Underage abortions: A perspective on parents’ rights

Current state law does not require parental consent for underage abortions, as was recently emphasized by Planned Parenthood’s (ultimately unsuccessful) recent partnership with SoCal school district Norwalk-La Mirada USD. While that chapter has concluded, conflict between parents, lawmakers, and public schools persists. Just-passed AB 1940 will fund abortion clinics in local CA’n public schools. Olivia Summers—Associate Counsel of the American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ)—speaks with Opp Now about the Norwalk-La Mirada USD experience, CA’n law on underage abortions, and her view of parents’ constitutional rights. To receive daily updates of new Opp Now stories, click here.

Opportunity Now: California’s Norwalk-La Mirada USD recently considered a contract to partner with the organization Planned Parenthood (hereafter PP).

PP would have operated a clinic on campus at John Glenn High School. This clinic didn’t mention performing abortions, but they would refer to abortion providers (though the contract cheekily reminds that minors don’t need parental permission to obtain an abortion in our state).

Critics of this failed partnership felt that parents’ rights were being discarded. Do you think they have a cogent legal argument?

Olivia Summers: Parental rights are protected by the U.S. Constitution and have been recognized by the Supreme Court in several different cases. This is because the family is the foundational building block of society; a strong family unit translates into a strong society. When the government tries to encroach upon parents’ rights, it is stepping into overreach.

Parents have the right to the direct upbringing and education of their children. When the government is interested in educating children and not letting parents personally manage their upbringing, you should be concerned. I find that alarming.

And there’s a huge list beyond reproductive issues where parents are being left out of the loop on education/procedures, and they’re rightly concerned.

ON: You argue that minors should not be legally permitted to obtain abortions without their parents’ consent, as they are in multiple states such as California. Why?

OS: First, this is about information. Children don’t have the capacity to make decisions that are best for the long-term future. Even considering a wise child, they don’t have sufficient life experience and the wisdom it brings to make life-altering decisions such as abortion.

With PP especially, we should be concerned: They’re fighting all kinds of informed consent laws around the country. I’ve testified in support of bills in Maryland that would increase the amount of information given to women before performing an abortion. PP fights the proposal every time. If they believe in choice, why are they afraid of informing women about their choices? It’s because the only choice at PP is abortion (they don’t do prenatal care). Children are being told, “This is what you should do,” and they’re given limited information.

Second, this is about the parent’s positions in their child’s life. Parents are the best source of protection and support for children. They should be the most informed about their kids, and they know them the best. There are, of course, broken families, but there’s extended family. Parents have a huge role in making decisions for their children’s welfare, and the government shouldn’t be able to strip that right away because they disagree with their choices.

Third, on the other side of the issue, I do post-abortive healing counseling. I see the spiritual, emotional, and physical effects that abortion has long-term on women. It’s devastating. Abortion has a toll on women and girls; it’s not just “done and over with.”

ON: Let’s dive into AB 1184. Signed by Gov. Newsom into law just last year, this bill limit parents’ access to insurance records on “sensitive treatment” such as abortion, even if their child is a minor and/or the parent is the primary insurance holder. Is this a legitimate legal path for the reproductive rights movement?

OS: This bill is highly problematic. How do you force a person to pay for something without knowledge of what they’re paying for? Not only does this law take the right of parents to know what their children are doing, but it also tries to hide any evidence of it. It sounds potentially unconstitutional to me—a misunderstanding of what confidentiality means.

ON: For schools and districts where PP has succeeded in partnering, what can concerned parents do?

OS: After the Dobbs ruling, pregnancy resource centers (PRCs) have been the main target of the pro-abortion side. This is because the services they provide are highly effective.

From a legal perspective, if school is open to partnerships with 501(c)(3) organizations, they have to provide space for any groups—including PRCs and pro-life groups—to come on the same basis and have access to students. If there’s a district contract with PP, local PRCs can also reach out to schools to create a contract and seek that equal opportunity. If PP has a table set up in the school to provide abortion information, PRCs can set up information tables in school hallways.

When such an opportunity is denied, the PRCs should reach out to our organization (ACLJ), and we’ll take the action necessary to make sure the PRCs have equal access. That could possibly look like us sending a demand letter to the school/district.

Finally, the outrage generated based on this attempted contract between PP and the school district really showed the power of voicing concerns and opposition. That’s a positive side for parents in general.

I encourage parents to be informed about similar school decisions and speak up about them. It’s all about communication. The other side is very loud; it’s time for us to be very loud, too. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. That needs to be us fighting radical abortion and testifying against bills.

California may seem beyond help to parents, but local parents certainly aren’t powerless. If they keep talking about these problems, they’ll eventually become the new issues that go to the Supreme Court.

Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity