Wash. lawmakers revise parental notification bill
OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - After facing criticism that a bill purporting to mandate parental notification for minors seeking abortions would also place long-existing abortion rights in the state at risk, Republican lawmakers on Monday introduced revisions narrowing the bill's scope.
In its original form, Senate Bill 5156 would have repealed two laws passed by voter initiative in 1991 codifying in state law that women have the right to seek abortions and that doctors have the right to perform them.
By extension, the bill would have made doctors performing abortions in the state guilty of a class C felony, punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000, in the event that federal laws allowing abortion are reversed.
Republican Sen. Mike Padden, of Spokane Valley, a bill sponsor, said that the state's code revisers office, a non-partisan body that helps draft and review bills to make sure they are consistent with existing statutes, recommended that the two laws be repealed in order to avoid any possible conflict with a new definition of abortion contained in the bill.
That definition, which Padden described as "broader and more-up-to date" than the state's current one, explicitly included the use of any drug, substance or device with the intent to end a pregnancy and "with reasonable likelihood cause the death of the unborn child."
In the revised version of the bill, both the new definition of abortion and the repeal of existing law are eliminated.
In an email to Padden, Code Reviser K. Kyle Thiessen said that repealing one of the laws would have recast a third law to criminalize doctors performing abortions.
Thiessen wrote that "nothing in your bill request shows any intent to expand the criminal penalty" for performers of abortion. The bill's doing so "was an unintentional drafting error," he added.
Padden said that it was never his plan that the bill do anything more than require pregnant minors to consult with a parent before being eligible for an abortion.
"It's unfortunate there was a drafting error, but it's been corrected and it's part of the legislative process," said Padden.
The bill will receive a public hearing in the Senate's Law and Justice Committee, chaired by Padden, on February 6.
Elaine Rose, CEO of Planned Parenthood Votes Northwest, said the requirement for parental notifications for abortions are not helpful to pregnant teens in crisis.
She also expressed skepticism that the overreaching language of the original bill originated with the code reviser.
"That seems like a pretty big drafting error to me," Rose said.
___
Follow AP Writer Jonathan Kaminsky at http://www.twitter.com/jekaminsky
Copyright 2013 The Associated Press.
I support parental notification, except in the case of an existing parental abuse claim or a claim of incest (both situations are rare, fortunately).
Â
I note two things:
1) This is an attempt to overturn items PASSED BY THE VOTERS. If this were a real attempt to realign with new voter sensibilities, this would have been referred to the voters. That means it is really an effort to enact a partisan extremist agenda that doesn't have a majority in the state behind it.
Â
2) This was a thinly disguised effort (by the "drafting error") to criminalize the Doctor. That, according to the national Right-to-Life groups, is the gold standard in their efforts.
I just want to make sure I have this right....
Â
In WA state public schools, in order to give a student an Asprin, Tylenol or any other OTC medications, the school must first receive permission from a parent, and the medication must be administered by a licensed nurse, or an employee who has received procedural instructions from a physician or nurse; RE:Â RCW 28A.210.260 and 270.Â
Furthermore, a student who brings asprin or any other OTC medications on campus must notify staff, and receive permission to even have it in their possession while on school grounds.Â
 The logic behind these laws is the potential of unknown physiological reactions (allergies) that a student may have to such medications that could be potentially life threatening.Â
Â
A student who wishes to have an abortion can do so without parental knowledge, concent or participation. Even though women having abortions experience higher than normal rates of depression, and the procedure can result in a myriad of different life threatening medical complications.Â
Â
Yeah... THAT seems like sound reasoning.Â
Â
Â
 @MarkKpicÂ
Yeah but no school would offer any medication that would cause a miscarriage (i.e. abortion) for any reason parent's permission or not. You are comparing two utterly unrelated things.
Â
No nurse at any school would perform this procedure.
Â
By this example you are saying that a school has the same medical support to perform minor outpatient surgery, prescribe any medication and perform on a regular basis, "heroic" life sustaining actions like revival, breathing assistance and even possibly trauma stabilization.
Â
A kid might bring aspirin. They might bring any number of medications, but the school won't give it to them without permission because the school IS A SCHOOL. A doctor might do just that without parentâs approval if they felt it was best medically for the patient.
Â
This law does not just cover schools buy all medical facilities. So a doctor might be able to perform any other life saving procedure to save a minor EXCEPT an abortion under this law.
Â
The following could (and in a couple of states already HAS) happen(ed)
Â
Doc: âI am going to perform brain surgery and change your childâs mind to save their life with or without your permission.â
Â
Doc:âI will let your child bleed out because to save them I would need to perform an action to end a pregnancy you did not know about. But since you object, I canât and both will die anyway.â
Â
Â
 @MarkKpic I think the reasoning is that the girl seeking the abortion might be a victim of incest and so by notifying the parents you might be notifying the abusers.
Â
Granted, not every girl seeking an abortion will be an incest victim. It's a tough balancing act between victims' rights and parents' rights.
 @Max Quinn I think the 'reasoning' is that the "pro-choice" groups within the state have significantly more political clout because of the states demographics. The issue begins and ends with the "pro-life" vs "pro-choice" campaign posters.Â
 @Max Quinn  @MarkKpic >"Sometimes it is more than just politics."
Â
In some rare instances, I would agree. In this instance, however, I would not.Â
Â
The whole abortion 'discussion' has aligned its self (with cause, and intent) along political ideological lines. Your post down below eloquently demonstrates the fact. Beyond that, the microscopic fraction of a percentage of instances such as that you describe are thrown up as reasoning to sway those still undecided.Â
Â
There could easily be controls put in place to involve counciling and/or legal resources to defend any abused children, so quit with the heart-string pulling incidence attempts at creating 'logic'. Upsurping the fundamental right of a parent to know when their child is being administered a medical procedure based on a fraction of a percent hypotheticals is EXACTLY the type of politicizing that I'm referring to. It's a blatant PR move based in emotional appeal rather than rational discussion.Â
 @MarkKpic Not really. I mean, yes in WA the pro-choice lobby is stronger than it is in Kansas and that does affect the laws that get passed.
Â
But, the incest victim is not a hypothetical. The pro-choicers do have a point. As does the other side. If my daughter were to get an abortion, I want to know. But my desire to know has to be balanced against the needs of a pregnant incest victim.
Â
Sometimes it is more than just politics.
So minors can't get ANY care in an Emergency room without gardian approval, but can get abortions .......Â
Â
that is very wrong IMHO
 @kramrÂ
Â
No they can.
Â
Any procedure deemed critical can be done without parental approval. it happens all the time.
Â
if there is time, doctors will consult (CONSULT) a parent, but if the patient is emergent or if the doctor believes that the child will suffer needlessly without it, in Oregon the doctor can petition to have the parental rights removed from the parent and perform a procedure even at the objection of parents.
Â
This does not happen often, and most often when the parent is indigent (âI canât afford thatâ).
Â
That's right Republicans! Keep hammering away on abortion. If possible, bring rape into the discussion. The voter's will love it!
 @Max Quinn Don't forget to use children as props in the pro rallies.
 @Mipsfer  @Max Quinn Done! Does the pro-life crowd ever use kids or pictures of kids at their rallies?
 @Max Quinn  @MipsferÂ
Â
Both crowds do.
Â
Pro life folks parade their children around wear sandwich signs with aborted fetuses.
Â
Pro choice parents parade their children around holding signs like "My mommy wants to let me decide" and such.
Â
If they thought people would respond to puppies, either (or both) groups would bring those too.
Â
Â