Child Custody Protection Act - Continued
CHILD CUSTODY PROTECTION ACT--Continued -- (Senate - July 25, 2006)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Ensign, for his leadership on this issue and for yielding time and for bringing this important matter before the Senate.
My colleague from California mentioned that this is an election year ploy. But I think the last time this was voted on in the Senate was in 1998. That was a cloture vote. I don't know that there has ever been an up-or-down vote in the Senate. It has been voted on in the House.
I think most people see this particular provision as something that is a commonsense approach to this issue. Obviously, there are a lot of labels that are thrown around in this very contentious debate in our country. But when it comes to this particular issue, the courts have laid out some parameters under which States can operate when it comes to statutes that they adopted that impose conditions and restrictions on abortion. The undue burden requirement that came out of the Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision many years ago created this scenario where if there is not an undue burden, that statutes enacted by States can impose restrictions. And many States have done that.
One that many States have adopted is the issue of parental consent or parental notification. In fact, there are about 37 States to date that have adopted in some fashion that particular legislation. Thirty-seven States have enacted statutes imposing legal obligations on pregnant minors to notify or gain the consent of their parents before getting an abortion. S. 403, which we are debating today, does not supercede or otherwise alter any of those laws, nor does it impose any parental notice or consent requirement on any State. These are States that adopted these laws. The bill would only give effect to a State's parental involvement law if that law is constitutional. Therefore, any State parental consent law given effect under this bill must contain a judicial bypass provision which allows the minor girl to petition a judge to waive the parental notification requirement.
Just to give you an example of States that have enacted these types of laws, my State of South Dakota, for example, requires that a minor under the age of 18 have the consent of one parent or judicial bypass to obtain an abortion.
States in my region and neighboring States such as North Dakota, require the same thing, only it requires two parents' consent or judicial bypass. Nebraska requires essentially the consent of one parent or judicial bypass. Iowa requires that a minor must have the consent of one parent or grandparent or judicial bypass. Wyoming requires that a minor under the age of a eighteen must have the consent of one parent or judicial bypass. In Minnesota you must have the consent of two parents or judicial bypass. Montana, again, one parent or judicial bypass.
My point very simply is that the States and State legislatures have found, within their purview, ways that are constitutional to address what is a very gripping issue for the country, one that has created a great deal, obviously, of debate for the past 30 some years, and I suspect will continue to be debated not only here in legislative bodies but in front of the courts.
The courts have laid out a framework, a set of parameters. States have acted accordingly. All this simply does is reinforce those State laws and allow parents to be involved in probably what, without argument, has to be one of the most consequential decisions a teenager will ever make. As a parent of two teenage daughters, we talk about everything. We talk about where our children want to go to college. I have a teenager who is starting college this year. We talk about who they hang out with on a regular basis. We talk about what they wear, obviously, their apparel. We talk about who they date. We talk about who they associate with, all the decisions that they make in their lives on a daily basis. We try to stay very involved and engaged in their lives, for obvious reasons, because that is important as a parent.
I have a 16-year-old who will be a junior in high school. Ironically, in 27 States in this country, my 16-year-old can't get a tattoo without the permission of a parent. In 27 States, my 16-year-old cannot get her body pierced without permission of a parent. Yet we would allow what, arguably, would be the most consequential decision that child could ever make to go without consultation with a parent. It seems to me that common sense dictates, and I think most people around this country would agree, whatever side of this issue they find themselves on, this is a very common sense way to proceed. Allowing someone to essentially bypass a parent and take a minor, a teenager, across the State line to have an abortion is something that crosses not only State lines but crosses the lines of what most Americans would concede makes common sense when it comes to the way we raise our children and the kind of culture we want to have in our country.
I have to say I sure as heck as a parent would not want some other person taking one of my daughters somewhere to have this procedure when the emotional, the health, the medical ramifications of that decision could be so consequential in terms of my daughters, or any daughter, any teenager or any minor's future. I cannot imagine that this does not meet the common sense threshold, the test that most Americans would apply--again, irrespective of what side they find themselves on this particular issue.
If you look at this bill, and ultimately what it is designed to do, there are several things that would happen. I believe, if this act passed, it would substantially cut down on the number of minors who obtain abortions. It has been shown that parental involvement laws can decrease abortions among minors by 8 to 9 percent. Furthermore, Senate bill 403 will likely magnify that effect since minors often cross State lines to evade their home State laws. The bill does not infringe on States' rights. It merely gives teeth to existing State laws. In fact, the Federal Government will prosecute individuals in violation of this act. Senate bill 403 does not mandate individual States to enforce laws which they have not passed.
Additionally, this legislation does not criminalize doctors or the young women who obtain abortions. It prosecutes only those who take minors across State lines in an effort to evade parental involvement laws. In States that do not have parental notification laws, nearly 40 percent of minors keep their pregnancies secret. Since abortion is a major surgical operation, I believe parents need to know if their daughters undergo an abortion so they will be able to help them with any potential complications, including both the physical, emotional, and mental complications that can arise from the procedure. In cases where this would be inappropriate because of an abusive relationship, the judicial bypass is still an option.
