Abortion law: Court blocks Illinois' parental notification law

Chicago Tribune -

Nov-05-2009

Abortion law: Court blocks Illinois' parental notification law

(topic overview)
CONTENTS:

CHICAGO - A Cook County judge has halted enforcement of Illinois' parent notification law just hours after a state agency had given the all-clear. (More...)
Support for a parental notification law goes back 30 years. (More...)
The law recognizes that the constitutional right to privacy encompasses a woman's right to have an abortion. (More...)
Planned Parenthood of Illinois has been providing notification since August, spokeswoman Beth Kanter said. (More...)
In August, state regulators granted doctors a 90-day grace period before the law would go into effect. (More...)
Though, respecting the role of the parent in a child's medical decision is the only logical and moral thing a state can do. (More...)
The latest delay makes us wonder when, if ever, Illinois can join at least 41 states that have some kind of parental notification. (More...)
Ok so until you understand the sheer terror that could occur and the severe beating and subsequent trauma that could occur through FORCED notification please shut it down. (More...)
Abortion opponents have long sought the law, but critics say it could keep minors from seeking safe procedures. (More...)
One parent/step-parent or guardian must be notified when a girl 17 or younger wants an abortion. (More...)
The medical administrative process is supposed to proceed in a two-step: first, the Medical Board adopts a recommendation and, second, the Secretary of Financial and Professional Regulation approves the recommendation, at which point the recommendation becomes effective. (More...)

SOURCES

FIND OUT MORE ON THIS SUBJECT

CHICAGO - A Cook County judge has halted enforcement of Illinois' parent notification law just hours after a state agency had given the all-clear. Judge Daniel A. Riley granted a temporary restraining order sought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois just hours after the Illinois Medical Disciplinary Board decided the state could begin enforcing the law, which requires parents or guardians to be notified when those 17 and younger seek abortions. The law was to go into effect Tuesday, but late last week the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation said it would delay enforcement until its disciplinary board could meet. [1] Judge Daniel Riley granted a temporary restraining order sought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois in the late afternoon, hours after Illinois' medical disciplinary board decided the state could begin enforcing the law. It requires physicians to notify parents or guardians when those 17 or younger seek abortions. The restraining order was based on an October lawsuit filed by a Chicago physician and a Granite City women's medical clinic who believe the 1995 law is unconstitutional and would harm minors by preventing them from obtaining safe abortions or force them to carry their pregnancies to term.[2]

That decision came just hours after the state Medical Disciplinary Board had given the state the green light to begin enforcing the 14-year-old law. The temporary enforcement halt is a victory for girls because Illinois courts -- where girls are supposed to turn if they feel they can't tell their parents about an abortion -- don't appear to be ready to handle this crucial, new responsibility. The law establishes a confidential judicial bypass procedure, where a girl can try to convince a judge she's mature enough to make the abortion decision for herself.[3] The ACLU is representing the plaintiff in the case, Hope Clinic v. Adams, with the Illinois Medical Disciplinary Board and the Secretary of Financial and Professional Regulation as defendants. The Parental Notice Act was ruled valid and constitutional by the federal courts earlier this year, and our own Illinois Supreme Court had previously instructed that "our state courts are prepared to proceed to apply the law as enacted." TMS attorneys thought they would be joining the defendants to defend the Parental Notice Act. Upon arriving in Court, the attorneys were handed a memo saying that the Medical Board would now "review evidence" on the constitutionality of the Act and intended to extend a "grace period" against the enforcement of parental notice. (Of course, the Medical Board does not have the authority to stop valid Illinois laws from being enforced, but that hasn't stopped them thus far.) That puts the Thomas More Society in an odd spot in this case - against both the plaintiffs, the ACLU, and the defendants, the Illinois government. They knew it was going to be a long day when the representative from Personal PAC - the political arm of Illinois' abortion providers - warmly introduced himself to the attorneys for the Medical Board (from the office of Illinois Attorney General, Lisa Madigan). Personal PAC sat right behind these lawyers in Court.[4] Clark admits the ACLU will exploit the abuse provision. "It is designed to not only protect the right of the judicial bypass, but to make it accessible to young women who might otherwise be daunted by dodging through the legal process on their own," she said. In its legal papers, the Illinois ACLU claims "Illinois courts are not prepared to handle these cases," which makes it appear it will push so many teenagers into secret abortions that the court system will be overwhelmed. A Texas version of the hotline found 469 minors from around the country called to get secret abortions with its help. The Illinois Parental Notice of Abortion Act of 1995 had been enjoined and dormant since its passage by the Illinois General Assembly. This summer, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals dissolved the permanent injunction. The filing by the ACLU in state court challenges the law on state constitutional grounds and asks for an injunction to prevent the law from helping teens and their parents while the lawsuit moves forward in court.[5] Not content to run an operation that guides young women on how to avoid a parental notification law and have a secret abortion, the ACLU of Illinois filed a lawsuit last month seeking to overturn the statute. The ACLU claims that having a teenage girl notify her parents that she wants to have a surgical procedure that would kill her unborn child and could possibly cause her medical and mental health problems presents "serious and irreversible harm to teens." The lawsuit, on behalf of Illinois abortion centers, says "most young women who seek abortions already involve their parents," which makes pro-life advocates in the state wonder why the ACLU would sue to overturn the parental involvement law. The lawsuit cites emergency situations and gives examples of "teens whose parents beat them, threw them out of the house, and/or forced them to become a parent against their will when they found out about the pregnancy." The law already provides for a judicial bypass procedure whereby teenagers who face domestic violence concerns don't have to involve their parents in the abortion decision.[5]

What? The Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation is holding back a law passed in 1995 that would require doctors to notify parents that their CHILDREN are about to get an abortion? The IDFPR regulates state licenses. The news report did not say (probably the reporter failed to ask the hard question) what on God's good earth can this body decide about a law passed 14 years ago? Again, this body decides on issues relating to licensing. Are they going to issue some crazy rule that all doctors must get continuing education credits in parental notification? Devise some CE course such as minors and abortion: ways to circumvent parental notification. I wonder how many parents over the past 14 years never knew their children got abortions? I hate to say it, but blame the Democrats.[6] The regulation department would only get involved if someone files a complaint, said Susan Hofer, a spokeswoman. Doctors who showed "willful failure" to notify parents could lose their medical licenses, she said. Critics of the delay say teens from neighboring states with stricter rules drive to Illinois to avoid talking to their parents about a pregnancy. Iowa requires notification, and with some exceptions, doctors performing abortions in Indiana, Michigan, Missouri and Wisconsin must have parental consent before doing the procedure.[2]

I think the parent should know." The judge in the case has not said when he will issue his ruling on the legality of the law. A little about the law: it applies to people in Illinois and it requires doctors to notify the parents of girls under age 17, 48 hours before they get abortions. It does not require parental consent; it only requires that parents be notified.[7] The law requires doctors to notify the parents or guardians of girls 17 or younger 48 hours before the teens get abortions. It requires no notice in a medical emergency or in cases of sexual abuse, and a provision allows girls to bypass parental notification by going to a judge.[8] Illinois' law was passed in 1995 but never enforced because of various court actions. It requires doctors to notify the parents or guardians of girls 17 or younger 48 hours before a teen gets an abortion.[8]

A new Illinois abortion law could go into effect today. It requires doctors to notify parents when teens want an abortion. The Illinois Medical Disciplinary Board will consider the law this morning.[9] Earlier Wednesday, Illinois' Medical Disciplinary Board voted to begin enforcing the law. Doctors who perform abortions on minors without notifying parents are subject to discipline under the law, which apparently was in effect for a few hours until Riley issued his restraining order in the afternoon.[10]

CHICAGO — Just hours after a state board voted Wednesday to allow the enforcement of a long-debated Illinois law requiring a teenage girl's parents be notified before she has an abortion, a judge issued a temporary restraining order putting the measure back on hold.[11] Springfield, IL (LifeNews.com) -- A state judge blocked enforcement of a parental notification law on abortion just hours after a state board approved letting it go into effect. The law would allow parents the right to know when their teenager daughter is considering having an abortion and give them 48 hours to help her find alternatives.[5] By the count of the anti-abortion side, 44 states, including all the other states in the Midwest, have parental notification laws that have been upheld as constitutional. In 36 of those states, the law is enforced. ACLU Attorney Lorie Chaiten argued that even in states that have had the notification law for years, young girls can be "abused, kicked out of their homes and left homeless" by some less-than-understanding parents. Illinois, like other states with the law, has adopted a "judicial by-pass" procedure that allows girls who think their parents will over-react to the news to go before a judge and ask for a waiver to the law.[10] The Parental Notice of Abortion Act was not enforced because the Illinois Supreme Court refused to issue rules spelling out how judges should handle appeals of the notification requirement. The Illinois Supreme Court issued those rules in 2006. Last year, a federal judge again refused to allow enforcement, saying the law still failed to give teenagers workable judicial options to notifying her parents.[8] Fourteen years ago, Illinois passed a law mandating that at least one parent or guardian be notified when a girl 17 or younger wants an abortion. It looks like the requirement will finally take effect soon. It's a sensible, temperate law aimed at ensuring that parents will not be shut out of a decision that has such grave health and moral implications. It's long, long overdue. When the General Assembly approved the legislation, which was signed by Gov. Jim Edgar, it included a provision allowing a minor to avoid the notification requirement if a judge agreed that she was the victim of abuse or neglect or that she was well enough informed to make the decision herself.[12] Wednesday a judge issued a temporary restraining order on Illinois' abortion notification law, one that many parents feel strongly about. All of the parents Heartland News spoke with say they have a right to know if their child is trying to get an abortion. Still the ACLU successfully argued that most minors do include a parent in their decision. The agency also argued when they don't it's for a good reason.[7]

