OPPOSE THE TEEN ENDANGERMENT ACT (H.R. 476)
DURING TOMORROW'S SUBCOMMITTEE MARK UP
Dear Representative:
Tomorrow, the House Judiciary Committee's Constitution Subcommittee is expected to mark up H.R. 476, the Teen Endangerment Act (called the "Child Custody Protection Act" by its proponents). The ACLU urges you to oppose this cruel and dangerous measure because it would deny teenagers facing unintended pregnancies the assistance of trusted adults, endanger their health, and violate their constitutional rights.
H.R. 476 would make it a federal crime for anyone other than a parent to transport a minor across state lines for an abortion if the minor has not met the requirements of her home state's parental involvement law. Supporters of the bill claim that it will promote family values and protect minors' health. In fact, the bill would do just the opposite.
First, this bill will not increase parental involvement in the abortion decisions of young women. Although most young women who are pregnant and seeking an abortion voluntarily involve a parent in their decision, those who do not often have valid fears that prevent them from communicating with their parents. One third of teenagers who do not tell their parents about a pregnancy have already been the victims of family violence and abuse and fear it will recur. Long-term studies of abusive and dysfunctional families reveal that the incidence of violence escalates when a wife or teenage daughter becomes pregnant. Forcing a young woman to notify her abusive parent of a pregnancy can have dangerous, and even fatal, consequences for her and for other family members. Healthy family communication simply cannot be legislated.
Supporters of H.R. 476 have argued that a judicial bypass of the state's parental involvement requirement -- in which a teen seeks permission from a local judge in lieu of her parents to obtain an abortion -- is a real alternative for those young women who cannot tell a parent about a pregnancy. Unfortunately, for many teenagers living under parental involvement laws, judicial bypasses are not a real alternative. Some teenagers live in regions where the local judges simply never grant bypass petitions. For example, the director of an Indianapolis women's clinic told the New York Times in 1992 that she was not aware of any teenager who had been granted a judicial bypass in that city in the prior six years. Other young women have reason to fear being recognized in local courthouses. Still others simply cannot face revealing intimate details of their lives to a series of strangers in a formal, legal process. For these minors, traveling out of state may be the only alternative to dangerous and desperate acts, such as self-induced or illegal abortions.
Second, this bill will criminalize the actions of caring adults and endanger the health of young women. Instead of helping young women who face unplanned pregnancies, this bill would criminalize the actions of the caring adults who assist these minors in difficult circumstances. The overwhelming majority of young women who obtain abortions involve an adult (a parent, other family member, counselor, clergy member, teacher, or adult friend) in their decision, and are accompanied by someone to the health-care facility. Under H.R. 476, all of these adults (except parents) would become criminals. Ironically, although the bill bars minors from traveling in the company of responsible adults, it leaves them free to travel across state lines alone. Clearly, it is in the best interests of young women for caring, responsible adults to accompany them to an abortion provider and to escort them home after the surgery. By forcing young women instead to travel alone, this bill would threaten their physical and mental well-being.
Third, this bill violates minors' constitutional rights. Contravening principles of federalism and the right to travel from state to state, this bill saddles a young woman with the laws of her home state no matter where she travels in the nation. In the context of restrictive abortion laws, the Supreme Court has already held that the Privileges and Immunities Clause requires states to make abortions available to visitors on the same legal terms under which they make them available to residents. H.R. 476 also imposes criminal penalties on visitors that residents do not face under their own state's laws. It thus discriminates against teenagers within the same state on the basis of their state of origin. Moreover, it infringes on state sovereignty by supplanting the laws of the majority of states, either because they have no law in effect mandating parental involvement for minors seeking abortions or because they have parental involvement laws that do not conform to the definition set forth in the bill. Finally, the bill violates minors' rights to due process because it attempts to dissuade them from exercising a constitutionally protected right by subjecting them to increased danger for exercising that right. It does this by effectively banning minors from traveling with trusted adults while leaving them free to travel alone across state lines -- thus exposing them to more danger than they would face if they traveled with adult assistance.
The ACLU urges you to protect young women's health and civil liberties by voting against the Teen Endangerment Act, H.R. 476.
Sincerely,
Laura W. Murphy
Director
Gregory T. Nojeim
Associate Director and Chief Legislative Counsel