In 2007, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the Alaska Parental Consent law regarding a minor child’s abortion was unconstitutional. In that ruling, the court explicitly stated that a parent notification law rather than the consent requirement was a constitutionally acceptable lesser restrictive means of achieving the state compelling interests. I quote from that decision: “We determine that the Constitution permits a statutory scheme which ensures that parents are notified so that they can be engaged in their daughters’ important decisions in these matters.”
Also, the court explained why a parental notification statute as opposed to a parental consent statute is constitutionally acceptable: “There exists a less burdensome and widely used means of actively involving parents in their minor children’s abortion decisions: parental notification.”
Based on the court’s 2007 decision, a notification requirement was put before the public and approved by voters in 2010.
On July 22, 2016, the Alaska Supreme Court by a 4-1 vote ruled that the Alaska notification law was unconstitutional. What this tells us, of course, is that the court will use the privacy and equal protection clauses of our state constitution whenever and wherever necessary to protect and promote abortion. It is clear that when abortion is the subject, everything changes and all bets are off. The court’s decision demonstrates the unique position that abortion holds in our society where common sense and traditional values are rejected.
The justices making the decision expressed their support of parental rights but that was apparently only an attempt to provide cover for the decision that followed. Their decision makes a mockery of the idea that parents have the right and responsibility to oversee the care of their children. How have we come to the point where common sense is simply rejected? A big part of the problem is the result of attempting to defend the indefensible. It starts with the lie that we don’t know when human life begins and that it is a “constitutional right” of a mother to take the life of a child in the womb. This requires sematic gymnastics to support the desired outcome which in turn requires rejection of traditional values. It is inevitable that decisions based on a false premise will be flawed; in other words, garbage in, garbage out.
The idea of allowing children to make serious medical decisions without parental guidance runs counter to everything we know about the importance of the parent-child relationship in child up-bringing. Parental involvement in a minor child’s abortion decision is good public policy. It protects the child and supports the concept of the family where parents are responsible for the care of their children. An unwanted pregnancy is precisely the time a child needs parental protection. Confused and worried, the girl may need protection from the father or abortion providers who have no concern about the meaning and ramification of an abortion that is literally a life-and-death decision with the potential for lifelong psychological and/or physical harm.
Saying that the Alaska Constitution does not allow the state to protect the parents’ right to be involved in a serious medical procedure on a minor child is a travesty. The problem is not with our constitution, the problem is with the judges on the court.
• Sidney Heidersdorf is president of Alaskans for Life, Inc.