With some exceptions, doctors performing abortions in Indiana, Michigan, Missouri and Wisconsin must have parental consent before going ahead with the procedure. Iowa requires notification only. Critics of the notification law believe it's unconstitutional and that it will harm minors by preventing them from obtaining safe abortions or forcing them to carry their pregnancies to term. Most teenagers already involve their parents in the decision, abortion rights advocates say. Those who don't, they argue, have good reason.[13] The point is not that opinions of people without abuse aren't valid, the point is that UNTIL you have actually been in that situation you REALLY have no perspective on how horrible it can be. I want people who make decisions to use all the data available and I am providing you true data, first hand data, of the very type of girl who WILL BE hurt by this. This WILL cause deaths and disfigurements. Everyone is all up in arms about this notification but if it were really up to the parent then wouldn't this debate be about parental consent and NOT a notification that will cause girls to go underground. This has not really been an issue until now and looking at it from where I stand it can only march one path, parental notification, parental consent, legal notification for adults, abortion is illegal. If you think that isnt the direction many people behind these sorts of laws are heading you are mistaken. For the last time, and I am done here because, for the love of God Frisky stop with the abortion/gay marriage posts or my head will explode, opinions are like @ssholes, everyone has them and most of them stink.[14] In any case, notification opponents tell us that 4,640 abortions is not a large enough number to intrude on a child'''s right to have an abortion. They fear that the notification will lead the girls to turn to back alley abortions. That they'''ll start drinking vinegar to induce their own abortions. All because some don'''t want to tell their parents (or, under the law, a grandparent, stepparent in the household or legal guardian) that they are pregnant. These are children, for God'''s sake. The logic of the pro-choice argument, of course, is that because some children are ignorant of reproductive reality, they get to nullify the parental rights and responsibilities of thousands of parents that want to give their children loving and informed support and guidance. That a few cases of child abuse means that we can'''t trust any or all parents with the troubling knowledge that their children are in trouble. In the face of this kind of illogic, no wonder so many families are falling apart.[15] The delays, of course, are unreasonable and hypocritical. The law on its face represents something of a middle ground in the debate. It is a compromise in that it won'''t make either side totally happy. Most of all, it conforms to what most Americans believe: That their children should not be allowed to have a medical procedure without parental knowledge. Radical individualists still rail at the law, arguing that a "woman's right to choose" trumps everything else, whether it's parental involvement with their child's well-being or the right of a near-term baby to be born. They argue that most girls already tell their parents, and if they don'''t, that means they have good reason to keep their pregnancy secret. I suppose, all a child needs to tell her '''abortion provider''' is that if her parents find out, '''they'''ll kill her.''' As in, '''if my mom knew that I she would kill me.''' For as hard as pro-choice hardliners fought this, the law'''even this compromise'''doesn'''t go far enough to satisfy common sense. Under the law, parents need to be told about the abortion, but they have no say about whether their child can have the procedure. Guided solely by '''abortion providers,''' any girl can ignore any other advice that her parents or other counselors want to give the child. A therapist? Clergyman? A trusted aunt? Siblings? She doesn'''t have to listen to them or anyone else. (In Illinois, no counseling is mandated.)[15]

In August, the regulation department granted doctors a 90-day grace period before it would go into effect. Under the law, a parent or guardian does not have to give consent for the procedure, but they must be notified that a teenager is planning to have an abortion. No notice is required in a medical emergency or if the girl declares in writing that she was sexually assaulted.[16] In August, the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation gave doctors a 90-day grace period before enforcement would begin Tuesday. Late last week, the state agency said it would further delay enforcement because some members of its medical disciplinary board wanted assurance that the judicial waiver process is accessible to all young women and girls.[2] The state's Medical Disciplinary Board voted today not to extend the grace period the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation put in place.[17]

The board met in Chicago on Wednesday and decided not to extend the grace period further that the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation put in place. Wednesday afternoon, Judge Dan Riley ruled in favor of the pro-abortion American Civil Liberties Union, which convinced him to issue an injunction with its claims that it violates the state constitution -- even though abortion was not legal when the constitution was put in place.[5] In August, the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation granted doctors a 90-day grace period before the law would go into effect. Activists on both sides of the issue say the new rule could have a huge impact on the lives of some teens and their families in Illinois and in neighboring states that already had similar laws. "Illinois has become a kind of a dumping ground for kids who don't want to tell their parents," said Joseph Scheidler, national director of the Chicago-based Pro-Life Action League.[13]

The state's Medical Disciplinary Board voted not to extend a 90-day grace period put into place in August. That means the law takes effect, the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation said.[8]

We would not deny a parent's role in any other area of a child's health care. We should not deny parents a role in such a life-altering decision. We were prepared to welcome the decision Wednesday of the state's Medical Disciplinary Board, which did not extend a 90-day grace period on the parental notification law and cleared the way for its enforcement at long last. It wasn't to be.[18] The order issued Wednesday was sought by the American Civil Liberties Union. It is to remain in effect until the judge can hear arguments on the group's opposition. It came just hours after the state's Medical Disciplinary Board voted not to extend a 90-day grace period put into place in August, meaning the law would have taken effect.[8]

The state Medical Disciplinary Board has decided it needs another 90 days to review the law's provisions relating to medical discipline before the law takes effect, which was supposed to be today. As if 24 years wasn't long enough for the bright lights on the board to figure out what part they had to play in this law. This obviously is another stalling tactic in the left's three-decades-long effort to kill a law that is supported by 80 percent of Illinois residents. Whether the pro-abortion and anti-democratic zealots will get away with this will be decided in federal court Wednesday afternoon.[4] State regulators said enforcement of the 1995 law, set to go into effect Tuesday, would be delayed at least until Wednesday morning, when the medical disciplinary board for the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation meets.[16] Late Monday, state regulators said enforcement of the law would be delayed at least until Wednesday morning, when the medical disciplinary board for the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation meets to decide how to implement the law. As if they haven't had time since the law was passed in 1995.[15]

Enforcement, set to begin Tuesday, would require physicians to notify a parent or guardian when a girl 17 or younger seeks an abortion. Late Friday, officials with the regulation department announced they would delay enforcement until at least Wednesday, when its medical disciplinary board meets.[6] Members of a state medical disciplinary board are slated to discuss the controversial measure. It requires doctors to notify parents if an underage girl tries to get an abortion.[19]

A vote by Illinois' Medical Disciplinary Board has cleared the path for the state to start enforced a hotly debated abortion notification law.[20]

Anti-abortion activists including Eric Schiedler have been trying to get the measure enforced for years. "It's been 14 years, and during that time all the surrounding states have put parental involvement laws on the books, which means Illinois has become a dumping ground for abortion," Schiedler said. Opponents say the law is irrational, and argue the state of Illinois allows pregnant minors to make other medical decisions without telling their parents.[21] The ACLU should know because it is already exploiting that aspect of the law. Anna Clark at RH Reality Check, a pro-abortion blog, wrote recently that she is excited about how the Illinois ACLU is exploiting that loophole in the law to get abortions for any teenager who doesn't want to tell their parents. Leah Bartelt, the pro-abortion staff counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union in Illinois, is among those who have teamed together to form The Illinois Judicial Bypass Coordination Project as a response to the state's new parental involvement law.[5] CHICAGO (AP) -- The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois plans to ask for a temporary restraining order to keep the state from enforcing a hotly debated abortion notification law.[22]

The law is suspended once again. SPRINGFIELD, Ill. - The story out of Chicago today that the state's 1995 parental notification law on abortion will start being enforced after 14 years with this morning's approval by a state regulatory board may not be the end of the story. Both sides will be back in court in Chicago in a few hours, arguing over whether to issue a temporary injunction that would continue putting the controversial law on hold.[23] In a dramatic turn of events, a Cook County Circuit Court judge halted Illinois' parental notification law on abortion just hours after a state agency gave it the all-clear.[2]

"I find that the arguments of the plaintiffs do in fact raise a fair question of constitutionality," Riley said. He agreed that the Illinois State Constitution's explicit guarantee of the right to privacy could mean a different outcome than decisions reached in federal courts around the country that have upheld parental notification laws in most states.[10]

