On September 26, the House approved, 264-153, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA) (S. 403) after adopting a substitute amendment by Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI). The substitute amendment added a provision that would require a physician in a state without parental consent or notification to provide 24 hours notice to the parent or legal guardian of any out-of-state minor before performing an abortion. The penalty for violating the law would be up to one year imprisonment, a $100,000 fine, or both.
On September 29, the Senate defeated, 57-42, an effort to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to consideration of the bill; the vote fell 3 votes short of the 60 votes necessary to limit debate. The cloture motion was defeated because of opposition to the House substitute amendment’s criminal and civil penalties for doctors who failed to comply with parental notification requirements. The Senate approved an earlier version of the bill on July 20 (see The Source, 7/28/06).
The CIANA would prohibit any person from taking a minor across state lines for an abortion, thereby circumventing her home state’s parental notification or consent law. The penalty for violating the law would be up to one year imprisonment, a $100,000 fine, or both. The penalties would not apply in cases in which the minor was transported due to a life-threatening medical condition, the physician performing the abortion was presented documentation that a court in the minor’s home state allowed the procedure, or when the minor stated that she had been the victim of abuse and the physician reported the abuse to the appropriate authorities. Under the bill, a defendant could use an affirmative defense if he or she reasonably believed that parental consent had been given or that the court had waived the requirement for parental consent.
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) said that the legislation “protects minors from exploitation from the abortion industry, it promotes strong family ties, and it helps foster respect for state laws.” She continued, saying, “A minor who is forbidden to drink alcohol, to stay out past a certain hour or to get her ears pierced without parental consent is certainly not prepared to make a life-altering, hazardous, and potentially fatal decision such as an abortion without the consultation or consent of at least one parent. This legislation will put an end to the abortion clinics and family planning organizations that are really exploiting young, vulnerable girls by luring them to recklessly disobey state laws. About 80 percent of the public favors parental notification laws. Over 50 percent of our states have enacted such laws. Yet sometimes these laws can be evaded by interstate transportation of minors, openly encouraging them to do so in advertising by abortion providers. Parental consent and parental notification laws may vary from state to state, but they have all been made with the same purpose in mind: to protect frightened and confused adolescent girls from harm. I urge my colleagues to once again support this vital piece of legislation, uphold the safety laws designed by individual states and protect the parents’ rights to be involved in decisions involving their minor daughters.”
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) said, “This legislation…poses a real threat to the lives and health of young women. It would require a minor who is pregnant, possibly as a result of parental abuse, incest, to carry the parental notification laws of her home state on her back to another state and hold doctors, grandparents, clergy and anyone else who tries to help her a criminal…Not since the enactment of the Fugitive Slave Act in 1850 have we used the power of the federal government to enforce the laws of one state on the territory of another. This latest crazy quilt of restrictions obviously has but one purpose, to impede the practice of medicine, to ensure that young women will have as few options as possible, to make criminals of relatives and adults, or minors, for that manner, who try to help them, and to teach those states, such as mine, that do not believe that these laws promote adolescent health, that Congress knows best and our citizens and our states do not…In a perfect world, loving, supportive and understanding families would join together to face these challenges. That is what happens in the majority of cases, with or without a law. But we do not live in a perfect world. Some parents are violent. Some parents are rapists. Some young people can turn only to their clergy or to a grandparent or a sibling or some other trusted adult. And this bill would turn those people into criminals.”
“Eight in 10 Americans favor parental notification laws,” said Rep. Steve King (R-IA). “Forty-four states have recognized the important role of parents in a minor child’s decision to have an abortion by enacting parental involvement statutes. Even so, many of these laws are being circumvented by individuals who simply transport girls across state lines to another state without parental notification laws. And, too often, these individuals are grown men who have sexually preyed on underaged girls and use abortions to cover up their crimes. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that a parent’s right to control the care of their children is among the most fundamental of all liberty interests. The Supreme Court has consistently recognized that parents have a legal right to be involved in their minor daughter’s decision to seek medical care, including abortion…No one has a child’s best interest at heart more than their parents…Parents must be able to play a role when their minor daughter is contemplating such an important decision as what to do with an unplanned pregnancy.”
Disagreeing with Rep. King, Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) cited statistics that most young women already include a parent in their decision: “more than 61 percent of parents in states without mandatory parental consent or at least 61 percent with notice laws have knowledge of their daughter’s pregnancy. This is not a helpful legislative initiative. This is, in fact, a divisive initiative…The normal relationship of child and parent proceeds along a very helpful manner as long as we do not provide unnecessary intrusion beyond what has been accepted by the individual states…I offered just a year ago or so an amendment with Mr. Nadler that expanded the exceptions to the prohibitions in this act of being able to assist a young lady in her time of trouble, to give exemptions to godparents, aunts, uncles, and first cousins, family members and clergy that would be giving comfort to this particular individual who may be a victim of incest or rape and afraid and confused about the utilization or the act of going to their parents…And so that would have been a responsible approach so that clergy would not become felons, as well as godparents and aunts or uncles, close family members. This country is used to and welcomes an extended family, families of different configurations. And so this legislation attempts to ignore that.”
