Send us some feedback!
| It is a matter of strict policy in Upper Valley schools that they will not dispense or allow children under the age of 18 to have Tylenol or other medications without permission from their parents or physician. Children are not trusted to self-medicate even with Tylenol. On the other hand, a school may counsel, encourage, and allow a 14 year-old girl to get an abortion without her parents’ permission or notification. Let me make this clear: a 14 year-old girl may not take two Tylenol without her parents’ guidance or permission but she may decide to terminate her pregnancy by opting for a surgical procedure. The law is clear that parents are responsible for the medical, dental, and emotional health of their children and any other matter involving a child’s welfare and upbringing. Under normal circumstances, physicians may not perform surgical procedures on a minor without parental permission. Abortion is the sole exception! So how did this aberration happen? When the supreme court ruled in Roe v. Wade that having an abortion is a constitutional right, they were trying to make a statement about a woman’s right over her own body (and over the body of the baby inside of her). But this decision requires a precise definition of what a woman is. The courts have ruled ever since that at least relative to abortion, a woman is any female regardless of age who is able to get pregnant. It is left to each state to regulate this. Furthermore, by defining this as a fundamental constitutional right the court has allowed abortion rights to trump many other important considerations like family autonomy, parental rights and responsibility, and protecting young people from physical and emotional harm. This is why the court’s ruling has been a slippery slope – they have undermined the foundation of all laws limiting our right to choose, no matter how young and immature we may be. So we have a bizarre conundrum. A child cannot be trusted to take a Tylenol for a headache without parental guidance but she can be trusted to decide about having an abortion. And there is another obvious contradiction. In most states, VT and NH included, it is illegal for a minor (under 16 in NH) to engage in sexual intercourse. It is “statutory rape” regardless of mutual consent and the premise is that a minor is not emotionally equipped to make a decision that requires more maturity. Minors are vulnerable to manipulation, exploitation, and emotional pressure from older and more experienced people. While everyone is accorded a measure of control over their own body there are limits. We do not allow minors to use drugs indiscriminately nor do we allow them to smoke tobacco, drink alcoholic beverages, or engage in sexual intercourse. They are ripe for exploitation to their harm and are not expected to have the maturity to make these important decisions. So minors are not allowed to engage in sexual intercourse because they are deemed too young and immature to make good decisions. But they are not deemed too young or immature to decide about having an abortion. If a 13 year-old girl is considered a woman mature enough to decide about having an abortion then why is she not mature enough to decide to have sex, consume alcohol, and take Tylenol? What is to prevent us from repealing important laws against statutory rape, drug use, alcohol consumption, and the like? Indeed, it would seem that the courts may decide to mandate such a change! Do we really want the court’s ruling in Roe v. Wade, about which the majority of Americans have grave misgivings, to overrule our laws on parental rights and responsibilities and our laws protecting our children? Why is the right to abortion such an obsession? |
|
by Dr. J. Patrick Curtis, Senior Pastor |
Send us some feedback!