Communication’s the issue with 2

There are few things more complicated than family dynamics. The inner workings of any family unit can be complex, confusing, chaotic and sometimes volatile. So why would anyone try to mandate communication within a family?

Ballot Measure 2 would require parents or guardians be notified before a minor can undergo an abortion. There is an alternative path through the judicial system, should a teen be unwilling or unable to talk to a parent as required by the measure.

This new measure is designed to replace the 1997 Parental Consent Act, which was ruled unconstitutional.

Supporters say it just makes sense: If a teen can’t get her ears pierced without parental consent, why should she be able to get an abortion? Opponents say forcing the teen to deal with a dysfunctional and even dangerous family situation will just make a bad situation worse.

But back to the question: Why would we try to legislate family communication? That’s the argument of those opposed to the measure. They say it will put pregnant teenagers who are from homes where communication is impossible at risk because they won’t be able to navigate the court system for the alternative route.

Opponents write in their official statement of opposition: “This is about an initiative that would put government right in the middle of Alaska’s families at serious and difficult times.”

We disagree; it puts parents there.

It would make sure that most families will be able to deal with this serious and difficult circumstance together. Anyone who has raised a teenager knows that communication can be spotty at best. Parents who use the school district’s Web-based I-Parent system to keep track of their students’ progress in school surely can’t expect to know everything that is going on in their children’s social lives. There’s no I-Parent for the social issues, whether it is partying or pregnancy.

As is common in abortion-measure debates, opponents have taken the exception — the child who has no support in a parent, grandparent or guardian — and made her the test case. The ballot measure recognizes some pregnant teens simply cannot walk into the door of the turbulent family home and say, “Guess what? I’m going to have a baby.” The network of other advocates for children — teachers, extended family, adult friends, social workers — will be there to help the teen through the process of getting consent through judicial means, if she opts for an abortion.

Which brings up another point.

A scared, confused pregnant teen needs to know all of her options. She needs to know the choice she makes will affect her for the rest of her life, no matter what she chooses. Who better to help guide her through the decision process than the family that has loved her for her entire life? Should it be her family, or her friends, her irresponsible sex partner or a doctor who performs abortions left to influence her?

Most teens who become pregnant have at least someone in their family to whom they can turn; someone who, perhaps after some ranting and raving about irresponsibility, will help the girl weigh her options. Can a judge or a social worker provide the same level of compassion?

While no ballot measure can make family dynamics perfect, Alaska law as it stands removes parents from one of the most important decisions any teen girl could be forced to make. The measure won’t put government in our lives, as opponents claim; it will keep the government from circumventing the family unit and allowing a scared, pregnant teen to submit to a major medical procedure without parental (or judicial) consent.

Like a tattoo (for which she would need parental permission), this decision will be with her forever. It is her parents’ right and responsibility to help her make a good one. Ballot Measure 2 will ensure they’ve had the chance to help.