Abortion Surveillance—United States, 2001 View PDF 350KB In 2001, 853,485 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC. This total represents a 0.5 percent decrease from the 857,475 abortions reported in 2000. When the same 48 reporting areas are compared to total number of abortions, the total also dropped 0.5 percent between 2000 and 2001. The abortion ratio for 2001 increased minimally since 2000. The ratio was 246 legal induced abortions per 1,000 live births in 2001, compared to 245 in 2000. In 2001, the abortion rate was 16 per 1,000 women aged 15-44 years of age, the same as in 2000. For 1997 through 1999, the abortion rate was 17 per 1,000 women in this age range when comparing the same 48 states. As in the past, a higher number of abortions were obtained by white women, unmarried women, and women under 25 years of age. More than half (59%) of the reported legal induced abortions were performed during the first 8 weeks of gestation; 88% were performed within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Source: MMWR, November 26, 2004/Vol.53/No.SS-9.
posted
OH. Okay. Thanks, ElJay, that makes a ton more sense. The CDC reports ~20% of all abortions are performed on women <=19 years of age, at least as of 1991 ...still digging for newer study)...
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Investigators of any crime against children tend to be extra careful toward the victims. Minors are not required to testify live in court, though they may have to testify privately with a judge and/or give a video tape testimony.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know, mack. But I'm hoping at least they will not interrogate the girls themselves and be ready to take them into protective custody if necessary. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't refraining from investigating possible cases of statuatory rape playing into the long-standing tradition of sweeping things like rape and abuse under to rug?
Posts: 1163 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lady Jane, note that's why that's not what I'm advocating, whatever the privacy concerns may be. I just think they should be investigating with as little disturbance as possible for the girls themselves until it's absolutely necessary to have the girls speak to the judge. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
FG -- Check out my post on the first page. The data are not condratictory, they are measuring different things. Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unfortunately, if evidence of a crime is established, they will need to talk to the girls.
Taking them into protective custody may even be traumatic. Child molestation is very complicated, with the victims often sympathizing with the perpetrators.
These girls are already traumatized, and it isn't the fault of the judicial system trying to make things right, with the caveat that the system handles the situation correctly. But even correctly handled, it is going to be very painful for the girls. Unfortunately, there is no way around it. Except that they will hopefully grow up to be healthier adults than had things not been taken care of.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's true. I just hurt for the poor babies.
If someone did that to my 13-year-old, I would hunt them down myself. I don't care if it was a family friend, a relative, what, they would be in police custody before you could say "rape". Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah - thanks ElJay. I knew it said "ratio" but my mind just interpreted that of "percentage ratio of all abortions performed" instead of "ratio in comparison of live births" Thanks
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that as doctors, they would fall under mandatory reporters, no? mack maybe you can answer that, since you work in the social services field.
So, if these doctors are mandatory reporters of evidence of sexual abuse and/or rape, and they perform abortions on girls under 16 without reporting the evidence of rape and/or abuse (and let's face it, a pregnant 14 year old is definitely evidence of statutory rape) then the doctors are violating the law, no? Or are they just violating medical ethics? I'm not sure.
Either way, they should be investigated.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is the same AG that met with conservative state board of education members in possible violation of the state's open meetings laws. He did not include moderates in these meetings with the board in any case.
You may add that to your conclusions about what he is really up to. In my opinion he has only one agenda regarding abortion. He has found a new way to attack the right to choose.
This is my opinion only and is based upon living in Kansas and following this man's career.
Posts: 440 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So the right to choose is more important than the safety of those girls, eh, screechowl?
I wonder if people realize how often young girls are coerced into abortion? My family once took in a 21 year old deaf girl whose boyfriend AND parents were putting a LOT of pressure on her to get an abortion.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Apparently, from the little googling I've done, Kansas requires notification of one parent if the girl is under 18. This can be waived by a judge.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:He has found a new way to protect the life of the unborn? Good for him.
I agree but this isn't just about the life of the unborn. It's about the girls that are being raped.
Say you do have a young girl involved in a relationship with an older man. She gets pregnant, he can pay for an abortion and be off the hook.
But, if it becomes mandatory that all cases of pregnant young girls seeking abortions are investigated criminally (and they should be) then suddenly statutory rape is a much more risky venture for this type of man.