What arrogance. We'''re supposed to entrust the health of our young daughters to Planned Parenthood-trained staffers? People who work for an industry whose outlook and bias is decidedly pro-choice? Someone who has absolutely no idea of the parents''' values and behavior? No way of knowing that the parents would support the child'''s decision? Are we just supposed to take the word of a stranger that they'''re going to act in the best interests of our children? Are we just to assume that someone we don'''t know is even qualified to give such advice? (By the way, the state will not police the clinics to ensure that parents are getting notificed.) These are questions apparently pondered in neighboring states, where the law requires not just parental notification but also parental consent.[15] This is not an abortion issue, but one of parental notification when your child is having a surgical procedure. You probably don't have children, but if you did, as a parent, you'd want the right to make sure they got the best care, physically, and if an abortion was necessitated at such a young age, perhaps some mental health care too.[24]

All adult females should have the right to do as they wish with their own bodies, including the decision to have or not to have an abortion. However minor females are still children even if they are able to get pregnant. Their parents or legal guardians must be consulted before any medical procedures are performed on them. This principle applies whether the procedure is filling a dental cavity, getting a vaccine, or an abortion.[24] The law requires a doctor to inform a parent, grandparent or legal guardian at least 48 hours before a minor receives an abortion, but there are exceptions.[18] Illinois would have joined 35 other states with similar laws with a statute that requires that abortion practitioners inform the parents of a teenager seeking an abortion 48 hours in advance of doing it. Though the law doesn't require consent, it allows parents a chance to persuade their daughter to choose life-affirming alternatives.[5] You can't get an ear pierced until age 18 or buy a gun until age 21 unless a parent consents. Abortion is at least as serious as those choices. Unlike laws in some states, the Illinois law doesn't give parents a veto over their daughter's decision to get an abortion. It gives them the opportunity to be heard at a crucial moment, and to know what their child is going through.[12] Peter Breen, executive director of the Chicago-based Thomas Moore Society Pro-Life Law Center, said the group was "heartened" by the board's decision. Teenagers from surrounding states were skirting their own states' laws "on a pretty regular basis" by coming to Illinois to get abortions, Breen said. "It's about parents and kids talking," Breen said. "No one should be against this."[8]

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. - A Senate candidate is speaking out against the decision to start enforcing Illinois' law on abortion notification. Democrat Cheryle Jackson says many girls could be hurt by requiring them to notify their parents before they can get an abortion. Jackson said Wednesday that most girls will tell their parents about such a big decision, but others would face emotional or physical abuse. She says Illinois needs age-appropriate sex education to help prevent teen pregnancies.[25] Breen says the Illinois law is "moderate" and "common sense." It requires physicians to notify the parents or guardians of girls 17 or younger before the teens get abortions.[17] The fate of a law that would require physicians in Illinois to notify a parent or guardian when a girl 17 or younger seeks an abortion remained in limbo Monday afternoon.[16]

A spokeswoman says that means the law goes into effect immediately. It requires physicians to notify the parents or guardians of girls 17 or younger before the teens get abortions.[20] Tomorrow, the controversial law that requires physicians to notify the parents or guardians of girls 17 years old or younger who seek abortions will go into effect.[26]

The courts' initial failure to set up a waiver procedure accounts for the first 10 years the law languished. Now, the Cook County Circuit Court's website has the forms all set up, asking girls their age and their reason for seeking a waiver. They are assigned an attorney and given a hearing the morning after they file, said Patrick McGann, presiding judge of the court's county division. Chaiten said she appreciated the court's efforts but argued that even well-run by-pass systems are flawed, delay abortions and risk the girls' confidentiality. One girl waiting for a hearing in Massachusetts saw her sister's civics class walk through the court house and she later had to explain to her parents what she was doing at the courthouse, Chaitan told the judge. Anti-abortion activist Joe Scheidler said he was skeptical about that story and that when he brings nervous pregnant teens he has talked out of having abortions from abortion clinics to talk to their parents, the parents rise to the occasion and don't get angry. These laws aren't about the majority of parents who will handle the situation with compassion, Chaiten said.[10] CHICAGO — An Illinois judge has issued a temporary restraining order delaying enforcement of a law requiring doctors to notify parents of teens who are seeking an abortion.[8] CHICAGO (AP) - It's unclear if Illinois will start enforcing a hotly debated abortion notification law this week after all. After decades of legal wrangling, it appeared the law requiring physicians to notify parents before their teenage daughters get an abortion would take effect Tuesday.[27] CHICAGO (AP) — Illinois was cleared Wednesday to start enforcing a long-debated parental notification law for teens seeking abortions, after more than a decade of legal challenges.[8] It has been 14 years and it will be at least a few more months before Illinois' long-mothballed parental notification law for teens seeking abortions takes effect.[10]

Various groups are urging activity today. Via email, some Churches have asked people of good will to "call the Governor's office and urge him to instruct the Department to end the delay and finally allow parental notification to go into effect in Illinois. His number is 217-782-0244 in Springfield and 312-814-2121 in Chicago." This morning, the Chicago Tribune editorialized that, "This had better be a routine hearing. The legislature passed this law in 1995.[4] No sooner does the 1995 Illinois law requiring parental notification look like it is finally going into effect than an obscure state panel of bureaucrats and ideologues makes a last ditch attempt to further delay the law's implementation.[4]

"You go look at the license plates at the abortion clinics." Allowing the law to take effect raised the possibility that "young women in this state would be abused, they would be kicked out of their homes," Lorie Chaiten, head of the Illinois ACLU's reproductive rights project, said after the court hearing.[11] "We are delighted," said Lorie Chaiten, an attorney and director of reproductive rights for the ACLU of Illinois. "Young women in this state would be abused, kicked out of their homes" when their parents learn of their planned abortion.[2]

On Monday afternoon, Thomas More Society attorneys Tom Brejcha and Peter Breen were in Court on behalf of Illinois state's attorneys to oppose the ACLU's latest attempt to overturn the Illinois Parental Notice of Abortion Act - and to read an unlimited right to abortion into the Illinois Constitution.[4] No matter what, the Thomas More Society will be in Court on Wednesday afternoon - if necessary, standing alone against the Illinois government and the ACLU - to defend the Illinois Parental Notice of Abortion Act.[4]

The Illinois legislature approved the law in the 1990s, but it has been held up in court waiting for the Illinois Supreme Court to issue the rules guiding the law's implementation. After the court did its job, state officials blocked enforcement of the law with a 90-day grace period for abortion centers to became aware of it -- even though similar laws have been on the books in other states for decades.[5] Illinois' law was passed in 1995, but never enforced because of various court actions. Thirty-five other states have similar laws, which meant some teens seeking abortions came to Illinois for them.[8]

Attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union, representing an abortion clinic, fought the law all the way through the federal court system and lost. Now they argue that Illinois' constitution, which includes a right to privacy, grants even more abortion rights than the federal constitution, which has no explicit right to privacy.[10]

BREEN: The medical board made the right decision. The doctors talked about the fact that they're not the baby sitters for the courts and that the doctors of the state of Illinois are ready to implement this regulation that is a common sense regulation. It's about parents and kids talking. No one should be against this.[28] The regulation department would only get involved if someone files a complaint, said Susan Hofer, a spokeswoman. Doctors who showed "willful failure" to notify parents could lose their medical licenses, she said. Critics of the delay say teens from neighboring states with stricter rules drive to Illinois to avoid talking to their parents about a pregnancy.[24]

The board met in Chicago on Wednesday and decided not to extend the grace period the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation put in place. It has delayed implementing the law twice in the last three months.[20] The last hurdle: Enforcement has been stalled at least until Wednesday, when a board of the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation will meet. This had better be a routine hearing. The legislature passed this law in 1995.[12]

The law was scheduled to go into effect yesterday, after a federal court lifted the injunction in July, but now remains in limbo pending a lawsuit by the ACLU of Illinois and considerations by the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation.[29] Susan Hofer, a spokeswoman for the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, said that vote meant the law had gone into effect.[11]

Then in August, the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation granted doctors the 90-day grace period.[11]

And, it gets worse. Brent Adams, Secretary of the Department of Professional Regulation and the lead defendant in this lawsuit, is on the Executive Committee for Personal PAC, the political arm of Illinois' abortion providers, and he has served on its Board of Directors since 1999. And, his resume lists him as a past member of the Board of Directors of the ACLU of Illinois, the lawyers for the plaintiffs in this case.[4] Critics of the delay note that the new secretary of the regulation department, Brent E. Adams, is a member of Personal PAC, which focuses on electing abortion-rights candidates in Illinois. "This is the proverbial fox guarding the henhouse," said Peter Breen, executive director and legal counsel of the Thomas More Society, which opposes abortion.[6]

It has been a quarter of a century since legislators first approved it. It looked for a while like it would never become law. After decades of legal wrangling, an Illinois law requiring that parents be notified before their teenage daughters have abortions finally takes effect Tuesday.[30] An Illinois law requiring doctors to tell the parents of pregnant teenagers before performing an abortion came into effect today.[28]

