Menstuff® has compiled the following information on
abortion.
Abortion
RU-486/Mifeprex/Mifepristone
Men
& Abortion
Parental
Consent by State
Changes in
Abortions and Births and the Texas Parental Notification
Law
Dispatch From
South Dakota: Tribal President Cecelia Fire Thunder
Speaks
Anti-Abortion
Group's Bid Fails
Supreme Court
rules against abortion
clinics
Find
a Clinic
When an unmarried teen is pregnant the situation can be difficult for both the teens and the parents. The young people involved are usually very frightened. They need all the understanding love which parents can provide. Of course, the parents are upset! Letting emotions of anger take over and becoming punishing and demanding with the young people solves no problems. Parents have the responsibility to act in a mature fashion and work with the young people to reach a solution which leads to mutual caring and learning. Some families draw closer during times of trouble. Communication may be reestablished and the young people learn how much the parents really care about them.
There are agencies which can help the family reach decisions about
pregnancy and other family problems. Physicians, clergy and Planned
Parenthood Centers offer sympathetic counseling. When the couple or
the girl decide to continue the pregnancy, agencies such as
Birthright or Support can give needed understanding. Parents should
not try to force a girl or couple to marry or to have an abortion.
Parents can help in the decision-making process, but a forced
abortion or a forced marriage can lead to later unhappiness.
Changes in Abortions and Births and the
Texas Parental Notification Law
ABSTRACT
Background On January 1, 2000, Texas began enforcement of a law that requires physicians to notify a parent of a minor child seeking an abortion at least 48 hours before the procedure.
Methods
We assessed changes in the rates in Texas of abortions and births
(events per 1000 age-specific population) before enforcement of the
parental notification law (1998 to 1999) and after enforcement (2000
to 2002). We did this by comparing the rate changes among minors 15
to 17 years of age at the time of conception (i.e., those who were
subject to the law) with those of teens 18 years of age at the time
of conception (i.e., those who were not subject to the law).
Results
After enforcement of the law, abortion rates fell by 11 percent
among 15-year-olds (rate ratio, 0.89; 95 percent confidence interval,
0.83 to 0.94), 20 percent among 16-year-olds (rate ratio, 0.80; 95
percent confidence interval, 0.76 to 0.85), and 16 percent among
17-year-olds (rate ratio 0.84; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.80
to 0.87), relative to the rates among 18-year-olds. Among the
subgroup of minors 17.50 to 17.74 years of age at the time of
conception (who would have been subject to the parental notification
law in early pregnancy), birth rates rose by 4 percent relative to
those of teens 18.00 to 18.24 years of age (rate ratio, 1.04; 95
percent confidence interval, 1.00 to 1.08). The adjusted odds ratio
for having an abortion after 12 weeks' gestation among minors 17.50
to 17.74 years of age as compared with 18-year-olds was 1.34 (95
percent confidence interval, 1.10 to 1.62).
Conclusions
The Texas parental notification law was associated with a decline
in abortion rates among minors from 15 to 17 years of age. It was
also associated with increased birth rates and rates of abortion
during the second trimester among a subgroup of minors who were 17.50
to 17.74 years of age at the time of conception.
Source: content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/354/10/1031
From Baruch College (T.J.) and the Graduate Center (S.C.), City
University of New York; and the National Bureau of Economic Research
(T.J., R.K.) — both in New York; and the University of Illinois
at Chicago, Chicago (R.K.). Address reprint requests to Dr. Joyce at
the National Bureau of Economic Research, 365 Fifth Ave., 5th Fl.,
New York, NY 10016, or at E-mail
Dispatch From South Dakota: Tribal
President Cecelia Fire Thunder Speaks
Anti-Abortion Group's Bid Fails
Supreme Court rules against abortion
clinics
The Supreme Court dealt a setback Tuesday to abortion clinics in a two-decade-old legal fight over anti-abortion protests, ruling that federal extortion and racketeering laws cannot be used to ban demonstrations.
Anti-abortion groups brought the appeal after the 7th Circuit had asked a trial judge to determine whether a nationwide injunction could be supported by charges that protesters had made threats of violence absent a connection with robbery or extortion.
The 8-0 decision ends a case that the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had kept alive despite a 2003 decision by the high court that lifted a nationwide injunction on anti-abortion groups led by Joseph Scheidler and others.
Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Breyer said Congress did not intend to create “a freestanding physical violence offense” in the federal extortion law known as the Hobbs Act.
The Supreme Court's ruling is a setback for abortion groups, taking away a powerful weapon they had used against organized protesters.
There has been a significant development since the National Organization for Women began its legal campaign against abortion protesters years ago: Congress passed the Federal Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) law, which makes it a crime to engage some of the behavior the women's groups originally targeted.
Even so, women's groups are sure to see the ruling as a blow for two reasons. First, it takes away a weapon they used to strike at the finances of abortion protesters, by suing for money damages. And second, many women's groups find FACE unsatisfying, because it depends on the willingness of local prosecutors to invoke it
Social activists and the AFL-CIO had sided with anti-abortion protesters in arguing that similar lawsuits and injunctions could be used to thwart their efforts to change public policy or agitate for better wages and working conditions.
Long-running battle
The legal battle began in 1986, when the National Organization for Women filed a class-action suit challenging tactics used by the Pro-Life Action Network to block women from entering abortion clinics.
NOW’s legal strategy was novel at the time, relying on civil provisions of the 1970 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, which was used predominantly in criminal cases against organized crime. The lawsuit also relied on the Hobbs Act, a 55-year-old law banning extortion.
A federal judge issued a nationwide injunction against the anti-abortion protesters after a Chicago jury found in 1998 that demonstrators had engaged in a pattern of racketeering by interfering with clinic operations, menacing doctors, assaulting patients and damaging clinic property.
 |
|
 |
