Pro-choice absolutists fail to recognize that the decision on whether a pregnant minor should have an abortion should be left to the family absent compelling circumstances warranting governmental intervention. Medical ethics and simple concepts of morality and decency impose upon any such professional an obligation to present all aspects of the pros and cons about such a choice. If she were to make such decision without carefully considering all the ramifications, she might well experience intense agony and grief the rest of her life each time she reaches a date that would be an anniversary of the event. She might later become unable to have children and then regret such decision. By virtue of the government's authority to regulate the professional conduct of those it licenses to provide medical care to others, it certainly has the authority to enforce minimum standards of ethics for the provision of such services.
Government imposes such standards on doctors, lawyers, engineers, architects, etc.
Therefore, the absolutist pro-choice advocates are wrong in opposing governmental imposition of ethical duties such as a duty to furnish sufficient information to enable the pregnant woman to make an informed decision. For example, reasonable people could disagree over whether a 24-hour waiting period would be necessary for a decision to be deemed an informed one. Years ago, I urgently needed back surgery. The intense pain made me eager to have surgery as soon as possible. My surgeon urged me to take several days to think it over, which I reluctantly did.