I think it's a good thing. And if she's being abused by someone or it's a case of incest - so much the better too. If abortion clinics have to report this information, and it gets investigated then the girl has a chance to be rescued from that type of situation. We're talking about minor children here, they need and deserve protection.
The fact that abortion clinics want to perform abortions on these girls and not report the incidents sickens me. What's wrong with the idea that if a caregiver sees evidence of a crime, he/she should be mandated to report it?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am inferring it by the fact that the AG feels he needs to subpeona the records to get evidence, if the clinic were voluntarily turning over such information, there would be no need.
But I will say, that I'll revise my opinion if the clinics come out and say they absolutely wish to cooperate with the criminal investigations into rape and abuse and turn over all records immediately, and announce that a new policy is in place whereby all caregivers will immediately report evidences of abuse and/or statutory rape.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
What if the clinic reported it to the required agency, the agency checked with the local police, and there was already an investigation? Or the local police contacted the family and they refused to cooperate with an investigation because they thought it would be more traumatic for their daughter?
The AG didn't know how many cases there were, he asked for all records that fit into those catagories. The clincs involved stated that there were about 90 cases that fit in the categories. If they already fulfilled their manditory reporting on those cases, should they have to release the records to the AG?
The investigation could have taken place and be closed, successfully or through lack of evidence, before the girl went in for the abortion. It [added: it being the result of the investigation] wouldn't be in the records, they just report it, not do an investigation themselves.
I do not know , but I do not believe the place the clinic has to report to is the AGs office. So if he wants that information, he could check the reporting agency and find out how many have been reported and what the follow-up has been. If he thinks they're not reporting, I'm betting there's an established proccedure for auditing that. Both options that do not require releasing medical records to a government agency.
Saying you'll revise your opinion when they come out with a brand new policy presupposes that they don't have one now, and presumes guilt. Reporting child abuse is an issue that is just so ingrained in all the manditory reporting professionals I know, and the consequences for not doing so are so strong, that I would be very surprised if the clinics are breaking that particular law.
posted
Mandatory reporting usually goes to such places as child protective services, whose job it is then to investigate and determine if the report is valid and should be referred to law enforcement.
Victim's are given the option of pressing charges or not - or in the case of parents/legal guardians of children under a certain age - the same option.
In the case of sexual assault, this can get rather sticky, since the majority of sexual assault occurs at the hands of trusted family members, friends, acquaintances - not strangers.
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The AG didn't know how many cases there were, he asked for all records that fit into those catagories. The clincs involved stated that there were about 90 cases that fit in the categories. If they already fulfilled their manditory reporting on those cases, should they have to release the records to the AG?
Yes. The AG is the highest ranking investigatory official in most states. He has subpoena powers. If he feels it's worth looking into, then he can issue subpoenas regardless of who else can investigate such things. There's a due process protection here which is being exercised by the clinics. I don't see a problem with this is principle.
quote: There's a due process protection here which is being exercised by the clinics. I don't see a problem with this is principle.
Please clarify this statement for me, Dags. You don't see a problem with the due process protection being exercised by the clincs? Or you don't see a problem with the AG issuing the subpoena? I read it like the first, but I think you might mean the second. Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
selecting Kansas, and then specifying what information you want - in this case I selected "Definitions of Child Abuse and Neglect" and "Mandatory Reporters")
quote: Kan. Stat. Ann. § 38-1502 (WESTLAW through 2002 Reg. Sess.)
'Child in need of care' means a person less than 18 years of age who:
Is without adequate parental care, control or subsistence and the condition is not due solely to the lack of financial means of the child¿s parents or other custodian; Is without the care or control necessary for the child's physical, mental or emotional health; Has been physically, mentally or emotionally abused or neglected or sexually abused; Has been placed for care or adoption in violation of law; Has been abandoned or does not have a known living parent; Is not attending school as required by State law; Has been residing in the same residence with a sibling or another person under 18 years of age, who has been physically, mentally or emotionally abused or neglected, or sexually abused.
Emphasis mine
Futher elaboration on the meaning of abuse:
quote:'Sexual abuse' means any act committed with a child as described in §§ 21-3501 through 21-3504, regardless of the age of the child.
I'm not going to list the acts, but you can easily look them up - Chapter 21, Article 35 of the Kansas state law.