Senate bill 403 will help parents keep their daughters out of inappropriate and/or predatory relationships. The American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Adolescents estimates that almost two-thirds of adolescent mothers have partners over the age of 20. Additionally, in 58 percent of cases where a daughter does not notify her parents of her pregnancy, her boyfriend is the one who accompanies her for the abortion.
Combining those two statistics suggests a substantial number of abortions are obtained in an attempt to avoid statutory rape laws. Underage children cannot obtain an aspirin at school without parental consent, but nothing prevents a minor from being transported from her current State where parental consent is required to another State where she can legally obtain an abortion without any parental consent. That is what this legislation intends to correct. Abortion clinics in States where there are no parental consent laws actually advertise in States requiring parental consent by using ``no parental consent required'' ads.
This legislation is not unreasonable. As I said earlier, 27 States require a minor, a person under the age of 18 today, to obtain parental consent to get a tattoo. Essentially, 27 States also require minors, persons under the age of 18, to get parental consent to get piercings, including ear piercings.
It seems to me, again, as a parent of two teenage daughters, as well as someone who is observing the debate we have in this country over this particular issue, this is a reasonable, commonsense approach, a measure that has been discussed and debated, the constitutionality of it addressed.
My colleague from California, Senator Boxer, said this is unconstitutional. As I said before, the courts have said as long as it does not impose an undue burden, these types of restrictions fit within the parameters of what is constitutional. Furthermore, under the Commerce Clause, the way this particular bill is worded fits within that constitutional framework. I don't think that is a valid argument.
One of the arguments that was made, as well, by my colleague from California had to do with the issue of incest. A judge found Arizona Planned Parenthood negligent for failing to report to Child Protective Services an abortion performed on a 13-year-old girl in foster care. This girl's case dates back to 1998 when she went in for an abortion at a Planned Parenthood abortion facility accompanied by her 23-year-old foster brother with whom she was having a sexual relationship. Planned Parenthood did not notify authorities until the girl returned 6 months later for a second abortion, according to court records.
There are lots of examples that can be used, obviously, to support what this legislation attempts to accomplish. As I said before, this issue has not been debated in the Senate for some time, although I will say it has been acted on by the Congress--not in the Senate but by the House of Representatives. The House earlier this year passed this bill by 270 to 157 or something like that, and had voted in 1998, 1999, and 2002. I was a Member of the House during those years and in every case this legislation passed the House and passed it by very sizable margins.
It would make sense that the House, having acted on it this year, having gotten approximately 270 votes in support, that we have a debate in the Senate and have an up-or-down vote on this legislation which, as I said earlier, I believe is a reasonable, commonsense approach to dealing with what is a very controversial, contentious issue in the country today.
Most Americans would agree that parental notification, parental consent, allowing parents to have involvement, input, consultation, with a teenager who was pregnant and is considering having an abortion, rather than having that teenager taken across State lines in a way that contradicts the will of the parents, makes a lot of sense. Again, it is an affirmation of parental involvement, parental rights, an affirmation of States rights, for that matter, too, if you look at all the States that have enacted laws. Thirty-seven States have enacted, in some form, this kind of requirement. Whether it is notification of one parent and judicial bypass or two parents and judicial bypass, but, clearly, there is precedent with all the States that have taken steps. This does not circumvent in any way those State laws. It simply affirms those laws in many respects because the States that have acted in a way that would require this kind of a notification, this kind of consent, this kind of involvement on a parental level.
Right now, people who are going around that requirement and going across State lines to have abortion procedures are getting around State laws. This is simply a way of drawing parents into the debate and making sure that, regarding teen abortions in this country, the States have acted accordingly and have adopted statues that require some kind of consent, notification, consultation, that those laws are respected, and, again, that parents' rights are asserted in this process.
I simply add, in closing, my State of South Dakota has this kind of law on the books. This is something a vast majority of South Dakotans would be very supportive of. As someone who is raising teenage daughters, who on a daily basis is conferring and consulting and discussing the decisions they make, the day-to-day decisions they make, I cannot imagine, for the life of me, not having some input, some opportunity to weigh in on an issue of this consequence, that would have the kind of long-term effects--health and emotional effects--on a young girl.
This is about the health of our young girls. It is about the rights of parents. It is about States that have acted in accordance with what the courts have given them authority to do and making sure we are standing behind those States and making sure their laws are enforced.
I hope when we vote on this--and, again, I appreciate the Senator from Nevada for his leadership on this issue--we will get a big vote in the Senate. It is the right vote. It has been a lot of years--8 years. 1998 was the last time we had this debate in the Senate. At that time, we got to a cloture vote, but we did not have an up-or-down vote on the underlying bill.
The substance of this bill needs to be voted on. I hope it will be voted on today, that it will be a big vote coming out of the Senate, and we can put this on the President's desk and have it signed into law, which I believe is what a vast majority, I know a vast majority of South Dakotans would believe, and I believe also a vast majority of Americans.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov