What’s Wrong with the World

Speaking as a liberal, and one who encounters a lot of liberal thought from my friends and various sources, I get the impression that most liberals are opposed to underage girls, or anyone else, being coerced into having abortions. I know I am, but again, I've heard my liberal friends talk about issues like abortion in China and women being coerced into abortions, so they don't pretend these things don't exist, and they all seem to think these things are bad.

Of course, we're suspicious of the motives of the pro-life crowd, and so I and I expect some of my fellow liberals would want to scrutinize any efforts in this direction very closely to see if they really were trying to prevent coercion, or were instead just a stealthy way to impose additional burdens on those seeking abortion under the guise of trying to ensure that there's no coercion. But a good-faith effort to prevent women from being coerced into having abortions would find support from liberals.

As to why there's any idea that minors should have choices at all, you drastically oversimplify the legal situation concerning matters other than abortion. We (rightly) don't think parents have unlimited authority over children, and when problematic issues come up, where parents may be using their authority in ways we don't approve of, it is part of our general practice to pay some attention to what the children themselves say they want. And, obviously and sensibly, we tend to pay more attention the older the children are.

I've never met a liberal who thinks that forced abortions in China is unequivocally bad. I've experienced only two reactions to the China-thing:
(1) "Good for them!" This is expressed by those who think abortion is an intrinsic good, and there are indeed a few such folks out there.
(2) "Well, it's not right for China to do, but it's understandable. I mean, they have too many people already, so if you just let everyone have as many kids as they wanted, it would be chaos. Plus, it's bad for the environment and stuff."

I've never heard any liberal--except perhaps for Aaron Boyden above--say that he unequivocally disapproved of China's abortion policy.

I admit, though, that I haven't looked hard.

I'm a liberal. Most (but not all) of my friends are liberals. The people I am introduced to socially tend to be liberals. I'm pretty sure I've never heard anyone express the opinion that abortion is an intrinsic good.

I'm not aware of any liberals who approve of much of anything that goes on in China. The energy policies; the economic policies; the child-labor situation; the population control policies; the censorship; the coerced abortions; the occupation of Tibet; etc. Perhaps I'm not as up on the Chinese situation as I ought to be, but my strong impression is that, from a liberal point of view, the whole place is pretty much an unmitigated disaster.

Forced abortions are as antithetical to the pro-choice position as are prohibitions on abortion. The rationale for the pro-choice position is not that abortions are intrinsically good; it is that no one is in a better position to decide whether abortion is an appropriate course of action than the woman whose body the pregnancy is taking place in.

Hi Mr. Zero,

I can introduce you to one person I know of who thinks abortion is an intrinsic good: meet David Benatar! http://faculty.smu.edu/jkazez/articles/Benatar.htm

I've actually run into several liberals who have mixed feelings about Mao. They think that, yes, he did some bad things, but at the same time he really advanced gender equity in China.

Along *somewhat* similar lines, look at Ben Burgis's answer to the question, "Do you think that the collapse of the Soviet Union was unfortunate, politically and morally speaking?" His final conclusion is it is question on which "reasonable people can disagree."
http://blogandnot-blog.blogspot.com/2010/02/just-for-hell-of-itmy-answers-to-fesers.html

On parental consent generally: the law usually assumes that minor children are subject to their parents' authority in matters medical and otherwise. A child's refusal to obey a parent's lawful instructions can, in some states, result in juvenile prosecution. That said, a court will entertain a lawsuit brought by a child or on behalf of a child to enjoin a parent's decision on some legally cognizable issue, like a medical procedure. Such cases are rare for the simple reason that the child has no practical method of seeking the injunction and adult busybodies of that degree are rare. Usually it comes up in custody battle situations. These are nasty, horrifying court battles that often result in startling judicial overreaching.

On abortion more specifically: most states have laws that criminalize coercing a woman into an abortion. Needless to say that these laws are poorly enforced and not amenable to enforcement to begin with. But because minors are lawfully subject to an adult's direction in most cases, the laws may not always apply to minors---it probably depends on the way the particular state in question interprets the relationship between the various parts of its law.