Studies also show notification laws have little effect on abortion rates in a state. This Editorial Board knows we don't live in a perfect world, in which every girl in trouble tells her parents and relishes doing so.[18] CHICAGO (AP) - A Chicago-based anti-abortion law group says it's heartened by today's vote by a state board that clears the way for enforcement of Illinois' abortion notification law.[17] Associated Press - November 4, 2009 11:14 AM ET CHICAGO (AP) - A vote by Illinois' Medical Disciplinary Board has cleared the path for the state to start enforced a hotly debated abortion[17] Parents in Illinois have waited for 15 years for a law to go into effect and, earlier Wednesday, a vote from the Illinois' Medical Disciplinary Board made it appear that would happen.[5] The ACLU says it will file a restraining order in circuit court today that could prevent the Illinois Medical Disciplinary Board from enforcing the law.[28] Implementation of the law has been held up by court battles and administrative issues. The vote this morning by the state's Medical Disciplinary Board could clear the way for the rule to take effect today'' but it still depends on a ruling this afternoon in Cook County District Court.[23]

The request comes after a vote by Illinois' Medical Disciplinary Board that clears the path for the state to start enforcing the law.[22]

A Cook County Judge Wednesday granted a temporary restraining order blocking enforcement of the law. That came after the state doctors' disciplinary board green-lighted the law over the objections of its own lawyer.[10] The American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois planned to ask a Cook County judge on Wednesday for a temporary restraining order to keep the state from enforcing the law.[8]

Illinois now joins 36 other states with similar laws. "This is a great victory for Illinois families. Girls that face an unwanted pregnancy will be guaranteed access to the most important pregnancy crisis counselors: their parents," said Tom Brejcha, President and Chief Counsel, Chicago-based Thomas More Society. "We've fought this legal battle so that Illinois would join with the majority of the people in the nation who value parental rights and the well-being of their children."[31] The Chicago-based Thomas More Society told LifeNews.com before the afternoon ruling that it was delighted the law is now going into effect. Girls that face an unwanted pregnancy will be guaranteed access to the most important pregnancy crisis counselors: their parents," said Tom Brejcha, the president of the pro-life legal group. "We've fought this legal battle so that Illinois would join with the majority of the people in the nation who value parental rights and the well-being of their children," he added.[5]

The law, the Illinois Parental Notice of Abortion Act, has been in a holding pattern for too long. It was first passed in 1995, but an unbelievable 14 years of legal clarifications and objections have kept it from being enforced.[18] Anti-abortion activists in the state have been trying to get the rule enforced for years. They said it has been 14 years, and during that time all the surrounding states have put parental involvement laws on the books, which means Illinois has become a dumping ground for abortion.[19]

In 2000, there were 4,640 abortions performed on girls ages 15 to 17 in Illinois, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive-health think tank. There is no reliable data on parental involvement in those abortions. Nicole Goss, 23, a volunteer with the Chicago Abortion Fund, suspects some teenagers fear the repercussions of telling their parents. Goss said that when she was a teenager, she was warned by her mother that if she got pregnant she'd be kicked out of the house. "That's how a lot of parents are," she said. Goss was living on her own when she became pregnant at 20. She had the child, now 3.[13] Just because your parents aren't abusive doesn't mean that if you were a pregnant 15 year old you wouldn't be terrified to tell them, and go to great means to avoid doing so. I'd venture to say that the whole reason a few girls I knew in highschool even got abortions was to "get rid of it" before their parents had to find out. Parental notification is just a bad idea, and trust me, the kids who have parents who can handle it, will tell them.[14] The Supreme Court determined that women -- not girls -- have a right to abortion. The abortion debate is one of the primary reasons why the political discourse in this country has become so toxic. Parental notification always seemed to me to be an issue on which the extremes on both ends of the spectrum might be able to compromise.[26] You're talking out of whichever side of your mouth will get you what you want. If you would care to go back and find out what we were discussing, it was that this law doesn't even create parental consent, but parental notification. That any attempt to claim that this law is about denial of abortion rights is a once-again dishonest reduction of the discussion to the strawman nonsense of the ideological freaks who demand that abortion rights be the only right in the country not subject to restrictions.[13] I don't think medical decisions between a woman and her doctor are any of the government's business. Regarding parental notification laws, if you're against those, then to be consistent, you should support the ability for any minor to have any medical procedure performed upon them without parental consent.[26] Opponents say the law is irrational. They say the state allows pregnant minors to make other medical decisions without parental notification.[19]

The parental notification law does NOT violate the minor's constitutional rights, NOT telling the parents, DOES however violate the parents God given rights, whether the parent has threatened the Minor or not. I would have taken those threats from my parents as a warning NOT TO GET PREGNANT IN THE FIRST PLACE.[13] A provision of the law allows pregnant minors to bypass parental notification by going before a judge, who would then have 48 hours to rule on the petition.[24] The waiver process allows girls to bypass parental notification by going before a judge, who then would have 48 hours to rule on the petition.[16]

Support for a parental notification law goes back 30 years. It was only last summer, with the favorable ruling of a three-judge panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, that it appeared parents' interests would finally prevail. [18] The ACLU of Illinois has set up a website designed to help guide girls through the bypass process. The law was actually passed in 1984 and updated in 1995, but that update was placed under a federal injunction which was lifted this summer by the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. For many local clinics, including those run by Planned Parenthood, staff will try to reach a parent or guardian by phone if the teenager requesting the procedure is younger than 18 and has not brought in a signed form.[26] As the law stands, a parent or guardian would not have to give consent for the procedure but would need to be notified that a teenager is planning to have an abortion. No notice is required in the case of a medical emergency or if the girl declares in writing that she is a victim of sexual abuse.[2] The law requires physicians to notify a parent or guardian when a girl 17 or younger seeks an abortion.[21] The law would require doctors to inform the parents of girls 17 or younger before performing an abortion.[23]

Sort of. Beginning Tuesday, the parents of a girl 17 or younger were to be notified before she can have an abortion. The law provides safeguards that bypass the parents if the child believes she will be harmed if they find out she is pregnant.[15] As i was being abused at home and the thought of having to tell them well made the whole matter worse so hearing they didnt need to know was a sigh of relief cause i know what would of happened i would of been beaten then thrown out of their house with no where to go. thankfully i wasent preg. cause i dont believe in abortions but i wanted to see what my options were and these places do encourage you to tell your parents but understand when you cant, they also encourage adoption over abortion, even though many of you dont belive that.So as a parent now myself im torn with this law change.part of me says yeah parents should be told incase something happens. but on the other hand i can understand why some parents just cant be told. i say make an amendment to the law fine but where its not law to tell them but the teen needs to sign a paper given reason why they cant be informed, and that they are acting as an adult giving their own permission to proceed. but yes if the parents can be told encourage that. but so many parents say they would love their child if it ever happened but the fact is most would be so pissed they would tell them to get the bleep out and the kid knows it.[24] Research also shows that a large amount of teen pregnancies are the results of much older men committing sexual crimes. This law hides this from parents and allows sexual abuse to continue. "others would face emotional or physical abuse" -- If a teen thinks they will face abuse, they can get a judge to sign off on their abortion.[25] @Lici - Why give a regular teen another way to shut their good parents out? Because legislating the opposite is a) the equivalent of government doing the parenting and b) has very negative consequences for kids not lucky enough to have supportive parents. Laws are meant to protect people, and the unfortunate side effect of this law means that a minority of people be hurt by the law. I also think it's a little effed up that this law is meant to protect the girl's parents, not the girl, but that's a bit biased because I was also raised by abusive parents and know many others who were as well.[14] This editorial is heavy on the fallacy of the golden mean. Just because the law is a compromise between pro-choice and anti-abortionists doesn't mean that it's the right solution, or even reasonable. Other suspicious arguments: a majority of people believe the law is right so that makes it right, and that parents are automatically more mature and intelligent than a teen girl.[12]

The law recognizes that the constitutional right to privacy encompasses a woman's right to have an abortion. It reflects an understanding that most minors lack the maturity to handle a matter like this without the counsel of the people who care most about them. To most people, we suspect, this is just a matter of common sense. In this state, after all, a nurse can't give a minor an aspirin without the permission of the parents.[12] The law states that the abortion provider must give notice directly, by phone or in person, but it provides exceptions in cases where the parent, grandparent, stepparent in the household or legal guardian is difficult to reach.[2] Until now. The most recent version of the law, passed in 1995, would require a young woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy to inform a parent, step-parent living in the household, grandparent, or legal guardian of her decision, or navigate the judicial system for a waiver.[29] With a little more consideration and analysis, we know that'''s hardly the case. Parental involvement laws affect the most helpless young women who can not inform a family member or legal guardian ''' those, for instance, who live in abusive households, are the victims of incest, or who face possible eviction. What'''s more, the Tribune'''s charge that young women '''lack the maturity''' to make such a decision is belittling, to say the least. We have an obligation, first and foremost, to provide young women and men with information, skills, and resources to make responsible decisions about their sexual health. We need to trust them ''' trust that they will inform a family member or close adult and, if not, that they have a compelling reason.[29]

