THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1997, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Thursday, January 30, 1997 TAG: 9701300003
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A14 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Letter
LENGTH: 54 lines
It is disturbing to me when the media insist on using sensationalism in reporting to misinform the public as to the facts of a news story. The Jan. 23 front-page headline read, ``State likely to pass abortion law.'' The article dealt with a new parental-notice bill introduced by Sen. Mark Earley. The article took a very negative point of view hinting at subterfuge in procedural aspects of the bill's introduction, and also hinted at a question of the bill's legality. Even the descriptive adjectives used in the article were chosen to promote a certain political ideology. Supporters of the bill were labeled ``anti-abortion'' legislators, while those who oppose it were ``abortion-rights'' advocates.
The characterization of supporters of the bill as ``anti-abortion'' is a mistake because the bill does not present a pro-life/abortion-rights issue. The bill does not in any way restrict a young girl's access or ``right'' to abortion. It simply says that her physician must first inform a parent, or if she is mature enough or if it is in her best interest, she can receive authorization from the juvenile court for an abortion without informing a parent. This is a ``pro-family'' issue supported by people who are both pro-choice and pro-life.
As a father of five minor daughters, I have a good understanding of how parents feel. How many people do you really think oppose being informed that their minor daughters are going to undergo a dangerous surgical procedure? I can think of no one other than the minor daughters themselves (in some instances) and those who profit from government subsidization of such procedures. Do you really suppose that Planned Parenthood would object to this legislation if it had to pay for abortions performed on minors? Without government subsidies, the abortion providers would need this legislation to continue operating, albeit at reduced capacity.
Many parents would counsel their young daughters not to go through with the abortion procedure, and this is what Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers fear. Not that young girls will be prevented from receiving abortions (the bill is structured to prevent that consequence), but that young girls will decide not to have abortions.
Juvenile courts are of central importance to this bill. The decision as to whether a parent needs to be informed is left up to the court, which, as a disinterested party, will give fair and unbiased counsel. What counsel do you think a young child will receive from an abortion provider who stands to profit from the procedure?
Regarding the bill's legality, the article stated, ``Planned Parenthood is already drafting a legal challenge to file when the bill passes.'' It quoted Karen Raschke (of Planned Parenthood) as saying, ``I expect the governor to sign it, and I expect to be in court a few days later.'' These statements would lead a reader to believe that there is some legal question as to the substance of the bill, when in reality there is none.
BILL HELWIG
Virginia Beach, Jan. 27, 1997