Talk:Minors and abortion/Archive 1

message: Your sentence on elective and medically necessary surgery is wrong, or so I believe, because while if a minor got seriously injured and had to be rushed to the emergency ward they could preform without the parents approval, there are probably instances such as a broken arm or leg, when surgery is necessary but must wait until the parent approves. If I'm wrong you need some source. Chooserr 22:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My wording avoided that error.  Read more carefully. Alienus 23:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It really didn't because some forms of necessary surgery such as a broken arm would give time for the parent to give consent. See? While a heart attack wouldn't - minors can occasionally have heart attacks. Chooserr 23:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from my own Talk page, where it doesn't belong 

message: Wouldn't these two rulings contradict eachother? Chooserr 23:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because one applied to SPOUSAL notification, the other to PARENTAL.  A person's wife is an adult, with full legal rights.  A minor child, while biologically adult enough to get pregnant, lacks the full rights of a legal adult. Alienus 23:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, I understand now, sorry you had to spell it out. Chooserr 23:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casey 

message: You keep removing "Some supporters of parental notification also support the right of adult women to choose to have abortions, but many do not."
Are you denying that many who support abortion rights for adults nonetheless deny it for minors?  The uncited stats you quoted show that parental notification is more strongly supported than laws that ban abortion for adults, which proves that this statement is true.
Do not remove it again.
Alienus 23:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't vandalism, content dispute if anything, but the "many do not" is weaselly. Also I offered an alternative, but you kept removing it. Is that vandalism? I wouldn't say any more than what I have done. Chooserr 23:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: If it statistics (which I did ask for by the way) were added, than it wouldn't be an opinion would it? I, therefore, wouldn't be opposed to putting it up - would I? So if you add some stats instead of weaselly words it'd be a fine contribution. Chooserr 23:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I've deleted the set of sentences you added for the mean time, but intend to re-add proper versions in a moment. Under each I will give the reason why your wording doesn't make a lick of sense.
:This argument ignores the differences between elective abortion and medically necessary surgery.
::I've outlined at least one form of medically necessary surgery which would require the parent to give consent (a broken bone). This would give them the chance to state that they do not give there permission for certain doctors or hospitals to operate so long as they do operate eventually - or they'd be brought to court for some form of child neglect. Also how can you tell with such an early term pregnancy as you refer to in the last sentence, whether or not it is elective or medically necessary? I assume for the most part that we speak of early term pregnancies, because if she was farther along the parents would know. 
    
:This argument assumes that the minor will be honest when revealing who impregnated her.
::It is only after she has had the abortion that this matters not before - how many times must I say this?   
:Complications from early abortion are, however, extremely rare, and such abortions are much safer than childbirth.
::Are you saying that extremely rare complications are safer than childbirth or that early abortions are? I don't have too much trouble believing the latter, but you state the former. Chooserr 23:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also we should attempt to find a better way of including the possible fault in the logic - better than seemling including it into the addressed problem. Chooserr 00:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lets talk? 

message: Has it occurred to anything that the term "parental notification" is in fact rather generic, that it's used in many many other instances, for example, within COPPA. This article should either speak of other uses of the term, or move itself to Parental notification of abortion or some such. -Tim Rhymeless  (Er...let's shimmy) 06:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, anybody? -Tim Rhymeless  (Er...let's shimmy) 06:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other uses