As for reporting:
quote:WHO MUST REPORT
Persons licensed to practice the healing arts or dentistry; persons licensed to practice optometry; persons engaged in postgraduate training programs approved by the State Board of Healing Arts; licensed professional or practical nurses examining, attending, or treating a child under the age of 18; chief administrative officers of medical care facilities; emergency medical services personnel; Teachers, school administrators, or other employees of a school which the child is attending; persons licensed by the Secretary of Health and Environment to provide child care services or the employees of persons so licensed at the place where the child care services are being provided to the child; Licensed psychologists; licensed masters level psychologists; licensed clinical psychotherapists; licensed marriage and family therapists; licensed social workers; licensed clinical marriage and family therapists; licensed professional counselors; licensed clinical professional counselors; registered alcohol and drug abuse counselors; Firefighters; mediators appointed under the law; law enforcement officers; juvenile intake and assessment workers.
CIRCUMSTANCES
When they have reason to suspect that a child has been injured as a result of physical, mental, or emotional abuse or neglect, or sexual abuse; When they know of the death of a child.
Again, emphasis mine.
That's pretty clear to me - in the event a child is pregnant, then there is evidence that a law has been violated, and any doctor or nuse in an abortion clinic is a mandatory reporter. So, if the clinic is not reporting these incidents, they are in violation.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Please clarify this statement for me, Dags. You don't see a problem with the due process protection being exercised by the clincs? Or you don't see a problem with the AG issuing the subpoena? I read it like the first, but I think you might mean the second.
I don't have a problem with either; the existence of the due process protection is a major reason why. If the AG is just inappropriately fishing, then the subpoena will be quashed.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, I wasn't arguing anything you just posted in the slightest. I was pretty sure that was what the law said. And if the clinics are not fulfilling their reporting duties, I agree they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
I'm disputing you stating as fact that they have no policy in place to report and/or are not in fact reporting. We don't know that.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And, to follow up on what Shan posted, let's be clear on what the Kansas reporting procedures are. I'm not saying Shan's wrong, let's just have the actual information in front of us, so we understand the issues thoroughly.
From the same website as above.
quote:Statute: Kan. Stat. Ann. § 38-1522(c), (e) (West, WESTLAW through 2002 Reg. Sess.)
Law: Except as provided below, reports made pursuant to this law shall be made to the State Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services. When the Department is not open for business, the reports shall be made to the appropriate law enforcement agency. On the next day that the Department is open for business, the law enforcement agency shall report to the Department any report received and investigation initiated. The reports may be made orally or, on request of the Department, in writing. Reports of child abuse or neglect occurring in an institution operated by the Secretary of Social and Rehabilitation Services or the Commissioner of Juvenile Justice shall be made to the Attorney General. All other reports of child abuse or neglect by persons employed by or of children of persons employed by the State Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services or the Juvenile Justice Authority shall be made to the appropriate law enforcement agency.
quote:Reporting Procedures
Individual Responsibility Statute: § 38-1522 A mandated reporter who has reason to suspect that a child has been injured due to abuse shall make an oral report, followed by a written report if requested.
Agency Responsibility Statute: § 38-1522 Reports shall be made to the department. When the department is not open for business, reports shall be made to a law enforcement agency.
Content of Reports Statute: § 38-1522
Names and addresses of child, child's parents, and other responsible persons Child's age Nature and extent of injuries; any evidence of prior injuries Any other information that might be helpful
And penalities for non-reporting or interfering in reporting:
quote:FAILURE TO REPORT Kan. Stat. Ann. § 38-1522(f), (g) (WESTLAW through 2002 Reg. Sess.)
Willful and knowing failure to make a report required by the reporting laws is a Class B misdemeanor.
Preventing or interfering with, with the intent to prevent, the making of a report required by the reporting laws is a Class B misdemeanor.
In my opinion, that's not nearly enough - it should be more than a misdemeanor.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd love to see records (without names, of course) of the numbers of mandatory reportings of child sexual abuse that Kansas abortion clinics have made over the last year. Then, we'd know whether or not they have a policy in place and are actually following it. Because, as we've seen from the look at the state law, if they are performing abortions on ANY girls under a certain age, they should have to report it.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, is it possible that any of the information in the medical records (personal information) could make it into public domain through these proceedings?
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
As the big issue appears to be has the clinic been performing abortions after the legal limit, shouldn't the Attorney General have not just the right, but the obligation, to investigate it?