At first glance, parental involvement laws ''' either notification or consent ''' for abortion do seem like common sense measures in the best interest of young women.[29] Many of you folks misunderstand the law. There is no provision that requires parental consent, ONLY NOTIFICATION. She can go ahead with the abortion, if that's what SHE wants, once you've been notified. Abortion is not a surgical procedure at the point in time when almost 90% of them occur.[24] Iowa requires notification, and with some exceptions, doctors performing abortions in Indiana, Michigan, Missouri and Wisconsin must have parental consent before doing the procedure.[24]

The law doesn't require parental consent, only that the doctor give 48 hours notice before an abortion.[20]

I just don't think abortion should be singled out -- if you are going to require parental notification or consent, require it for all (birth or not) surgical procedures performed on minors.[24]

Physicians in Illinois this week must begin notifying a parent or guardian when a girl 17 or younger seeks an abortion -- a rule abortion opponents long have sought, but which critics say could keep minors from seeking safe procedures.[13] After 48 hours has passed, Kanter said, "the assumption is, by the courts, notice has been given," and the teen can have the procedure. Opponents of the law are worried that it will force teen girls to possibly seek unsafe ways to terminate their pregnancy or will force them to carry the pregnancy to term while opponents insist that parents should be involved in the situation.[26] How could the ACLU say it is unconstitutional! Will the ACLU argue that kids should be able to get piercings and tattoos without parental consent? A judicial waiver is important in those cases where the minor girl cannot approach her parents, and it is up to the courts to see that provisions are in place.[24] Getting parental consent, to me, is ridiculous. Something tells me a lot more young girls in Illinois will be saying they were sexually abused or resorting to "back alley" methods to get out of telling their parents.[14] Unlike in many other states, however, in Illinois parental consent is not required. There are ways around the notification: in the case of medical emergency or if the girl puts in writing that the pregnancy was a result of sexual assault, she may bypass the notification.[26]

We see license plates bringing underage girls into abortion clinics all around the state on a regular basis. He says girls travel to Illinois from other states with stricter abortion laws.[9] Anti-abortion activists say lack of a law enabled teens from other Midwestern states to travel to Illinois for abortions.[30]

CHICAGO, Nov. 3 (Xinhua) -- A new Illinois abortion notification law scheduled to go into effect Tuesday has been pushed back, official sources said.[19] CHICAGO (St. Louis Public Radio) - A controversial abortion notification law scheduled to go into effect Tuesday in Illinois has been pushed back.[21]

Illinois has had an abortion notification law on the book for years, but it hasn't been enforced for years.[25]

Opponents of notification worry the law discourages girls with abusive or neglectful parents from seeking an abortion.[18] The law calls for notification, not consent. There are circumstances in which girls would be better off without their parents being involved in the decision if a child has been abused, for example.[18] Jessica, for once I think you're completely right. Parents need to understand they aren't always the ones who are in control. No matter how much you want to be involved in a situation like this it's up to the child if they want to let you in. It is a very personal decision best decided by the girl herself and one she will never forget. She doesn't need the excess pressure of her parents opinions & their expression of disappointment while she's trying to decide if an abortion is right for her.[14] Still it was hard to find a parent who was against the law. "I think it's a good thing that parents know because I don't believe in an abortion. and if my child would do that I would rather know because I don't agree with it."[7] In a strange way, I think you added at least modest support to mss2400's point. No matter your view on abortion law (and don't try to guess mine, because you will fail), the point is a good one: This issue would seem to be among the few involving abortion that could attract support from at least some so-called pro-lifers and at least some so-called pro-choicers--even with the complications regarding kids who have bad, hateful or uninvolved parents, etc. Maybe not the "extremes"--an unfortunate word choice in mss2400's post, but at least with the center-left and center-right. At least in my semi-utopian world, I guess. Those who want to take away ALL forms of contraception are hardly anything close to a majority, so let's not exaggerate the importance of that fringe.[26]

Disagree. I have a "friend" who just turned 17 when she got pregnant. She was able to get an abortion on her own, without parental consent and believe me. if she had to inform her parents about this she wouldn't be alive to tell the tale. Or her life would have been altered in ways that would have been detrimental to her life. Speaking from both sides of this issue, as someone with intimate knowledge and as a paren, now, too.[26] A year later, Goss became pregnant again and chose to have an abortion. During both of her pregnancies, she was old enough to not have to involve her mother, but she said many teenage girls in her neighborhood would sooner try a dangerous, self-induced method of abortion than inform a parent. "It's been taught for so long that (abortion is) wrong, that it's one of the biggest sins you can commit," said Goss, who plans to enroll in January at Harold Washington College to study social work and focus on reproductive rights issues.[13]

Again, complications do occur in just under 3% of first-trimester abortions. This is not an insignificant number, far greater than the incidence of complication involved in giving blood. A parent has a right and a responsibility to know their child's medical status.[26] While I am aware that, as a parent, I cannot nor do I want to control my child's every move, we still have a right to be involved. She should make the decision, but the parent should still be told. @C.Munro: I hope someday you have a daughter so that you can have an even greater insight into what it would mean to allow her to have a serious medical procedure without your knowledge.[14]

I cant see how punishing good parents for bad people'''s wrongs would help the situation in our society. If a teen wants to shut his or her parents out, the parents have probably earned it. For those who think of themselves as good parents, I say face up to the possibility that your kids simply don't like you, even if you weren't abusive. That's their right. Parents whining about their "rights" to control their children disgust me. Your parental rights are entirely inconsequential when they come up against any child's right to not be abused. They might as well not exist at all.[14] Again, if you have a personal objection to abortion, more power to you. Don't have an abortion, counsel those you love and will listen to you to do the same. That's your right and privilege. The Anti-choice movement wants to take away the legal rights of women to have self-determination over their own bodies. That is not a rational position, no more so than if someone said a return to chattel slavery was a fine idea or called for the reinstitution of miscegenation laws. Both of which, like abortion and the death penalty, have strong "biblical" justification too, as any good bible-thumper will tell you.[26] The abortion debate has become toxic because rather than focus on reasonable means of preventing unwanted pregnancy (contraception, less complicated adoption laws, improvements in sexual education and offering more opportunities for teen women) the anti-choice mob has been busy making dead fetus posters, holding prayer circles and murdering medical practitioners. I reject your idea that there are two sides to this. One side advocates the freedom of an individual to control their own body, the other believes that prayer and jesus will save you.[26]

This is just a game by the anti-choice mob to make it harder for women to make informed reproductive choices. The same bullies and fanatics who pushed for this law to protect the naive young girls also think teenagers should tried as adults and eligible for the death penalty. Most "pro-lifers" just love their death penalty. I'm doubling my yearly donation to Planned Parenthood this year. The hoops they have to jump through to provide women with basic medical care is just sad.[26] This is absolutely horrible. I don't remember when this decision was overturned but I missed hearing about it until yesterday. These idiot "Pro-lifers" (who don't care about living people at all) think this is a success but they could actually be harming the lives of girls under 18. This law could even cause suicides, but I'm guessing the could care less about that.[26]

The law recognizes that the constitutional right to privacy encompasses a woman's right to have an abortion. It reflects an understanding that most minors lack the maturity to handle a matter like this without the counsel of the people who care most about them. To most people, we suspect, this is just a matter of common sense. [29] An attorney for Illinois' abortion-rights-supporting attorney general, Lisa Madigan, who is charged with defending the law, said the writers of Illinois' 1970 constitution considered and rejected any laws recognizing or prohibiting a right to abortion.[10] The Illinois Parental Notice of Abortion Act is certainly not a '''sensible, temperate law''' that offers an '''intelligent middle ground''' to the abortion debate, as the Tribune claims.[29] Quite the contenious issue, the Illinois Parental Notice of Abortion Act has never been enacted due to a court order.[29]

The group wants the court to halt implementation of the law while that argument plays out in the legal system. "It is a violation of the provisions of the Illinois constitution that protect medical privacy. and (prohibit) gender discrimination," says ACLU spokesman Ed Yohnka.[23] The state parental notification law, scheduled to take effect Tuesday, has been subject to legal challenges and revisions for more than 30 years.[13] From 1 jaw-dropping roadblock to the next, IL's parental notification law ]] law has been stopped from going into effect for 14 long years, since it passed in 1995.[32]

You want to convince me? Find some non-partisan research on the effects of parental notification laws on the girl and family involved.[12] News Politics Politics, Breaking News 11/05/2009 03:00:00 AM 12/05/2009 11:59:00 PM Restraining order halts parental notification law that went into effect Wednesday.[33]