message: This is an emotive topic and wikipedia can choose to give just a dictionary definition or try to explain the nature of the debates & issues that ensue (NB of course a neutral phrased description is required, not an attempt to use wikipedia as a soap box to win over an argument). The easiest criticisms of this article to raise are:
#Whilst I can identify with the subject matter, this article seems exclusively US-centric, both in its specifics and on assumptions one must make about legislation, definition of terms (e.g. statutory rape), concepts of children consent, state provision and access to abortions.
#Is it just about informing on abortion issues or more generally on any medical matter (e.g. advice on treating simple wounds in school biology lessons, reassurance by a nurse that a child has correctly applied first aid measures to themselves for a mild twisted ankle and shoud be fine by the end of the day with no additional measures required ?)
I set out below some personal thoughts of some wider issues, from a UK perspective, and how this narrows down to how cases of contraception or abortion are managed in practice (vs. just our desire that it would be easier if everyone abstained until after 16). Most of these I raise as queries rather than statements of definite opinion. If one accepts that adolescents have differing degrees of maturity, rather than instantaneous changes in personality as a clock strikes midnight on a relevant legal birthday age limit, then in extreme situations consensus is likely quite easy. However if one accepts “grey areas”, then how wide is this band and how do regulations reflect this ? 
*The current controversy re children consent is over sexual matters, but a society’s agreed policy on this must form part of wider issues re children’s consenting:
*The law has traditionally applied arbitrary age limits for various activities (age for voting (17), drinking (16), marriage without parental approval (18), marriage if with parental approval (16), consent for medical treatment (16)).
*However most people recognise that an individual's ability to form an informed option does not appear from nowhere on the eve of their 16th birthday. Informed decisions requires ability to understand a problem & its possible consequences, the treatment options, their possibility of success or failure and complication & side effects and the relative rates of these. Clearly some people have a mature nature and can easily undertake these aspects of making an informed decision well before their 16th birthday, whilst others after this age may seem less capable (no offence is intended to anyone, I merely indicate that one must ensure not to be, or seen to be, discriminatory – hence an adults with poor understanding, due to poor English, are no less entitled to exercise their rights to inform consent, they just need suitable interpreter. Similarly, less academically bright people need advice and discussion held at an appropriate level of language complexity for them). 
**As an aside, in English Law, no one is able to consent on behalf of a legally incapable adult, but rather Common Law is cited by doctors of "acting in the patients best interest" (i.e. Good Samaritan idea that someone found collapsed and unconscious is likely to want their broken bones fixed, or CPR started if they have had a heart attack). Obviously if the patient was previously ever capable, then any recent indication of their wishes should be considered by their doctors. Hence a collapsed pensioner with hip arthritis they had previously decided not to have replaced, should expect their heart attack to be treated but not to come-to finding that they were exposed to the risks of major hip replacement against their previous wishes just because their doctors thought it would be nice to do a "full service" whilst staying in the hospital.
**'Advance directives' are not a legal instrument in English Law, but certainly are likely to be a strong indicator of a patient's wish and it is a foolish doctor who completely ignores such a statement (if aware of) as complaint of professional misconduct might later be made.
**Where no previous expressed wish is known and there exists alternative opinions as to best management, then it would be normal to seek the opinions of relatives or friends who might help the doctor decide what the "best interest" might be.
***Consider treatment proposed for incurable terminal cancer that might only gain a small extension in life yet have side effects of considerable pain & discomfort. Most competent adults might opt against such treatment. A very mentally handicapped patient may be quite incapable of understanding any of the concepts involved and the advice of family may help the doctors appreciate that the patient would only suffer as a result of the treatment with no improvement in the quality of their life. Yet such widely rejected treatment might be sought by a specific individual who, with full understanding of the implications, might have an overriding benefit of seeing a grandchild due to be born in a couple weeks..
*Now of course we normally extend the idea of others acting in the best interest of another in the case of parents & children. We assume that a parent deciding that food must consist of something other than chocolate is in a child's best interest, even though the child might be quite vocal against the imposed balanced diet.