On liberals: the interlocutors above are correct about what most liberals say about abortion and coercion. Many liberals may even say these things honestly. But liberalism's commitment to women not being compelled into abortions pales in comparison to, e.g., liberalism's commitment to women not being compelled to cook dinner. As for whether liberals really "favor" or merely "tolerate" abortion, the "nobody is in favor of abortion" line is a complete canard, to wit: abortions are provided as a commercial enterprise; some people have to have abortions in order to support the establishment that provides the choice of an abortion to everyone else. So liberals who really care about women being able to have abortions do, in fact, want at least a certain minima of women actually to have them. This, combined with an ideology that is an amalgam of talking points rather than a cohesive conceptualization of human flourishing, leads them to be less than enthusiastic about oversight of almost any kind of the abortion industry.

Hi Bobcat,

Thanks for the link. From what I could glean from a quick scan of the book review, Benatar's position is that in (almost?) every case, having an abortion would have better consequences than not having one. This supports the contention that abortion is extrinsically good, not that it is intrinsically good. Maybe Benatar says it's intrinsically good in the book; I don't know. This is nevertheless not a position mainstream liberals or pro-choicers hold. Furthermore, Benatar's conclusion follows from a bunch of controversial axiological assumptions; it is not entailed by mainstream liberal beliefs.

Burgiss's point had to do with what has happened in the years since the Soviet Union collapse. The point about which reasonable people may disagree is whether the geopolitical situation that followed was worse than the Glasnostified and Perestroika-ized government that collapsed. I don't follow the Russian situation any closer than I do the Chinese, but I don't think things have been going awesome in Russia. Burgiss does not suggest that reasonable people may disagree about the merits of, say, Stalinism. He explicitly denies this.

Your everyday garden-variety pro-choicer is strongly opposed to forced abortions even if you give them hypothetical situations in which you'd have to force people to have abortions in order to prevent a serious catastrophe. And they are very strongly opposed to David Benatar. These are my impressions, anyway, having discussed both of those topics in ethics courses with mostly pro-choice undergrads in the setting of a very liberal college. (When I use Benatar, I'm always upfront about the fact that pretty much everyone thinks Benatar is wrong and the fun is in trying to understand what's wrong with his argument. So, perhaps, my biased presentation influences them against Benatar. But I think they usually understand that unconventional ideas are allowed and encouraged.)

On China, the most common opinion I've encountered among liberals is either a) that forced abortions don't happen there (me--hahahahahahaha) or b) that the situation is greatly exaggerated by "the Right."

In other words, liberals I've encountered on the subject are what is popularly called "in denial." For cause, of course. Wesley J. Smith has turned up a couple of very recent articles lauding China's policy to at least some extent...because it's ostensibly green. Too many people, you see.

And here's a test: How many liberal pro-choicers supported Congress's decision (under Bush) to cut support for the UNFPA because of its support for China's forced abortion policy? If you're opposed to China's policy, you should put your money where your mouth is.

On abortions for minors, the pro-choice crowd uniformly opposes parental consent laws. I've never known an exception to that--a person who calls himself pro-choice but thinks parents should have to consent to their daughter's abortion. So they are already treating abortion as different from other medical procedures, where parental consent is the default assumption and special laws do not have to be written.

My question then is: _Since_ pro-choicers who oppose parental consent laws are _already_ treating abortion differently from other medical procedures, would they _also_ support treating abortion in a special way by requiring the consent of the minor?

I'm also interested in the views of pro-lifers as to the viability of such laws and how they would or could be crafted, whether there are legal roadblocks I'm not thinking of, etc.

The Liberal (aka Cultural Marxist) Thought Process: "When I am weak I talk of freedom (choice), because that is your principle. When I am strong, I talk of death, because that is my principle."

Hi Mr. Zero,

I took Burgis to be offering a consequentialist justification for thinking that the collapse of the USSR was not, overall, a good thing. My real claim, which I should have made clearer, is that I suspect a lot of liberals will offer consequentialist justifications for the reasonableness of things to their left while using deontological language to condemn things to their right. I should think the same thing happens a lot on the right too.

