"J Strickland" <spam@nospam.net> wrote:

I see absolutely nothing wrong with a minor child having parental consent
to
obtain an abortion,

And I see absolutely nothing wrong with a minor child NOT needing
parental consent to obtain an abortion.

Here is one answer from an emergency room doctor. Note that there are
several areas where minors CAN give consent on their own, as well as
some areas where no consent is needed (the article goes into greater
depth on different types of consent as well, which is somewhat germane
but a bit excessive to quote):
http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/topic740.htm

<To obtain consent, the patient must be clinically and legally
< competent. In most states, the legal age of consent for medical
< treatment is 18 years. Parents or legal guardians normally are
< required to consent for the medical treatment of minors, although a
< few exceptions exist as follows:

Exactly. A minot child CAN NOT obtain medical treatment except for a few
narrowly defined instances. Abortion does not meet any of those instances,

Yes it does. Did you read? I underscored it below.

<The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) requires
< hospitals to provide an adequate medical screening examination to
< anyone (including minors) who presents to the ED, even if appropriate
< consent cannot be obtained. If no immediately life-threatening
< condition is identified, institute procedures to obtain consent for
< treatment.
<
<In many states, marriage or pregnancy often confers an emancipated
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
< status to minors, who then can consent to procedures and treatments.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Abortion of course requires pregnancy, and so falls under this rule.
The author implies that in at least some states, no parental
notification is involved in ANY treatment for pregnancy.

This is precisely what we are talking about. It IS the debate du jour.
Pregnancy does not in itself confer emancipation. Marriage does, but
pregnancy does not.

Yes it does, according to the above text. *With regard to medical
treatment*, pregnancy confers emancipation. in most states, a
pregnant teen needs no consent from parents for ANY treatment that she
obtains from a doctor for her pregnancy.

And that should be common sense. In carrying a child, a teen is
medically an adult.

Minors should NOT be treated for any medical service without parental
consent, notwithstanding the exception noted above where a child may be
harmed by a parent.

Say it all you want. The law does not support you.

This exception must only be granted when it can be shown
that a parent's involvement might put the child at harm. How do we
determine
this standard? I'm not sure, but I have faith that there is a way.

I don't rely on faith for medical decisions. I prefer to rely on
doctors.

Meanwhile, you ignored all the other examples where a child can
consent to medical treatment in most states. These examples are not
specific to the abortion debate, but show that abortion is not an
unusual exception, and that society in general does not limit things
to life and death situation or to situations where the parent might
cause harm.

<In the interest of a greater societal good, various conditions exist
< (depending upon the state) for which minors can consent to treatment.
< These conditions include treatment for (1) sexually transmitted
< diseases, (2) alcohol or drug abuse, (3) domestic or sexual abuse,
< and (4) mental health issues.
<
<Minor parents of children also can consent to treatment for their
< children and themselves.
<
<Additionally, mature minors (ie, close to age of maturity) can
< consent, at times, to less invasive or less risky procedures if the
< physician feels the patient understands the concepts of consent.
<
<Clinical competency can be defined as the ability to comprehend and
< rationally act upon information provided by a healthcare
< professional. Intoxication and active psychosis affect an
< individual's ability to give adequate consent. Carefully examine the
< patient's mental status and reasoning ability when trying to obtain
< consent. Furthermore, common law or other statutes may govern which
< patients can consent legally.
<
<In addition to determining the patient's competency to consent to
< medical treatment, the physician must impart the appropriate
< information to obtain consent. In some states, the standard of
< disclosure is defined as what a reasonable physician in a similar
< situation would disclose; other states require disclosure of the
< risks and alternative treatment options that a reasonable patient
< would want to know before consenting to a proposed therapy. In some
< circumstances, physicians may invoke therapeutic privilege and do not
< have to disclose extremely rare risks or complications that, if
< disclosed to the patient, may unreasonably prejudice the patient's
< decision.

Note that the standard is that of clinical competency, not legal
competency. This negates your following argument.

The same principle says that minors can not enter into binding
contracts.

No. That is a matter of legal competency (although there are some
cases in which a minor can enter into a binding contract as well.)

Why, if this is true, should a minor be allowed to consent to an
abortion, but not to getting medical attention for a broken toe?

In at least some states they apparently can.

An abortion is a medical treatment, and it requires a binding contract.

Why does it require any contract at all?

Parents are legally responsible for minors, and the acts that those
minors
engage in.

Not all of them. If your child uses drugs, the child is held
responsible, not you.

If a minor child (sorry, that's redundant) throws a rock and
breaks a window, the parent has legal liability to replace the window.

That is financial responsibility, not legal liability. The child may
be legally liable for criminal charges.

If your kid throws a rock and
breaks the neighbor's window, you can be held to pay to replace the
window -- your insurance coverage notwithstanding.

But that is financial liability.

If I gotta pay for a busted window, you can be damn sure I wanna know
when
my kid is seeking to abort.

You may want, but you don't necessarily have that right.

I demand my parental rights not be infringed,

You have only the parental "rights" that society grants you.

And society says I'm responsible for my minor children,

You are *financially* responsible. You are to a degree legally
responsible with ever declining responsibility as the child approaches
adulthood. You are NOT legally responsible for your child's criminal
acts above a certain age - your child is.

but then strips my
parental rights to control the welfare and medical treatment my children
seek and receive.

You have no parental right to "control". If you weren't a control
freak, you might understand that you NEVER really have control over
your children. They are independent human beings from birth.

It's issues like this that drive a wedge between the
liberal and conservative camps, conservatives are clamoring to maintain
control over their children,

You have no "right" to control over your children.

to nurture and raise your children. By the time they are old enough
to need abortions, you no longer need to nurture them with respect to
medical decisions pertaining to pregnancy.

they have the knowledge and the physical capability to get pregnant
then they NEED to have the capability to take care of their body and
the potential child that they are carrying. Per the above, once that
child is born, THEY are the one who makes medical decisions for their
child, not their adult parents.

and liberals are increasingly taking control of
children away from parents.

Nonsense. A hundred years ago, in many places, kids were essentially
adults at age 14. A bit earlier, kids were apprenticed out as early
as age 8, and after the apprenticeship was started there was no
"parental control".