The Situation
On Thursday, July 10, 2008, Congressman Trent Franks and Congresswoman Iliana Ros-Leightenen held a public forum discussing the Federal Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA), HR 1063. CIANA would prohibit the illegal transportation of minor girls across state lines — unbeknownst to parents — in order to circumvent abortion parental notification laws in a girl’s home state.
This bipartisan legislation received overwhelming support in Congress. CIANA passed the House of Representatives by large margins in 1998, 1999, 2002, 2005 and 2006. In January 2007, CIANA passed the House by a vote of 270 to 157. Currently, CIANA has the bi-partisan support of 130 Members of Congress, and may likely pass the House again.
CIANA is also strongly supported by the American public. For example, in a CBS News poll, 80% of respondents favored a requirement that one parent receive notification of their minor daughter’s abortion. A Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll showed that 78% of participants favored parental notification for minor abortions; 64% of those favoring parental involvement identified themselves as “pro-choice.”
Despite overwhelming support by both Congress and the American public for legislative action, the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties (of which Rep. Franks is a Ranking Member) has refused to respond to multiple requests to hold a hearing on CIANA. Rep. Franks requested such a hearing this past April, and then again in May. Unfortunately, the Subcommittee refused to even send Rep. Franks a reply to his letters. So, Rep. Franks took the initiative to hold a public forum on July 10, 2008 in order to discuss CIANA.
CIANA Protects Minors and Parents, and Fosters Respect for State Laws
Parental consent is required for a minor girl to go on a school field trip, participate in contact sports, get a tattoo, or participate in a sex education program. In Maryland, eleven school systems require a parent’s note before sunscreen can be applied to a minor student. If parental notification and consent is required for these, how much more then, is parental notification and consent needed for an abortion on a child?
The majority of the states have recognized that abortion is a serious and invasive medical procedure, and have enacted some form of parental involvement law that requires at least one parent to be given notice or give consent before their minor daughter receives an abortion. Without parental notification and/or parental consent, a parent will be denied the opportunity to give the abortion provider vital information on the child’s medical history and pertinent family medical history. The parent(s) will also be unable to ensure that the child receives routine post-abortion care and obtains follow-up treatment and examinations. Parents would not have adequate knowledge to recognize and respond to any post-abortion complications that may develop (including complication that can be lethal if left untreated).
One of the purposes of CIANA is to protect girls from sexual predators. Teenage pregnancies often occur as a result of predatory practices of substantially older men. These sexual predators seek to destroy the evidence of their criminal conduct – that is, the pregnancy – by taking girls they have impregnated across state lines for secret abortions that the girls’ parents will never know about. Many men have avoided criminal liability by transporting girls across state lines in order to circumvent the protective laws of the girls’ home state. Not only does the secret, out-of-state abortion eliminate critical evidence of the criminal conduct, it allows the abuse to continue undetected. CIANA seeks to protect victims of statutory rape, abuse and incest from being coerced into abortions and from becoming victims a second time.
As the illegal transportation of girls across state lines to circumvent state laws is an inter-state issue (as opposed to an intra-state issue), only a federal law such as CIANA could ensure that parents have the opportunity to protect their daughters from sexual predators who would victimize them further. Indeed, the Supreme Court has long held that the transportation of persons across state lines is a form of inter-state commerce, and can be legitimately regulated by Congress under the Commerce Clause.
CIANA reinforces existing state laws by cutting off a major way in which sexual predators have thwarted sexual crime laws and parental notification/consent laws. It also cuts off a major way in which abortion clinics have thwarted state sexual abuse reporting laws. In doing so, CIANA directly fosters a general respect for existing state laws.
CIANA is Constitutional
Roe v. Wade established a right to abortion prior to viability, and after viability for maternal life and health. It did NOT legalize the right for persons other than a parent or guardian to decide what is best for a child. It did NOT legalize a right for sexual predators to cover up their crimes. It did NOT legalize a right for strangers to place children in potentially fatal situations.
CIANA does not impose an obstacle on a minor entering or leaving any state. Nor does it prohibit anyone from accompanying minors to obtain abortions. Rather, it merely requires those assisting minors to obtain an abortion to comply with the laws of the girls’ home state. Nothing more, nothing less. CIANA is a constitutional piece of bi-partisan legislation that would be unquestionably upheld by any court.
Conclusion
During the public forum on CIANA, pro-life activist Missy Smith stated:
“I have seen many young girls…being pushed, pulled, screamed at, threatened and bullied into abortion facilities…and I am there when they come out broken and in tears…. Our young people deserve protection under the law.”
It is sad that such a protective, life-affirming legislation that has overwhelming bi-partisan support has been denied even a hearing. It is high time that legislators working on the federal level wake up and give CIANA proper attention. Children and parents deserve nothing less.
