As can be expected, this law is causing quite a bit of controversy. There are no exceptions in the law for teens who have suffered from rape, incest of threats of physical violence, nor are there provisions in case of medical emergencies. Therefore, if a teen happens to be the child of a single father and a victim of incest as well, she will no longer be permitted to have an abortion unless said father agrees, which is an uncomfortable situation at best.
Pro-life politicians are saying that his law has been put in place in order to protect the rights of parents to be involved in their children’s lives. They also claim that the wording of the law is based on “common sense.” It becomes easy to see, once you look at the law, that the sense involved is far from common. It is, in fact, restrictive and inflexible to an extreme that places many pregnant teens in possible danger.
The biggest protest against the bill comes because of the lack of exceptions. Teens will no doubt look for “back-room” alternatives for abortion, such as inducing miscarriage via drugs or finding unscrupulous doctors to perform the procedures. This can potentially lead to serious health complications or even death.
There are also several other issues revolving around the strictness of the law. If a teen lives outside their parents’ homes, then what do they do? What if contacting their parents invites dangerous circumstances? This does not even begin to address the problem of homeless teens who may be hundreds of miles away from their parents or, in many cases, not even know who their parents are.
Once again, pro-life advocates have become frustrated with their inability to ban abortions out-right and responded by passing a law which limits abortion as much as possible. I am afraid that they may only begin to understand the consequences of this law once the damage has already been done and lives have been lost.