*But we have never held absolutely that parents always act in the child’s best interest, and would expect social services to act in cases where parents through dereliction of care give a  child needs less food than maintains normal growth rates, or chastisement is so vigorous that serious injuries have occurred.
*The UK Children Act 1989 was mostly about both parents sharing responsibility for their children (re financial support etc) and making decision about custody & placement after divorces in the Best interests of the child. However this principle of 'Best interest' also was required to apply in all decisions pertaining to children, including treatment.
**We may all agree about a physically very frail child who is a suitable match for a live kidney donor to their sibling with chronic renal failure - clearly the risks to the health and life of this frail child should not be subordinate to the sibling on long term dialysis, just because the parents favour one child over another. In this example the doctors would declare the frail child unfit for such major surgery and refuse to carry out the procedure. Of course for an adult who wishes to donate to a family member, but who has a very small degree of frailty, their doctors may be unsure whether or not to consider them fit enough for the procedure and would need to involve the patient’s opinions on risk assessment cost & benefits.
*The hard decisions come when a child, with suitable insight, has views about treatment that conflict with their parents.
**Hence parents’ natural desire to preserve the life of their child at all costs may conflict with a terminally ill child's refusal to undergo yet further painful courses of chemotherapy that are proving to give increasingly short periods of remission. There comes a point when the inevitable must be accepted and the quality of life rather than quantity of life becomes overriding (i.e. switch from cure-at-all-cost to good quality-of-life or palliative care aiming to relieve suffering and needless distress). UK courts have applied the Children’s Act in favour of some terminally ill children whose parents sought to force doctors to continue chemotherapy treatment (I would need help on trying to locate a citation for this media reported case)
*Similarly parents might refuse a child to have a certain treatment that a competent child strongly requests, e.g. removal of a facial deformity that is causing the child psychiatric harm.
*Returning to attitudes re children and contraception & abortion, what are the wider attitudes to sex ?
**What is the sexual Age of consent. In the UK this is 16, but varies world-wide and indeed between different states in the USA.
**What is the Age of criminal responsibility, i.e. if those younger than the age of consent are breaking the law, how young before they are not responsible for their actions ? If they are younger than this, then would any suggest that they can make informed decisions on treatment or what to keep confidential – it is how one manages children between these 2 age definitions that is contentious.
**Aside from legal definitions that get uniformly applied (i.e. we decide the law will state that only those over 17 can drive), what age do we think some specific individuals might show ability to make informed consent decisions? Taking the UK, if 2 sensible people one day away from their 16 birthdays are in a steady relationship, hope to get married shortly and have sex with contraception:
***Is this legally "rape" (i.e. if a legal arbitrary limited is applied that consent for sex can only be made after 16, then by definition those under 16 can't legally be thought to have consented)
***How do we, as adults, feel we should act? Report to the police ? Support the two for showing maturity and taking on responsibilities as they transit from childhood to adulthood ? Tell them not to publicise their actions for fear of encouraging those considerably younger, or publicise such “mature” behaviour to hope others learn responsibility and reduce the incidence of unwanted teenage pregnancies ? 
***How do we feel about a girl one day short of being 16 having similar sex within a long-term relationship, with condoms, with intention to marry, yet the boyfriend is fractionally older than her and is one day older than 16 ?
***Similarly girl one day before 16th birthday, but boyfriend 17, 18 or 45 - i.e. when do we start considering this Paedophile, given that if everything starts just two days later then the law would only be interested in the issue of free mutual consent as being given..
***How about a 15 year old girl with a 15 year old boy, or two 12 year olds ?
**If we have uncertainty as to clear cut-offs as to our actions in scenarios above, then at what point do we feel a child's expressed statement of their best interests become overriding to our own uncertainty or personal feelings.?
*Now consider children’s rights to privacy. The issues are about respecting a persons wishes (i.e. deciding how far along spectrum of toddler to adult one feels they have matured) vs. that a child is under the care of adults who therefore have responsibility to that child. In order for an adult to correctly perform their responsibilities they need to be kept abreast of issues to do with that child to make informed decisions both on specific matters and general upbringing issues (e.g. need take child to emergency room, discuss school progress to help at home with difficulties or homework, provide guidance on religious, moral, legal or behavioural matters).
