On March 8, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution held a hearing on H.R. 2299, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act.
Sponsored by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), the act would prohibit any individual from transporting a minor across state lines to have an abortion in order to circumvent a minor’s home state law requiring parental involvement in the abortion decision or prior judicial authorization. An individual who transports a minor across state lines with the intention of avoiding the requirements, or a provider that performs an abortion on an out-of-state minor without parental notification or judicial authorization, would be in violation. A violation would be punishable by fine or imprisonment for up to one year. The measure would make an exception for an abortion necessary to save the life of a minor.
“This bill would substitute the judgment of Congress for the judgment of people who live in states like mine,” said Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler (D-NY). He continued, “In fact, even where the young woman’s state of residence, and the state in which the doctor is located, have both decided not to enact such laws, this bill would impose a new federal parental notification law that is more draconian, and more unconstitutional, than the laws of most states. This bill is the wrong way to deal with a very real problem. It does not provide exceptions to protect a young woman’s health. It does not provide exceptions where a parent has raped a young woman. It even allows the rapist to sue a clergy person or doctor who tries to help the daughter deal with the effects of that crime. I will urge my colleagues to reject this legislation on both constitutional and policy grounds. If only for the sake of humanity, I would urge you to join in providing the needed flexibility for the most difficult real world cases involving the lives of real young women. We owe them at least that much.”
Testifying in support of the bill, Michael J. New, PhD, assistant professor at the University of Michigan, Dearborn, said, “I would encourage members of the committee to support the ‘Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act.’ This piece of legislation would give parents more involvement over how their minor daughters resolve their pregnancies. It is safe to say that parents have more invested in the well being of their minor daughters than a boyfriend, a friend, or a relative. They would also likely have the best knowledge of their daughter’s medical history. There have been reported instances where minor girls obtained abortions without their parents’ knowledge and died because they did not realize they were allergic to the anesthesia.” He concluded, “I am confident the ‘Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act’ would lead to both fewer abortions and better public health outcomes for teen girls.”
Dr. Katherine Hancock Ragsdale, president and dean at the Episcopal Divinity School, testified against the act: “I find it troubling, even horrifying, that we should find ourselves at odds over this issue – and devoting yet more legislative time to it at a time when so many national crises require your attention. Presumably we all want the same things here. We want fewer unintended pregnancies and we want young people who face problems, particularly problems that have to do with their health and their futures, to receive loving support and counsel from responsible adults. This bill, however, doesn’t help to achieve those goals. We should be talking, instead, about evidence-based, age-appropriate sex education for all young people, and about safe, affordable, and available contraception. We should be figuring out how we impress upon boys that ‘no’ really does mean ‘no,’ and about how to teach girls to defend themselves. We should be talking about education and economics; about child care and welfare; about violence at home and on the streets; not about new ways to punish victims and those who care for them. Yet, no matter how intense and successful our efforts, there will still be minors who face unintended pregnancies. And some of them will still decide that abortion is the best – sometimes the most responsible – option for them. And then, as now, we will want them to be able to turn to their parents for love and support and guidance. But when they can’t, we want them to turn to some responsible adult. Please don’t outlaw the very help we want our children to have. Oppose this bill. Oppose it because no matter how good the intentions of its authors and supporters, it is, in essence, punitive and mean-spirited.”
Also speaking in support of the legislation, Teresa Stanton Collett, professor of law at the University of St. Thomas School of Law, discussed the constitutionality of the law, saying, “Opponents of CIANA [Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act] have persistently claimed that passage of the law would violate the constitutional right to travel and would exceed congressional authority under the interstate commerce clause. Both claims are baseless. CIANA is a legitimate exercise of congressional authority under its authority to regulate interstate commerce. ‘To keep the channels of commerce free from immoral and injurious uses has been frequently sustained, and is no longer open to question.’ The Supreme Court has repeatedly said crossing state lines is interstate commerce regardless of whether any commercial activity is involved.” Ms. Collett continued: “In balancing the minor’s right to privacy and her need for parental involvement, the majority of states have determined that parents should know before abortions are performed on minors. This is a reasonable conclusion and well within the states’ police powers. However, the political authority of each state stops at its geographic boundaries. States need the assistance of the federal government to insure that the protection they wish to afford their children is not easily circumvented by strangers taking minors across state lines.” She added, “The ‘Child Interstate Parental Notification Act’ has the unique virtue of building upon two of the few points of agreement in the national debate over abortion: the desirability of parental involvement in a minor’s decisions about an unplanned pregnancy, and the need to protect the physical health and safety of the pregnant girl. I urge members of this committee to vote for its passage.”