I didn't make this clearer because I'm using new software that prevents me from spending more than sixty minutes on the Internet a day.

Re: Benatar: you're right, he doesn't say that abortion is an intrinsic good. That said, he thinks it's almost always, if not always, a good thing to do. You're also right that his is not a mainstream liberal view, though I've met a lot of libertarians who endorse it.

Really, I think my main problem is that a lot of liberals I've talked to, even when they condemn the China policy, don't react to it with the horror they would react to an American pro-lifer with. That's common enough, I guess; I think a lot of people have much stronger emotional reactions to people who are more directly threatening to their way of life, even when the threat isn't all that grave. I do wonder, though, whether the people I spoke too in the past would react with as little horror to non-US countries with pro-life policies as they do to China's policy.

So: Could this be a new field for pro-life legislation? What would it take to craft state legislation that says that a minor may not be coerced by her parents, guardians, social workers, etc., to have an abortion? Sure, this would involve importing into law the notion that a minor can consent or refuse consent to (this particular) medical procedure. But that notion must already exist in law, at least tacitly, because in states where there is no parental consent requirement, someone must be consenting to the abortions of minor girls. Who is doing it there if not the minor girls themselves?

I think the law would only need to be 2-3 pages long, as it would just have to do the following:

1) Prohibit the parents from coercing an abortion.
2) Provide a felony prison sentence for parents who are guilty of coercing an abortion or even punishing their child for not getting one.
3) Make it an automatic fireable offense for any state employee to make any service or liberty contingent upon the procurement of an abortion.

From a moral point of view, I think that a minor girl is entitled to treat her mother as a cold-blooded killer if she attempts to force an abortion on her. Of course, unlike most pro-lifers, I do not compartmentalize my thinking about whatever superficial differences exist between Murder 1 and abortion, so YMMV...

It ought to be that straightforward, Mike T, but presumably, the way law works, the only way for the provider to cover his tail and verify that he wasn't colluding with the parents in forcing the abortion would be to have the minor sign a form indicating consent. Now, that gets into something sort of odd. It might be claimed that this is impossible as consent given by a minor is legally null. But that _can't_ be the case since in states with no parental consent laws, I can't imagine who is ostensibly consenting to the abortion in those states (where it's being done without the parents' knowledge or consent) if not the minor.

I think the law would need to contain provisions for the punishment of providers who do not make a good-faith effort to ascertain consent on the part of the minor prior to performing the abortion. The provider should also be required to report (after the model of mandatory reporter laws for child abuse) if it appears that the minor is being coerced--and, of course, refuse to perform the abortion.

I'm not an expert on the law of minority, but you shouldn't look to abortion law to nest in a convenient or logical fashion with the rest of the law. One of the biggest problems that abortion has created for the legal profession is the mountain of inconsistencies it has caused us to accommodate within the law. The general rule, to the best of my understanding, is that minors are not competent to consent to anything unless a statute authorizes them to do so (e.g. an age of sexual consent below the age of majority). This is why statutory rape is strict liability: the minor is incapable of giving legally cognizable consent.

So what happens in states without parental consent laws? Who knows? And I don't just mean who knows what happens in fact---I literally mean that it's probably impossible to construct a theoretical explanation for how generally applicable rules about medical procedures apply to the situation.

So it's abundantly evident that we don't treat abortion like other medical procedures. The process for preventing coercion of a minor would need to be a bit more complex than what Mike T suggests (what he actually suggests could be a statute little longer than what he wrote). You would probably need a guardian ad litum to represent the child; you probably don't need to make coercion a felony (though you could)---you could make the proceeding civil in nature. In fact, that would probably work better: crimes are prosecuted at the sole, unreviewable discretion of prosecutors (who have their own incentives that may not include crossing the abortion lobby), while civil proceedings begin and continue at the plaintiff's option. As for trying to sanction parents for punishing their children, that's a sticky wicket---as I alluded above, the law is poorly equipped to undertake that kind of review. Of course, you still have to get over the hurdles of Casey's "substantial obstacle" test as well as the implications from Society of Sisters that parents have wide-ranging authority over their children.

