A Traumatic Approach

Once again state government is being asked to regulate something intensely personal and emotional--the ability of a pregnant teen-ager to obtain an abortion. The California Assembly and now the Senate Health Services Committee have approved a bill, AB 2274, that would make it illegal for physicians to perform abortion surgery on women under the age of 18 without the consent of their parents or, failing that, the approval of a juvenile-court judge. Any physician who provided this unauthorized treatment could be fined up to $1,000 or sentenced to up to 30 months in prison.

Physicians say that most girls do consult their families before seeking a medical abortion, but often not those whose relations with families make it pointless to ask. These are the teen-agers to whom this legislation is directed. The bill professes to relieve a young woman of the trauma associated with abortion. But it can do nothing but prolong it by subjecting her to the anxiety of turning this momentous decision over to the alien world of the judicial system.

The bill attempts to smooth the way of the court action by setting deadlines for the decision and, if necessary, an appeal. It appears to be a speedy procedure that would not endanger the already-pregnant teen-ager. But overcrowded courtrooms and cumbersome legal proceedings could lead to delays endangering not only a young woman’s physical health but her mental health as well. The waiting, the uncertainty and the powerlessness of knowing that this decision and its consequences--with which she alone would live--would rest not in her hands but in those of an impersonal judge could not but compound the emotional scars.

The danger is that these fearful young women would resort to the historic terror of underground abortion mills rather than wade through a judicial system in which the eventual verdict would be unknown.

After approval by the Senate Appropriations Committee, AB 2274 will be introduced to the full Senate, probably next week. Similar anti-abortion measures have in the past been approved by the Senate. Now that the Assembly has thrown its support to the parental-consent measure, Senate approval will no doubt follow.

But, independent of the controversial belief by many that personal and ethical problems can be solved through legislation, the bill is financially flawed. Although it is estimated that the measure would cost taxpayers an annual $1.1 million for added court expenses, it contains no provision for this funding.

Proponents of the legislation call these young women “children” who are incapable of deciding what to do with their bodies. Whether children or teen-agers, that decision was made when they chose to become sexually active. This measure would no more likely prevent the teen-ager who wants an abortion from obtaining one than would a law that prohibited sexual relations prevent pregnancy.

The California Senate must look beyond the emotional issue of parental rights and consider the teen-agers who must live with the tragic consequences of a mistake made much too soon. These are decisions that should be made not by a dispassionate judicial system but by the one person for whom the consequences will be lifelong.