The same for performing underage abortions if there has been no parental consent. I think we may be assuming that in each case there was parental or judicial consent given. That, however, isn't a given. There may be a clinic operating beyond the bounds of the law and using privacy and choice issues to shield their activities.
posted
I should add,that the survey performed that was referenced in that article was not in the least scientific, and certainly isn't "proof" that all abortion clinics are skirting mandatory reporting laws. It was also done by a very biased, pro-life organization, so I'm not suggesting it should be taken as gospel by any means.
However, it does, as I said, give me some reason to suspect that not all clinics do follow the laws to the letter.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting article, Belle. The tape quoted, however, makes it really clear that there is a policy in place.
quote: Planned Parenthood: "Which was not a good thing, OK. The fact that your boyfriend is 22 and the fact you're 14, that makes us mandated, we're mandated reporters. That means we have to report that."
Granted it also makes it clear that if the "girl" hadn't volunteered that information they wouldn't have asked about it during the phone interview. And that that particular employee is implying that the girl shouldn't have told. But it doesn't say if the girl had shown up at the clinic they wouldn't have asked for id, proof of age, and reported it anyway if she was underage.
From the article:
quote: Life Dynamics said in 91 percent of their calls the person they reached at the center agreed to conceal the statutory rape.
If this is the case, why aren't any of those conversations quoted verbaitum? I don't see any agreement to conceal happening in the one quoted, I see the center employee saying that they have to report it.
Anyway, I'm sure not saying it's not happening. Just that we don't know. It seems to me that in discussions like this we frequently start, intentionally or not, presenting things as facts that aren't, and that issues get confused really easily. I did it myself in the missle defense thread yesterday... BtL mentioned the sum of a billion dollars. I thought it was obviously a rough estimate and used it myself. And got called on it, and asked to provide documentation. And then there's things like that chart from this thread... very easy to misread. So I think we need to be really careful, in hot button threads especially, to distinguish between what is fact and what is opinion.
Added: Didn't see your last post while writing this. I'm glad to see you say it's not scientific and from a biased group, I didn't want to because I'm really not trying to be antagonistic here. I'm sorry if I've come across that way. And again, I have no doubt believing that there are some clinic employees who don't want to report and try to avoid it. But I really, really, hope that it's an individual response, not a policy... and I firmly believe those people should be fired and prosecuted.
quote:Dag, is it possible that any of the information in the medical records (personal information) could make it into public domain through these proceedings?
Not legally, until there's a prosecution of some kind. Even then, there possible safeguards to protect minors' identities.
Obviously, the more people who know something like this, the more likelihood there will be a leak, though.
posted
I can say, from experience when my husband was called to testify at both criminal and civil proceedings as a medical caregiver - that names weren't used unless the patient was also a party in the proceedings, in one case where the state was seeking to revoke the license of a doctor who was guilty of malpractice, the patient was not present or part of the suit and her name was kept confidential.
My husband knew it, having treated her, but all the court documents he reviewed had her name and other identifying characteristics removed and she was referred to as "Mrs. M" in the proceedings.
All the other people called, and the "expert" witnesses reviewed documents with the name obscured, so there was considerable effort to protect her privacy. And the reason this is relevant, is it was a case brought against an abortion doctor. Who, thank God, lost his license when the proceeding was over.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
ELJay, thanks for posting that, I had just copied that question down to answer myself.
Just so eveyone is clear on this point.....think of it this way.
How many 10-14 girls are likely to carry to be pregnant? Most of those girls won;t carry to term compared to a similar number of women in the ages of 20-24, for any number of reasons. They are more likely to be the victim of a sex crime than the older women, and less likely to be able (physically of mentally) to deal with the trama that rape causes, even without carrying a child of that to term.
In real numbers, is isn't as stark....the only reason I could think of putting it in that type of chart is to mislead people into thinking that most abortions are given to young women. It is very misleading, although I don't know if that is accidental or on purpose.
If ten 10 year old girls get pregnant, and 8 of them got abortions.....that would make the ratio of abortions 400% vs those carrying to term....even though only(?) 8 abortions happened.
See how misleading stats can be if you don't read the fine print?
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
ElJay, I've read transcripts from this survey, and there are many that are much more expicit than the one quoted. You'll note that one was only mentioned because it was part of the investigation in Connecticut.
However, I don't mean that to defend the survey, or their methods, and it should be pointed out that how they talk on the phone may be different than the way they act in person. Plus, I don't agree with the organization that conducted the survey entirely, and am not an advocate of them.
