[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 124 (Thursday, September 28, 2006)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1877]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               CHILD INTERSTATE ABORTION NOTIFICATION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. CHRISTOPHER SHAYS

                             of connecticut

                    in the house of representatives

                     Wednesday, September 27, 2006

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 403, the Child 
Custody Protection Act.
  I support encouraging--not requiring--parental notification for 
minors seeking contraceptive services. This legislation proposes a 
variety of new mandates on women, families, and doctors.
  For example, the bill forces doctors to learn and enforce 49 other 
states' laws, under the threat of fines and prison sentences. In many 
cases, it forces young women to comply with two states' parental-
involvement mandates. It also requires a doctor to notify a young 
woman's parents in person, in another state, before abortion services 
can be provided.
  Finally, in some cases, even if a parent travels with his or her 
daughter to obtain abortion care, the doctor must still give ``notice'' 
to the parent and wait 24 hours before providing the care. In such 
cases, this requirement acts as a built-in mandatory delay--which makes 
it more difficult logistically, more expensive, and more burdensome all 
around for the family. It may even endanger the young woman's health.
  Not only does S. 403 include these negative provisions, it also could 
be found unconstitutional for three reasons. First, it contains no 
health exception.
  Second, in some cases, it offers young women no judicial bypass. 
Judicial bypass is required by the Supreme Court and allows another 
responsible adult to consent instead of a parent.
  Finally, it forces states to enforce other states' laws by forcing 
individuals to carry their home state laws with them when they travel.
  Every parent hopes that a child confronting a crisis will seek the 
advice and counsel of those who care for her most and know her best. In 
fact, even in the absence of laws mandating parental involvement, many 
young women do turn to their parents when they are considering an 
abortion. One study found that 61 percent of parents in states without 
mandatory parental consent or notice laws knew of their daughter's 
pregnancy.
  In a perfect world, all children would have open, clear communication 
with their parents. Unfortunately, this is not the case in every 
family. I believe this legislation would dissuade young women from 
turning to other trusted adults, such as an aunt or older sibling, in a 
time of need.
  While this bill might be well intentioned, it is a deeply flawed 
attempt to curb young women's access to private, confidential health 
services under the guise of protecting parental rights.
  I would like to see abortion remain safe and legal, yet rare. 
Whatever one's views on abortion, I believe we all can recognize the 
importance of preventing unintended pregnancies. When women are unable 
to control the number and timing of births, they will increasingly rely 
on abortion. Making criminals of advisors, however, is simply not the 
way to accomplish this goal.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

                          ____________________