"Psychological theory and research on cognitive, social, and moral development support the finding that adolescents, as a group, are able to understand, reason, and make decisions about important life situations." "Parental notification and consent laws can have harmful psychological and health consequences for the minors affected by these laws.[26] For the same reason that Christian Scientist parents can not refuse to give consent for medical treatment for a Curable Disease which can be fatal if untreated, a girl who can support her claim that she will be in danger from parents knowing she's pregnant can avoid having to tell them. That's about it. Stop trying to create this wide gulf between parental involvement and minor automony. It doesn't exist except in your feeble little mind. and I do mean little.[13] Parents are required to sign off on kids taking aspirin. They are expected to step aside when their minor girl decides to have an abortion, a choice she will have to live with for the rest of her life.[18]

The Hope Clinic for Women abortion center and Dr. Allison Cowett, the Director of the University of Illinois at Chicago's Center for Reproductive Health are the plaintiffs named in the ACLU lawsuit. No teenagers or their parents are parties in the suit claiming to represent their interests.[5] It's good to know that in the State of Illinois, the ACLU would like it to be easier for a minor to get an abortion than for them to get a tattoo.[24] After three decades of trying, parental rights and the rights of a minor to have an abortion finally will be balanced in Illinois.[15]

Planned Parenthood of Illinois has been providing notification since August, spokeswoman Beth Kanter said. If a teen said she wasn't comfortable letting a parent or guardian know, Planned Parenthood had referred her to another provider who was using the grace period, Kanter said. [11] Planned Parenthood of Illinois has been providing notification since August, spokeswoman Beth Kanter said. If a teen said she wasn't comfortable letting a parent or guardian know, Planned Parenthood has been referring her to another health care provider who was using the grace period, Kanter said. That will now change, she said. "We believe that government cannot and should not mandate this communication," Kanter said. "Most teens do seek their parents' advice and counsel. but in some cases safe and open communication isn't possible."[8]

In August, state regulators granted doctors a 90-day grace period before the law would go into effect. [30] State regulators decided to start enforcing the law after a lengthy grace period.[28]

The agency had granted a 90-day grace period in August, after a federal appeals court in Chicago lifted an injunction on the 1995 law.[6] Lawyers for the ACLU have raised questions about whether courts in some jurisdictions, mainly rural areas, are prepared for the waiver process. This morning, disciplinary board members considered a motion to extend the grace period by another 180 days or by another 90 days. Both motions failed.[1] Medical Disciplinary Board attorney Daniel Kelber told members before the vote that courts in a majority of Illinois counties were not prepared to handle the judicial provision. Some board members said they were disappointed in the courts for not being ready.[8] Medical Disciplinary Board? What a joke! These are the people who make Emperor Nero look like a benevolent hero! How many times have they turned a blind eye to the people of Illinois who have made complaints against doctors and the rest of the health care establishment. If you want to know why we have such out of control suits angainst health care providers, it is because of these peoples incompitence or willful neglect.[24]

Spokeswoman Susan Hofer says the agency issued an extension late Friday. It will remain until the state's Medical Disciplinary Board meets on Wednesday.[34] Members of a state medical disciplinary board will discuss the measure. It was passed in 1995, but has gone unenforced because of a federal injunction. That injunction was lifted in July.[21]

Though, respecting the role of the parent in a child's medical decision is the only logical and moral thing a state can do. [18] If they don't have a parent or a legal gaurdian, a court can appoint a legal gaurdian, at least I think a court can. That way a child can reasonably think through a major medical/life decision with some adult guidance.[16] @Perceptible: your last comment is exactly how I feel. @h1nbabe - //It doesn'''t punish the children from healthy homes, it punishes those that come from unhealthy homes. // well put. I find it absurd that the legal system, and apparently a large number of parents, think that children are children until they hit the age of 18, and then suddenly become adults. Growing up is a process that is strung out over years, it happens little by little as children gain more and more responsibility over their own lives and make a larger number of decisions for themselves. A 16-year-old is vastly different from a 13-year-old, yet society is saying they're the same. Until they're 18, when they're different.[14]

If the ACLU and Tim think that human life is not worth saving why doesn'''t this country make abortion legal until the baby, fetus, child is 18 and has legal rights? At whatever point life begins, it is life. Why are they so hung up on not letting anyone know that they are going to kill a potential person? Yes, I'''m Pro-Life and think that all abortion is wrong.[24] "When you regulate pregnancy, there is only one gender you are regulating." Peter Breen, attorney for the Thomas More Society, which is on the other side of the suit, argues that the state-constitutional argument is "an end-run around the federal case that they lost." He noted that abortion wasn't even legal in Illinois at the time the state's 1970 constitution was ratified.[23]

The next hearing before Riley is set for Nov. 19. During the hourlong court hearing Wednesday, Assistant Attorney General Thomas Ioppolo argued that the state was well within its right to enforce notification. "This is where a good parent, a loving parent, might have something to say," he said.[2] A law that had been legitimately enacted by the legislature was effectively repealed by judicial inaction. Three years ago, though, the state Supreme Court took another look at this, at the urging of DuPage County State's Attorney Joe Birkett.[12] The law instructed the Illinois Supreme Court to write rules under which a minor could seek a waiver. The justices refused, arguing that that wasn't their job.[12]

The Illinois civil rights group has been training lawyers and advocates on how to shepherd girls through the court procedure.[13] Lorie Chaiten, the Reproductive Rights Project director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, said court personnel in some jurisdictions, particularly in more rural areas, are still unfamiliar with the bypass petitions.[13] Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois have raised questions about whether courts in some jurisdictions, mainly rural areas, are prepared for the waiver process.[6]

The American Civil Liberties Union says women come to Illinois because the state provides better medical care.[9] The American Civil Liberties Union opposed the medical board's action, and the judge wanted to hear the ACLU's arguments.[18] The order will remain in effect until the judge can hear arguments on the issue. Cook County Judge Daniel Riley said he felt the American Civil Liberties Union, which sought the order, "demonstrated the distinct possibility of irreparable harm."[11]

The state constitution is silent on the issue, Tom Ioppolo said. Judge Daniel Riley said he was persuaded enough by the ACLU's arguments that he put the law on hold to give them time to argue their case -- probably at least a few months.[10]

A big issue I have with this is that for ANY other surgical procedure, the parent must be notified, and usually must consent. Even for simple things such as getting ears pierced, the parents must CONSENT, not just be notified, but actually give consent. All the law does here is say that Planned Parenthood, etc. must TELL the parents what they are going to do.[24] The Chicago Tribune published a flawed editorial in favor of the law. It's a sensible, temperate law aimed at ensuring that parents will not be shut out of a decision that has such grave health and moral implications. It took a long, long time for democracy to work in this instance, but we're glad it did, particularly for a measure that represents an intelligent middle ground on a deeply divisive issue.[29]

By your logic, your children would be telling you, otherwise you're a bad parent. Why enforce that every child has to inform their parent? That is your, you, singular, belief. You don't need to worry cause you're such an amazing parent you'll be informed regardless. "it would be nice"??? Seriously, for someone trying to look at it from both sides, you certainly are not. If we are going to make them wait until they are 18, then they can't serve time for crimes because they are only children. The problem with this law is the long term ramifications. It doesn't punish the children from healthy homes, it punishes those that come from unhealthy homes.[14] The delays, of course, are unreasonable and hypocritical. The law on its face represents something of a middle ground in the debate. It is a compromise in that it won'''t make either side totally happy. Most of all, it conforms to what most Americans believe: That their children should not be allowed to have a medical procedure without parental knowledge.[15] Re: Parental notification, yes, Jessica, you make valid points. HOWEVER, if my daughter, who is still living under my roof, depending on me for all her financial needs, and is still on my health insurance policy, decides to have a medical procedure done (moral standing aside), I ABSOLUTELY 100% should be notified.[14]

Again - abortion is a decision that is agonizingly difficult. There may be some exceptions to this statement, but they are few and far between. Making it more difficult for the young to get a safe medical procedure will only force them to the streets.[24] I believe that the decision to force a young woman to tell a parent would only harm them if they lived in a home that would be opposed to them getting an abortion. In 90% of cases a young woman would have already told a trusted adult that she was getting an abortion and to say that this is a middle ground is insane since the young woman would still have to live with her parents. I also don't believe that we should be wasting tax dollars in Judicial hearings for the exemptions of this rule.[12]

The reality is, many young women who become pregnant and seek abortions face serious home life challenges. I've seen the girls who've had their arms broken by mother's who found out they were pregnant. That's beside the point, don't argue that it's unsafe, because it's not.[26] Board members want to ensure the judicial waiver process is accessible to all young women and girls in Illinois.[16] The state agency defended the latest delay, saying a board majority sought to ensure the judicial waiver process is accessible to all young women and girls.[6] The state agency said it wanted to make sure a judicial waiver process is accessible to all young women and girls.[1]

I agree that many young women face great challenges in their home life, but I ask again, just who are you protecting here? If somebody is subject to abuse due to their pregnancy, then I firmly believe the state SHOULD be involved. and this law has provisions for that to occur.[26]

One side is rational, the other is a tiresome pack of bigoted supernaturalists. Yeah, I'm FUCKING PISSED off about this law. Another law that limits women in service of religion.[26]