Yet, I can't shake the feeling that this failure to report is pretty widespread. Looking at Planned Parenthood's website, I found no policy statement on mandatory reporting. I found none of their teen sex education pamphlets that addressed statutory rape. I found references to what types of things aren't safe in a relationship, but none of them mentioned statutory rape at all. In the warning signs for an unhealthy relationship, they do not mention one partner being much older than another.
And yet, there is ample research that young girls are often pressured into sexual relationships by older men.
I don't have links to such studies right now, I'll get them later. I'm off to the grocery store, and won't be back until later.
Suffice it to say, I'm not encouraged by what I've read on Planned Parenthood's website. Now, if I've missed something, I'd appreciate being linked to it by someone.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, keep in mind that those are intended to foster confidence in young people and to let them know people care. Talking about mandatory reporting right away wouldn't be a great way to begin fostering trust in a teen with a problem....half of what they are worried about is being exposed, so they wouldn't care about the "safeguards" in place, all they would hear is that you have to call the police.
That doesn't mean that they don't...I know for a fact that all the ones in this area do report. I have friends who work at one location and that is something that she has mentioned to me. It is tough to do, sometimes they plead to her not to, but she has to do so in order to be compliant with current laws.
posted
I'm definately backing Belle up on this. If there are more explicit transcripts, then I'm even angrier.
It really makes me a little sick that their priority appears to be in providing the abortion rather than the safety of the girls.
I wonder if people realize that just because a fourteen year old may agree to have sex with a substantially older person, they are working under psychological pressures that really does make sex a predatory act rather than consensual. I consider the actions, as portrayed in the article Belle linked to, equally or even more predatory than the sexual molestation they suffered that caused the need.
In children this young, it really is highly likely than an abortion is medically necessary. But I'd much rather it be done in the offices of an OB/GYN with the support of therapists and, if possible, loving parents. In such a situation, they need more help than ever to get through such a traumatic experience.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amka, medically necessary or not, a lot of ob/gyns around here won't do abortions, for fear of being labelled abortion doctors. So the only place to get one is clinics that specialize... there was an article in out local newsweekly about a year ago about a female doctor who had been part of the fight to legalize abortion who basically came out of retirement because even though abortion is legal in MN there are so few doctors willing provide them, either for moral reasons or for fear of their own safety, that it was becoming difficult to impossible to get one. I know some people would consider it a good thing. *shrug* I'm in the safe, legal, and rare camp, personally. But it was an interesting article, I'll try to find the link, I think.
And I'm very well aware that when there's that sort of difference in age even if the younger party thinks it's a consentual relationship it really isn't. Likewise a person shouldn't have a sexual/emotional relationship with anyone they're in a position of power over, such as a current student, a doctor's patient, or someone a minister is counseling. Although the rest of those aren't illegal, they are almost always considered unethical.
If I ran the world, what I would like to see happen when there are suspicions of this sort is an independent panel of doctors, some but not all of whom would be selected by a pro-life group, review the records and look for problems. If there are abortions that should have been reported, check to see if they were, and what happened. That way it audits the reporting process and the department of child services, too. If they were not reported, by all means prosecute. I'm just very uncomfortable with the idea of medical records being turned over to the government, especially with names attached.
posted
That is my point too, ELJay..I am not saying that the law is made to be broken. If the law is being broken then something needs to be done about it.
But there has to be respect for the patients rights as well, and in these instances that often gets overlooked.
Notice I haven't said a thing to defend any person who violated the time period allowed by law? I don't know if that is a good limit, but it is the legal one, so I have no real problem with it.
This whole thing strikes me as being very similar to the "victims right" law concerning pregnant mothers that was passed last year. I know that killing anyone is a horrible thing.....I really do....but to say that a man who kills a pregnant woman can be charged with two murders is not right, not considering the fetus hasn't been born yet.
It has nothing to do with killing pregnant women, and everything to do with a pro-life agenda to award a fetus rights...
All so that that can be a building block for proving "person hood", and pursuing attempts to secure rights for fetuses to make abortion illegal.
It's a pretty smart move, too, probably the best one for pro-lifers in the last 30 years...if not their best one ever.
This might not be a witch hunt, but it could turn into a modern day equilivelent easily.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
There's no way around it.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