I've seen liberals (and non-liberals) defend the idea, that minors don't need the consent of there parents, in a situation where the adult is working against the interests of the child. Such as in a medical situation, were the parents don't want the child to go through a specific medical treatment that would save there life, because of religious objections to it. So maybe they consider abortion to be of a similar nature.

as well as the implications from Society of Sisters that parents have wide-ranging authority over their children.

Right, this is the kind of thing that makes me wonder if conservatives would worry about getting on board with such legislation--fear that it would undermine parental rights.

But I think abortion could and should be singled out on the pro-life side since it has already been singled out on the pro-abortion side. If they are going to treat it as different from other medical procedures, we should be able to do so as well.

I literally mean that it's probably impossible to construct a theoretical explanation for how generally applicable rules about medical procedures apply to the situation.

I bet you're right. So I wonder what the abortion clinics in such states actually do when confronted with a minor, cash in hand, asking for an abortion, with no parent (sometimes the mother of the baby's father is in on the act). Do they have her sign a consent form? I can't believe that no one signs anything.

Lydia,

The legislature could easily write up an exception to the law there that covers abortions. Legislatures write legislative hacks all the time to address specific needs in the law. With a single paragraph, they could enable a minor to give informed consent on abortions.

Now, if you want to be really evil to the left, get a legislature to do that and get some jackass to pose as a left-wing lawyer who gets that law struck down as unconstitutional. Tie in forced abortions to Roe v Wade and you have a recipe for disaster for them >:)

Right, this is the kind of thing that makes me wonder if conservatives would worry about getting on board with such legislation--fear that it would undermine parental rights.

If it is written specifically for abortion, they should have no reason to oppose it. A parent has no moral right whatsoever to force their child to have an abortion. That is one area where God never gave parents authority over their child.

From a random perusal of several state codes, I get the impression that the below is likely universal. My impression is that folks who make apologies for China on this matter suffer from a certain degree of racism. Most of the folks on the left that I know are opposed to state coerced abortion, as am I. Choice means just that.

I don't see any implications from Society of Sisters.

Delaware,

"§ 1786. Coercion prohibited."

"No parent, guardian, or other person shall coerce a minor to undergo an abortion or to continue a pregnancy. Any minor who is threatened with such coercion may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for relief. The court shall provide the minor with counsel, give the matter expedited consideration, and grant such relief as may be necessary to prevent such coercion. Should a minor be denied the financial support of her parents or legal guardian by reason of her refusal to undergo abortion or to continue a pregnancy, she shall be considered emancipated for purposes of eligibility for assistance benefits."

70 Del. Laws, c. 238, § 1; 70 Del. Laws, c. 186, § 1.;

California, Health and Safety Code,

"123425. The refusal of any person to submit to an abortion or surgical sterilization or to give consent therefor shall not be grounds for loss of any privileges or immunities to which the person would otherwise be entitled, nor shall submission to an abortion or surgical sterilization or the granting of consent therefor be a
condition precedent to the receipt of any public benefits. The decision of any person to submit to an abortion or surgical sterilization or to give consent therefor shall not be grounds for loss of any privileges or immunities to which the person would otherwise be entitled, nor shall the refusal to submit to an abortion or surgical sterilization or to give consent therefor be a condition precedent to the receipt of any public benefits."

"123450. (a) Except in a medical emergency requiring immediate medical action, no abortion shall be performed upon an unemancipated minor unless she first has given her written consent to the abortion and also has obtained the written consent of one of her parents or
legal guardian."

The parental notification part is currently enjoined from being enforced but I assume severability. Also consider that compelling a child to get an abortion would arguably constitute abuse and care givers are required to report abuse. I can imagine circumstances in which a doctor would perform an abortion against a minor's will but I assume prudence and professional ethics would lead to a refusal in most cases.

Also picked at random, Minnesota,

"145.412 CRIMINAL ACTS.
Subdivision 1.Requirements."