Last month, over 8000 ob-gyns from around the world, gathered in South Africa to discuss how physicians living in countries with restrictive abortion laws can best face the challenge of caring for women suffering from complications of unsafe abortion.[29] "One thing the Anti-choice rabble won't talk about is how if Roe was overturned or somehow nullified there would still be abortions. They'd just be less safe, cause more deaths among poor mothers while wealthy women are able to avail themselves of medical services in Canada or Mexico." Ever hear of the term "abortion orphans"? From the children that are left behind when their weary mom gets a back alley abortion and dies from it. This is what happens when abortion becomes illegal. You're right. they dont' stop. ONly the wealthy will be able to get them and the rest be damned.[26] One thing the Anti-choice rabble won't talk about is how if Roe was overturned or somehow nullified there would still be abortions. They'd just be less safe, cause more deaths among poor mothers while wealthy women are able to avail themselves of medical services in Canada or Mexico. In my family I had a great aunt who took a "day trip" across the falls from Niagra after her rather wealthy husband and she decided that they were done having children.[26]

"I hear crazy stuff all the time. I have women ask me, 'If you drink a bottle of vinegar, will that terminate?' Others talk about suicide." On the other side, abortion opponents argue that parents should be informed before their children have surgery.[13]

If pregnant teens are unable to confront their parents about their choice to have an abortion, they will likely turn to dangerous black market or homemade (coat hanger) abortions instead.[24] Abortion-rights supporters think pregnant girls should have unrestricted access to abortion, while abortion-rights opponents think abortion should be illegal for adults as well as teens in most or all circumstances. Neither got their way this time.[12] I think you made a very valid point on item #1 Jessica. I also think it's a shame that there seems to be more attention focused on the abortion issue than on the issue of unsafe teen sex.[14] That's part of the problem, I think. Regardless of one's opinion, the failure to see that one's adversaries possess at least some non-bigoted, at least partially thought-out reasons for their positions--and this is the case for issues such as abortion and gay rights, among many, many others--can easily make one as blind and rabid as those adversaries seem to be themselves.[26] I have a feeling we agree 99% on abortion rights, etc. Still, you would dehumanize your enemy, which makes you less effective and leads to more partisan divide and tactical and strategic missteps. This is not a moral issue, only one of fighting as smartly as possible.[26]

I have the right to know about anything that is done to my child. It is required that I'm notified if my child receives a flu shot or even gets her ears pierced. Now I would be notified if she wanted to get an abortion.[24] Without argument. As a mom, I can't understand why this is even up for consideration. It's her body, but while I'm still responsible for said body, I have a RIGHT to know what's going on with it. It's fully your own once you are supporting that body ON YOUR OWN. (And in NY the age of parental responsibility is age 21, not 18.) A 16 year old girl should not have the right to choose to be a mother unless she is able to make that choice without imposing on others, as in, she can support both herself and her child on her own. That's just being responsible and considerate. That said, I would hope my daughter (or my son!) would come to me, not because she has to, but because she knows she would have my support.[14] The idea that you own your child body and soul is patriarchal protectionist bullshit. This isn't about kindly parental concern, it's about limiting access to reproductive rights.[26]

No female child should be allowed to get an abortion without parental consent.[24] I believe that any teenager should be able to do get an abortion without parental consent.[26]

We'''re also left to wonder how many of the thousands of abortions that were done here were without parental knowledge, consent or involvement.[15]

The latest delay makes us wonder when, if ever, Illinois can join at least 41 states that have some kind of parental notification. [18] ILLINOIS ( KFVS ) - The back and forth battle over parental notification continues in Illinois.[7]

The ACLU has been fighting parental notification in court since the mid-1980s.[9] A provision allows patients to bypass parental notification by going before a judge.[1] After the judge's Wednesday ruling, Kanter said notification would no longer be provided. "We believe that government cannot and should not mandate this communication," Kanter said. "Most teens do seek their parents' advice and counsel. but in some cases safe and open communication isn't possible."[11] A teen can also request a bypass of notification by appearing before a judge who would have 48 hours to rule.[26]

Just a few hours later, a judge issued a temporary restraining order delaying enforcement of the law.[18]

Ok so until you understand the sheer terror that could occur and the severe beating and subsequent trauma that could occur through FORCED notification please shut it down. If they have a good relationship with their parents they will tell them without a law FORCING all girls to do so. [14] "Why does Illinois have to have a law that doesn't take the parents into account?" Ioppolo said.[11] I would have been mutilated in a "back room" or would have had a "Prom Night" baby. This is wrong. Maybe they should give every child in Illinois the GPS panties to every parent in Illinois, that'll show those girls whose boss of them. What of the boys??? Where is there ANYONE trying to regulate their behavior and consequences.[14] Not all parents can be trusted to make the right decision for the minor girl.[24] Democrat Cheryle Jackson is hurting girls and fear mongering. "Jackson said Wednesday that most girls will tell their parents about such a big decision" --While most will. research shows that 1 in 3 won't.[25]

Whether it is helping raising the child, or supporting the girls decision to abort and possibly paying for it. By a similar token, if he is equipped with the knowledge of how to prevent a pregnancy and fails to, I would inform him of my disappointment and love. I am responsible for my child legally until 18 (through love forever) I will do anything for them. Including hold their hand for an abortion. Or make them be an adult about their life decisions. Its called being a mom/dad.[14] Some future moms feel that notification or an alternative is the only answer to an abortion. "I think they should notify them because maybe they could figure out a way instead of an abortion possibly giving it away for adoption, instead of just killing the child.[7] Many a man has said have my baby and then disappeared. I feel that the men should have a say but should be held WAAAAAAY more accountable than they currently are when they agree to have a child and then ditch. If a man says he is not ready or willing, emotionally or financially to have a child and the mother chooses to have the child, he should be able to be waived from any future claims to child support etc. Basically he would have to give up his rights at that time and would be able to walk away. I dont think it is fair for women to ignore what their men are telling them when it comes to having a child and proceed to have a child anyway and then chase him for the rest of his life for $$. Or worse, sneak off and do it, not tell him and pop up 5 years later looking for back support and what not.[14]

We probably just have different labels, but I guess I was thinking of when the left wing of the Dem party years ago forced the cancellation of a big convention speech (I think) of Casey from Penn. I would also put supporters of no restrictions on abortion (save for third-trimester procedures) on the hard left, but that is my label and my label alone.[26]

According to the Trib, the Guttmacher Institute reported that in 2000, 4,640 abortions were performed in Illinois for girls between the ages of 15 and 17 years.[26] Which explains why Illinois has been an abortion magnet for girls, with 4,640 abortions performed in 2000 on girls 15 to 17, according to the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute.[15]

Abortion opponents have long sought the law, but critics say it could keep minors from seeking safe procedures. [16] I don't care what your religious/political beliefs are. To those who think having an abortion is "no big deal", look at pictures of aborted babies (yes-even first trimester) or learn what the procedure actually entails. (priestsforlife.org).[24]

Damn job/internet. @MuchoMacho; How, may I ask, would forcing teens to tell their parents about their abortion improve parenting? I'm not seeing your logic, if there is any.[14] Nicole Goss, 23, a volunteer with the Chicago Abortion Fund, suspects some teenagers fear the repercussions of telling their parents.[13]

According to the Guttmacher Institute, which studies reproductive health, 22 states require at least one parent's consent, 10 require prior notification of at least one parent, and two states require notification and consent.[18] I find it very odd that, at least in my state, I can get all sorts of birth control, without anyone other than myself, my doctor, and my pharmacist knowing about it. I also find it very odd that teens are subject to different regulations on their reproductive rights, based on where they live. This should be a right that we all have.[14] The right to privacy in a doctor's office is guaranteed if a young girl has the flu, but easily dismissed if she may be pregnant? Ridiculous.[26] If a young girl who has been the victim of undocumented abuse (sexual or physical) gets an unsympathetic judge, that girl has the choice of either having the child or figuring out a way to end the prognancy herself.[12]

"You don't need a law to tell you to talk to your daughter," said Melissa Gilliam, chief of family planning at the University of Chicago Medical Center who specializes in pediatrics and adolescent gynecology. No notice is required in a medical emergency or if the girl declares in writing that she is a victim of sexual abuse.[13] In July, a federal appeals court in Chicago lifted a federal injunction on a 1995 version of the law, clearing it for enforcement.[16] Last summer, a federal court cleared the way for the law to be implemented. It took a long, long time for democracy to work in this instance, but we're glad it did, particularly for a measure that represents an intelligent middle ground on a deeply divisive issue.[12]

One court employee even insisted that a minor be accompanied by a guardian. Illinois can -- and must -- do better than this.[3] Yes folks, teens are women. John Robin, the Supreme Court gave every woman in this country the right to determine whether or not she will carry a pregnancy to term.[24]

