to the mother’s life. It also contains a way for girls with abusive parents to ask a court to allow the abortion without her parents’ notification.

Struggling to defend their majority this election year, Republican sponsors said the bill supports what polls show a majority of the public believes: that a parent’s right to know takes precedence over a young woman’s right to have an abortion.

What is considered a “threat to the mother’s life”? How do we define a “life” of a “mother”? Does an unwanted pregnancy fit the definition of “threat”?

If a child is abused by their parents and they go before a court, how will they be required to show proof of abuse? Also, this assumes the child would have enough gumption to even go to court in the first place.

In giving parents precedence over their children, we further the possibility for parental oppression over children. If we are so concerned with young women being abused by older men and/or relatives, why give these men extra control under the guise of parental rights?

If it is a young woman who is pregnant, shouldn’t precedence be given to her?

Unlike the Senate bill, the House measure sets out a national parental notification law. It would require a physician who knowingly performs or induces an abortion on a minor who is a resident of another state to provide notice of at least 24 hours to a parent of the minor before ending the pregnancy.

States’ rights, anyone?

Both bills are flawed measures that would impede the ability of young women to seek and have access to pregnancy termination and to make independent, informed decisions regarding their own lives.

EDITED 07-24-08: Yahoo! News link expired.