In a 264-153 vote, the Republican controlled House of Representatives yesterday passed The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA, H.Res.1039). If this bill becomes law, it would make it a federal offense to avoid parental notification by transporting a minor across state lines for the purpose of ending her pregnancy. Republicans assert this bill reflects public sentiment, Democrats argue that grandparents and others would be made criminals if they offer help to a desperate girl without supportive parents.
“It protects minors from exploitation from the abortion industry, it promotes strong family ties and it helps foster respect for state laws,” said the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla.
“Not since the enactment of the Fugitive Slave Act in 1850 have we used the powers of the federal government to enforce the laws of one state on the territory of another,” said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y.
The Teen Endangerment Act will trap minors in a confusing maze of conflicting state laws. A young woman who seeks an abortion in a state other than her home state will be subject to multiple requirements, depending on where she lives, where she seeks the abortion, and whether she travels alone. In some situations, a minor will have to comply with the parental involvement laws of two states in order to obtain an abortion. If a minor who resides in a state that matches the Act’s definition of a “law requiring parental involvement in a minor’s abortion decision” travels with a companion to any other state for an abortion, those who assist her may be liable under the Act, unless she complies with the parental involvement law of her home state. Thus, the parental involvement laws of those 26 states will follow a minor from her state of residence to the state where she obtains the abortion. But if the minor lives in a state with a parental involvement law that does not match that definition (such as those that allow a grandparent to give consent or receive notice), her state’s law won-t follow her when she travels out of state for an abortion.
In addition, if the minor seeks an abortion in any of the 24 states that do not have a parental involvement law matching the Act’s definition (or in the District of Columbia), she will be subject to a federal parental notification and mandatory delay requirement. It will be illegal for the physician to perform an abortion on a minor who resides in another state unless the minor has a court order from her home state authorizing an abortion or her parent is notified and the abortion provider waits — 24 hours if the parent was notified in person or more than 72 hours if the parent was notified by mail — before performing the abortion.
Currently, twenty’six states have parental notification requirements that fit the restrictive definition of CIANA. Nine states allow waivers of notification requirements. An additional nine states do not enforce their parental notification laws due to court rulings or Attorney General opinions. Six states and the District of Columbia do not have parental notification laws.
Other than the obvious, what is most despicable about H.Res.1039?
Chances are slim that the House and the Senate, which approved a more limited version of the bill in July, will devise a compromise they can send to the president before the end of this session of Congress.
But the House vote gives House conservatives something to showcase when they return home next week to campaign for the midterm elections. The interstate abortion bill, long a priority of anti-abortion groups, joined limits on stem cell research among the top items on conservative agendas this year.
AP article here
Additional information about CIANA can be found at NARAL.org
Other House actions taken on 9/26 are here