"It shall be unlawful to willfully perform an abortion unless the abortion is performed:"

"(4) with the consent of the woman submitting to the abortion after a full explanation of the procedure and effect of the abortion."

"Subd. 2.Unconsciousness; lifesaving."

"It shall be unlawful to perform an abortion upon a woman who is unconscious except if the woman has been rendered unconscious for the purpose of having an abortion or if the abortion is necessary to save the life of the woman."

Well, Al, good research, and I appreciate it, but it looks like it didn't help the girl in Pennsylvania in the main article. If PA has similar laws, I can't help wondering where the prosecutor is, because evidently no one is questioning this girl as to whether the DHS worker actually threatened to take away her one-year-old if she didn't have an abortion. The California one is the closest to what I had in mind--both parental and minor's consent being required. Of course, the ones that refer only to a "woman" (Minnesota) would not seem automatically relevant in the case of a minor.

It would not be the first time that laws on the books did not trickle down to the people they were meant to help. I wonder how many abortion providers in these states understand that this is the state of the law. Certainly there are plenty of parents out there under the impression that it's their decision as to whether their daughter has an abortion and also (see the linked article on Mr. X--apparently a nice, liberal fellow) that various forms of high-pressure tactics are perfectly legitimate.

Well, Al, good research, and I appreciate it, but it looks like it didn't help the girl in Pennsylvania in the main article. If PA has similar laws, I can't help wondering where the prosecutor is, because evidently no one is questioning this girl as to whether the DHS worker actually threatened to take away her one-year-old if she didn't have an abortion.

This is why we need to open up the criminal system to private prosecutions. Prosecutors should not have a monopoly on bringing charges.

I also need to point out a couple of things that have been neglected.

1. The parents in the second example are termed as being "liberal". As this is hardly obvious from the article I guess the abortion alone defines "liberal". So "conservatives" never get abortions?

2. The similar element in both cases taken together is the apparent abuse of authority by a government employee.

In the Philadelphia case this abuse would seem to rise to the commission of a criminal act.

In the Times article there was no indication of any threats but the mother and daughter were clearly coerced into going to a "counselor" of the government employee's choice, which obviously wasn't the choice of the minor's parent. It would be interesting to see what would have happened had the mother asserted her parental rights and pushed back against this abuse of authority.

The former should be prosecuted; both should be fired.

Al, people who work in Crisis Pregnancy Centers tell me that parental coercion of minors into abortion is rampant. I gather, now from additional evidence from that source, that the laws on the books just are unenforceable. That probably explains why I thought they didn't exist! I'm told there was even one Right to Life organization that provided a form that a minor could fill out, hide, and hand to the doctor saying that she was being pressed into the abortion against her will. I will just note for the record that it wasn't Planned Parenthood providing this form, nor have I ever heard any slightest evidence of PP going out of its way to educate its providers to look for signs of coercion, to educate them in the laws regarding this matter, or to warn them that they must not provide an abortion to a minor if they have reason to believe the minor is under coercion. In fact, in a slightly different area but one that is related, one of my pieces here on "choice devours itself" concerned a PP worker who openly stated on her blog that she was providing birth control for a minor (12 years old), brought in by an adult female, whom she suspected was involved in a coercive sexual relationship. But she never reported it or did anything else about it, and she provided the girl with the birth control.

One of my friends once told me that at her old school, a van would regularly stop by every few months and provide transportation to the local "Family Planning" clinic. Never found out if it was the clinic running the van or the school, but it still shocked me. The thing was, this was a high school, with 15, 16, 17 year old girls going to the clinic. Some of the students even had little 'fund-raisers' to pay for the abortions. All of this without the consent of a single figure in authority. Whilst the school staff turned a blind eye towards all of this. When I was in my high school, I couldn't even get a aspirin without having filled out forms in triplicate! We need more pro-life people running our states. I heard one man is running for the Senate in California. Chuck Devore, so I will give him my support. I believe he is running against Boxer? Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness right? Well without life, there is not liberty or happiness.