Opponents of choice would make it illegal for women to have abortions. It's a zero-sum game to them. They can't tolerate the idea of legal abortions and therefore they do everything they can to make abortions harder for women to access. I can't recommend enough a frontline documentary called "The Last Abortion Clinic". It's paradigm-altering. If you're opposed to abortion on moral grounds then work to better the situation of those women most at risk for an unplanned pregnancy. Prevention is something Americans seem to have a real problem with, whether it's personal health care, the economy, or reproductive issues.[26] The law was passed about 14 years ago, but legal challenges kept it from taking effect until Wednesday morning. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.[7] Not even nine months after President Obama, with much fanfare, signed into law a five year, $33 billion reauthorization of the popular Children'''s Health Insurance Program, House Democrats have proposed to dismantle it.[29]

The ACLU sued again, and today the IDFPR - illegally - delayed the law's enactment again. It is meeting tomorrow to decide - illegally - whether to extend the grace period.[32] Susan Hofer, a spokeswoman for the regulation department, said Adams was not involved in the decision to extend the grace period.[6] The disciplinary board could decide Wednesday to begin enforcement or extend the grace period.[6] On Wednesday morning, disciplinary board members declined to extend the grace period.[2]

At the hearing, the Medical Board's lawyers told the judge that it would be meeting on Wednesday morning at 9a.m. to consider the matter - to either lift the (illegal) "grace period" or to continue it.[4]

State regulators now say a grace period for doctors has been extended several days.[34]

I'll say it again, god help the doctor (or person) who lays a hand on my underage daughter for a medical procedure without my notification.[14] As somebody already mentioned most medical procedure's don't have the same implications as those that involve a person's sexuality. It also assumes that somebody in the teen's family isn't responsible for the trauma or need to see the doctor.[26] I can't help if I don't know. If she was just being a teen that made a mistake, then I would still want to know about it. Its a major medical procedure and if it was her choice, I would want to be the one that made sure it wasn't some quack with an exacto knife. My child that is under 18 shouldn't be able to get a major procedure of any kind because she wants to and its her body.[14]

I do, however, feel that with certain allowances in the case of abuse, a parent should at least be informed of a child's medical decision, if for no other reason than to watch for complications.[26] If your 16 year old makes an "adult" decision to have sex and would have to make an "adult" decision to have the baby and be a parent then they can certainly make the decision to terminate the pregnancy.[26]

@Lici so you were physically and emotionally abused as a teenage girl by a parent who would literally beat you choke you out and call you every name in the book over offenses like leaving a towel on the floor in your room? Then you found yourself with a college acceptance letter and a positive pregnancy test? Well if you were and you did and you managed to stand up to your abuser then I applaud you. Not everyone feels that they can do so. Parent your children properly and this isnt an issue, they will want to tell you and will not have to be forced to do so.[14] Although, I don't feel the need to detail my entire past here. I was merely discussing the subject of a parents rights with regards to their children.[14] Our children have very few rights that escape the purview of parents. Parents are asked to monitor their children's every move, including accompanying them to the viewing of an R-rated movie.[18]

How many who have commented, including the writer have kids? Just try to get between me and my kids. Cutting parents out of their children's lives doesn't seem like a good solution to me. People are always complaining about teens running wild and parents not being involved enough in their kid's lives.[14] We can try our damndest to make our children into the people we want them to be. At the end of the day, they already are who they are. Do parents have nothing to do with shaping their children into who they are? People are born with certain personality traits, but a lot of who we become is shaped by our families, our communities, and society as a whole. That shaping doesn't stop when kids get into high school.[14]

Does the government & ACLU raise our daughters? Do they care for them, feed them, clothe them, educate them? Who is actually responsible for the well being of children. The parents, that's who! My daughter who was 17 at the time could not even have a primary care physician see her without a parent present.[24] Any parent who would allow a young teenager to go through pregnancy and childbirth should not have children.[24] Actually inform me instead of just messing about. Until then I'd rather err on the conservative side and let the young woman made her own choice unencumbered by worries and pressure over what her parents think.[12]

Tim, You're forgetting (or ignoring) the unborn child, whose life is at the mercy of the mother and the law. The law has a legitimate interest to protect individuals from violent attack, even by their own mothers. If the law should have power to prohibit actions such as rape, assault, theft, and murder, on the basis that these actions hurt others, then it's reasonable for the law to have power to protect an child from being deliberately killed minutes, hours, or weeks before its expected birth.[24] I've found that my own positions are very rarely modified with any significance, which is perhaps a result of my own rather rigid philosophy. That said, the whole having a daughter myself thing isn't something I'd hold my breath for. Unlike the kids this law will affect, I'm not even having sex anymore.[14] Evanston123: it's because that agency regulates the doctors which this law affects. It's not that hard.[6]

Breen says anti-abortion groups have been fighting with the American Civil Liberties Union since the law was written in the 1980s.[28]

One parent/step-parent or guardian must be notified when a girl 17 or younger wants an abortion. [31] Syndicated material is also published from a variety of local, national, and international sources, all with a focus on Chicago, Cook County, and the State Of Illinois.[15] Not all teens that get pregnant have awful parents. Assuming that all parents are abusive and would call their daughters names is irresponsible. If my daughter had been equipped with the knowledge of how to prevent pregnancy and failed to, I would tell her I was disappointed but that I love her and am there for her.[14] If that's not the case, then the parent has done something wrong. As for the teenage boys who have all the fun but carry none of the burden, it would be nice if they were also required to notify their parents, but shouldn't hold up the procedure.[14] Maybe Planned Parenthood should also be held financially responsible for any complications that occur afterwards, especially if the parents are not notified. That only seems fair - if the parents are kept out of the loop at the beginning, ALL responsibility falls on them for the entire procedure.[24]

The medical administrative process is supposed to proceed in a two-step: first, the Medical Board adopts a recommendation and, second, the Secretary of Financial and Professional Regulation approves the recommendation, at which point the recommendation becomes effective. [4]

SOURCES

1. Abortion notification law on hold - WGN
2. Abortion law: Court blocks Illinois' parental notification law -- chicagotribune.com
3. Abortion notice law delayed for good reason - BackTalk
4. Illinois Parental Notice Law Again Endangered - Dennis Byrne's Barbershop
5. Illinois Parental Notification law Blocked Shortly After State Board Approves It
6. Abortion critics are wary of delaying Illinois' parental notification law -- chicagotribune.com
7. Restraining order on Illinois parental notification law - KFVS12 News & Weather Cape Girardeau, Carbondale, Poplar Bluff
8. The Associated Press: Judge puts restraining order on Ill. abortion law
9. City Room™ - Politics - Abortion Notification Debate Continues
10. Enforcement delayed on abortion law relating to minors :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Metro & Tri-State
11. The Associated Press: Judge puts restraining order on Ill. abortion law
12. Time for parent notice -- chicagotribune.com
13. Illinois parental notification law goes into effect Tuesday -- chicagotribune.com
14. Today's Lady News: Illinois' Parental Notification For Abortion Law Is Delayed | The Frisky
15. Shutting Out Parents; Trusting Strangers | Chicago Daily Observer
16. Illinois teen abortion law delayed for at least a day -- chicagotribune.com
17. Vote clears path for abortion notification law - KWQC-TV6 News and Weather For The Quad Cities -
18. Parents''' interests in abortion law delayed again - Rockford, IL - Rockford Register Star
19. Abortion Law Postponed in U.S. state of Illinois_English_Xinhua
20. City Room™ - News In Brief - Illinois Board Decides to Enact New Abortion Notification Law
21. KWMU: Enforcement of 1995 Illinois abortion law delayed again (2009-11-03)
22. Vote Clears Path For Abortion Notification Law
23. Not so fast: Illinois parental notification law still may be stalled | Political Fix | STLtoday
24. Abortion law: Court blocks parental notification law - Chicago Breaking News
25. Jackson criticizes Ill. abortion notification law -- chicagotribune.com
26. Controversial Abortion Notification Law Starts Tomorrow: Chicagoist: Chicago News, Food, Arts & Events
27. Fate of Ill. abortion notification law unclear - WREX.com ''' Rockford'''s News Leader
28. City Room™ - Politics - Illinois Abortion Law In Effect - For Now
29. Parental Notice Law Not a Political Compromise | RHRealityCheck.org
30. ILLINOIS > Abortion law takes effect - STLtoday.com
31. Illinois Parental Notice for Abortions on Minors in Full Effect - Christian Newswire
32. Opposing Views: OPINION:Illinois Parental Notification Law Delayed, Again
33. Untitled
34. Fate Of Illinois Abortion Notification Law Uncertain - cbs2chicago.com

GENERATE A MULTI-SOURCE SUMMARY ON ANY SUBJECT
Enter your search query below. WAIT 10-20 sec for the new window to open.
Get more info on Abortion law: Court blocks Illinois' parental notification law by using the iResearch Reporter tool from Power Text Solutions.

Above is the automatically generated multi-source news digest.
Its main content has been compiled basing on the fair use of snippets from original news stories (initially clustered by the Google News) by applying our multi-document summarization technology. The title has been excerpted from this article, and the top image was found

Chicago Tribune

Abortion law: Court blocks Illinois' parental notification law

Chicago Tribune - here.

Give Us Your Feedback!

How did you like this article?