The measure in question requires that doctors notify the parents of girls who are attempting to obtain an abortion; there are provisions for judicial waivers, and consent is not required (just notice).
The written notice shall be delivered by the physician or the physician’s agent to the parent, either personally or by certified mail addressed to the parent at the parent’s last known address with return receipt requested and restricted delivery to the addressee. If notice is provided by certified mail, a copy of the written notice shall also be sent at the same time by first class mail to the parent.
What's the point to this? If it's being sent by certified mail already, why require it to be sent a second time by normal mail? Is it (a) certified mail is untrustworthy? (b) some people will ignore certfied mail? (c) certified mail is easier for the girl to notice, intercept, and divert?
That said, this is wierd but harmless.
The other profoundly wierd provision isn't.
Any person who performs an abortion on an unemancipated minor and in so doing knowingly or negligently fails to comply with the provisions of this section shall be liable for damages in a civil action brought by the unemancipated minor, her legal representative, or by a parent wrongfully denied notification. The time for commencement of the action shall be within four years of the date the minor attains majority or four years of the date a parent wrongfully denied notification discovers or reasonably should have discovered the failure to comply with this section, whichever period expires later.
This makes it a civil offense to perform an abortion on a girl without notifying the parent of the girl, rather than a criminal offense. Which means the parents can sue you, but the state can't imprison or fine you; if we're going to have this law, I like that provision. (although, I think that a girl who persuades a doctor to perform an illegal abortion without notice should then not be allowed to sue him for doing so; that's horribly inequitable).
But the rules for the statute of limitation are bizarre.
The statute of limitations is a rule which says that even if someone being sued (or prosecuted) is guilty, that suit or prosecution must be brought within a set period of time. The period of time is usually some number of years after the event which gives rise to the lawsuit (in this case, performing the abortion without notification).
This statute of limitations says the parents of a girl, on whom an abortion was performed without notice being provided, must bring their suit within four years of the last of these three events:
(a) the girl turning 18
(b) the parents finding out that an abortion was performed without their notice
(c) the parents reasonably should have found out than an abortion was performed without their notice.
At first I was puzzled about this because I don't understand how we know when a parent should reasonably have found out that an abortion was performed without notice. (Since the fact that the statute of limitations has expired is something the *Defendant* must prove, having a hard to define standard for it hurts the doctor and helps the parents who want to sue). But it's worse than that. Since the statute of limitations begins to run when the last of these happens, the authors of the bill must be envisioning a time point which is (a) after the girl turns 18 and (b) after her parents actually find out that she had an abortion and they weren't notified.
WTF?
Why should there be some point *after* actual discovery, and after the girl becomes an adult, at which the statute of limitations has not yet begun to run?
The written notice shall be delivered by the physician or the physician’s agent to the parent, either personally or by certified mail addressed to the parent at the parent’s last known address with return receipt requested and restricted delivery to the addressee. If notice is provided by certified mail, a copy of the written notice shall also be sent at the same time by first class mail to the parent.
What's the point to this? If it's being sent by certified mail already, why require it to be sent a second time by normal mail? Is it (a) certified mail is untrustworthy? (b) some people will ignore certfied mail? (c) certified mail is easier for the girl to notice, intercept, and divert?
That said, this is wierd but harmless.
The other profoundly wierd provision isn't.
Any person who performs an abortion on an unemancipated minor and in so doing knowingly or negligently fails to comply with the provisions of this section shall be liable for damages in a civil action brought by the unemancipated minor, her legal representative, or by a parent wrongfully denied notification. The time for commencement of the action shall be within four years of the date the minor attains majority or four years of the date a parent wrongfully denied notification discovers or reasonably should have discovered the failure to comply with this section, whichever period expires later.
This makes it a civil offense to perform an abortion on a girl without notifying the parent of the girl, rather than a criminal offense. Which means the parents can sue you, but the state can't imprison or fine you; if we're going to have this law, I like that provision. (although, I think that a girl who persuades a doctor to perform an illegal abortion without notice should then not be allowed to sue him for doing so; that's horribly inequitable).
But the rules for the statute of limitation are bizarre.
The statute of limitations is a rule which says that even if someone being sued (or prosecuted) is guilty, that suit or prosecution must be brought within a set period of time. The period of time is usually some number of years after the event which gives rise to the lawsuit (in this case, performing the abortion without notification).
This statute of limitations says the parents of a girl, on whom an abortion was performed without notice being provided, must bring their suit within four years of the last of these three events:
(a) the girl turning 18
(b) the parents finding out that an abortion was performed without their notice
(c) the parents reasonably should have found out than an abortion was performed without their notice.
At first I was puzzled about this because I don't understand how we know when a parent should reasonably have found out that an abortion was performed without notice. (Since the fact that the statute of limitations has expired is something the *Defendant* must prove, having a hard to define standard for it hurts the doctor and helps the parents who want to sue). But it's worse than that. Since the statute of limitations begins to run when the last of these happens, the authors of the bill must be envisioning a time point which is (a) after the girl turns 18 and (b) after her parents actually find out that she had an abortion and they weren't notified.
WTF?
Why should there be some point *after* actual discovery, and after the girl becomes an adult, at which the statute of limitations has not yet begun to run?
| < Books I've Read This Year 2008 | The mood is about to . . . > |
