On March 3, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution heard testimony on the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA) (H.R. 748). Sponsored by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), the measure would make it a federal crime to transport a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion, thereby evading parental consent and notification laws. The bill also would require that a parent or legal guardian be notified when a minor is transported across state lines for an abortion.
Teresa Stanton Collett, a professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law in Minneapolis, Minnesota, said that the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act would “significantly advance the state’s interest in promoting the health and safety of young girls experiencing an unplanned pregnancy, as well as the interests of parents seeking to provide support and guidance to their minor daughters during this difficult time.” She argued that parental notification of a young girl’s decision to have an abortion would improve her medical care because 1) it would allow parents to assist their daughter in the selection of the abortion provider, 2) it would insure that parents have the opportunity to provide additional medical history to abortion providers before the procedure, and 3) it would insure that parents have adequate knowledge to recognize and respond to any post-abortion complication that may develop.
Professor Collett contended that parental notification laws would provide increased protection against exploitation of minor girls by adult men. She cited a survey of 1,500 minors who have had an abortion in which 89 percent of the girls said their boyfriend was involved in the decision to have the abortion, and 76 percent said their boyfriend helped pay for the abortion. Finally, Professor Collett said that CIANA would protect girls from domestic violence, stating, “Regardless of whether the girl chooses to continue or terminate her pregnancy, parental involvement laws have proven desirable because they afford greater protection for the many girls who are pregnant due to sexual assault. By insuring that parents know of the pregnancy, it becomes much more likely that they will intervene to insure the protection of their daughters from future assaults.”
Testifying on behalf of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, Dr. Warren Siegel said that instead of encouraging better communication between parents and their daughters, CIANA “places incredible burden on both young women and physicians; infringes on the rights of adolescents to health care that does not violate their safety and health; makes caring family, friends and doctors criminals; and could be detrimental to the health and emotional well-being of all patients.” Describing the burden a young woman seeking an abortion will face under the bill by having to comply with laws in two states, Dr. Siegel noted that women who live in states with no parental notification law would face an additional burden: “Even if a young woman is not subject to any parental notification laws in either the state where she is from or the state where she is accessing care, CIANA will require parental notification. Judicial bypass procedures only exist in states with parental notification laws in place. Thus, in states with no parental notification legislation, young women will not have access to the judicial bypass option.”
Focusing his comments on the burden to physicians, Dr. Siegel explained that doctors would “be required to have detailed knowledge of the parental notification laws in the 49 states where they do not practice,” adding, “If I were required to keep up-to-date on the complex and often changing laws of the other 49 states, it would severely cut into the time that I could spend giving quality care to my other patients.” He also expressed his concern that the bill would require physicians to travel to the home state of the young woman to give notification to her parents in person, stating, “CIANA makes it impossible for a physician to perform an abortion without neglecting the care of other patients, and is clearly not about protecting young women but simply and blatantly about ending access to abortions period.”
The subcommittee also heard testimony from Marcia Carroll of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, whose daughter was taken by her boyfriend’s family to New Jersey for an abortion. She stated, “Anything could have happened to my daughter at the abortion facility or on the ride back home. These people did not know my daughter’s medical history, yet they took her across state lines to have a medical procedure without my knowledge or consent. Our family will be responsible for the medical and psychological consequences for my daughter as a result of this procedure that was completed unbeknownst to me.” She urged Congress to approve CIANA because “the right of parents to protect the health and welfare of their minor daughter needs to be protected.”
