Next week the Senate is scheduled to vote on S. 661, a bill that would make it a federal crime for a person, other than a parent, to transport a minor across state lines for an abortion if the minor had not fulfilled the requirements of her home state's parental involvement law. On behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union, we urge you to oppose S. 661 because it would intrude into intimate and delicate family relationships, interfere with the most basic tenets of federalism, and endanger teenagers' health.  

S. 661 has been heralded as a bill to promote family values. Supporters portray the legislation as an effort to protect the American family from interference by hostile strangers and to ensure communication between parents and their daughters. In fact, however, this legislation would undermine the family unit by criminalizing the caring assistance of family members -- including grandmothers, aunts, sisters, brothers, and cousins -- to whom the young woman has turned for help.  

Even more ominously, the bill could trigger violence in families already plagued by this problem. Most young women who are pregnant and seeking an abortion voluntarily involve a parent in their decision. However, not all young women are able to do so. One third of teenagers who do not tell a parent about a pregnancy have already been the victims of family violence and are fearful that they will face increased abuse if they do tell. Studies show that the incidence of violence in dysfunctional families escalates when a wife or teenage daughter becomes pregnant. Young women who feel forced to notify their abusive parents of their pregnancies therefore face dangerous consequences. By both depriving pregnant teenagers of the assistance of family members they trust and forcing them to confront family members they fear, S. 661 threatens the safety and well-being of young women.  

Proponents of the bill have argued that denying a pregnant young woman the ability to seek assistance from a trusted adult - a grandparent, an older sibling, a religious counselor - is inconsequential because states have judicial bypass procedures to address those situations when a young woman cannot turn to her parents. Yet, the judicial bypass process is not a real alternative for many teenagers living under parental involvement laws. Some teenagers live in regions where the local judges simply never grant bypass petitions, despite rulings by the United States Supreme Court that a minor must be granted bypass petitions if she is mature enough to make her own decision or if the court otherwise concludes that an abortion is in her best interests. Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622 (1979). Others have reason to fear that the confidentiality of the proceeding will be compromised, or that someone at the local courthouse will recognize them. Still others cannot bear the prospect of revealing intimate details of their lives to a series of strangers in a formal, legal process. Therefore, while some young women facing crisis pregnancies can successfully maneuver through a judicial bypass procedure, a significant number are thwarted or thoroughly discouraged from using the procedure.  

S. 661 also contravenes principles of federalism fundamental to the American constitutional system. It is exceptional among federal laws in saddling individuals with the laws of their home state no matter where they travel in the nation. Proponents of the bill claim that it "does not supersede, override or interfere with existing state laws" regarding minors' abortions. Nothing could be further from the truth. S. 661 violates the sovereignty of those states that have invalidated, rejected, or chosen not to enact parental involvement laws -- as Congress defines them -- by rendering those states' policies inapplicable within their own borders.  

Furthermore, this legislation contains an inadequate life exception and absolutely no health exception. The Supreme Court has held that any restriction on abortion must contain an exception to protect both the health and life of the woman. This legislation, however, provides an impermissibly narrow exception when a pregnant young woman's life is endangered and no exception when her health would be harmed if, in either instance, medical care were delayed in order to comply with her home state's parental involvement law. S. 661 therefore endangers teenagers' health and violates clear constitutional commands.  

The American Civil Liberties Union urges you to respect the fragile web of family relationships upon which pregnant teenagers depend in a crisis and to protect the health of young women by opposing the passage of S. 661.  

Sincerely,  

Laura W. Murphy
Director

Kathryn Engustian
Legislative Counsel