**Hence a child who has unhygienic eating habits at school (e.g. eating food that has fallen to the ground, or refuses to wash their hands before eating) may warrant teachers advising the parents so that appropriate parenting skills may be employed.  Few would expect a troublesome 9 year old's insistence not to tell their parents to be adhered to here.
**In a case of chest infection when a doctor needs to examine a patient's chest we would not seek to shield a baby from being "exposed" to their sibling who may have accompanied along with the baby's parents to the doctors surgery, yet an adult women would be accorded privacy behind a screen if attending with a chest injury for which a male friend has transported her to casualty. So at what age does an adolescent girl asking to be examined behind a screen away from the taunts of her brothers be respected? If the girl during her normal chest examination points to an entirely innocent looking mole that causes her some concern on her breast, is the doctor right in a reassuring smile and dismissive wave of the hand, or should they cause her embarrassment in the presence of her father, who observing from behind the girl, may have missed the non-verbal gestures ?)  
*What about cases of advice? Do we report all information to the parents however minor - if so does this undermine the child’s gradual maturity and separation from their parents. But where is the dividing line?
**We might all feel that a teacher gently requesting a child to move a pot of paint away from where others might accidentally knock it over should not result in a full detailed report to the parents for "corrective actions at home" - such a child would soon feel belittled. 
**How about a child stating that they are scarred that harm may come to their friend who is off sick with a common cold ‘’’infection’’’ after reading about people dying in the past from outbreaks of the plague ‘’’infection’’’. We would expect the teacher to explain that there are different types of infection and not all are serious. We also expect the teacher to reassure the child that their friend is likely to be well and back at school in a couple of days. Again, a full report to the parents seems unwarranted as repetition of the issues may just re-ignite the child’s fears which were previously laid to rest with the education . (by re-ignite I mean that a child may feel that if people repeating tell it that something is not bad, then it probably is; e.g. repeated claims that an injection wont hurt is clearly going to be seen by a child as not true).
**If one accepts a continuum of transition of responsibility for personal actions from childhood to adulthood, then does the same also apply to emotional advice as well as factual advice as in the previous example? Consider an adolescence unsure of what action to take on witnessing a misdemeanour by another (nothing / learn from the action how to act better themselves / try to engage with the other person to help them understand the consequences of their action / inform teachers / inform police).  Certainly at the lesser end of the spectrum do we except a full report to parents ?  If so will children learn never to discuss minor issues for fear of disclosure showing they are unable to form confidences and respect the confidentiality of their friends (something one hopes they learn to do for the right reasons in the right circumstances in order to eventually live and engage in the adult world) 
**How about a child wanting to discuss others bullying her ? A policy of automatically informing parents might make many not open up and discuss the issues.  Obviously in some scenarios no intended verbal hurt was intended and the child needs either to learn not to take every comment personally, to accept some people are just not friendly towards one (but are not necessarily deliberately bullying) or that mildly taunting might be best ignored. So depending upon circumstances, all that might be required is just a similar level of support by teachers as might equally come from a friend. Obviously in cases of real deliberate bullying, hurt being caused or fear of reprisals, then a duty lies with teachers who are responsible for that child, to take strong actions to both protect the victim & punish the attackers.
*In the UK, the Childrens Act applies to medical confidentiality. Hence a responsible minor is able to seek contraceptive advice (see Gillick competence following a mother seeking assurance that her children would not be offered contraceptive advice without her knowledge). In the UK there has been similar debate over the rights of offering those under 16 Emergency (Post-coital) contraception at doctors surgeries, family planning clinics or some pharmacists without parental involvement. The doctor is expected to consider the individual child's ability to understand and make an informed choice. There are Fraiser rules (?spelling - I failled to find references) re ages of consent, respecting confidentiality and requirement to diclose possible paedophile action (anyone able to give specifics, rather than my somewhat vague recollection)David Ruben  Talk  05:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some perspectives - although (very ) long, I hope helps foster consensus...

message: Please see Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org for some background on the fact that this website is rather controversial as a reliable source.  I'm not saying that we should or shouldn't use it here, just pointing out that it's not cut-and-dried obvious whether or not it's an acceptable source. -GTBacchus(talk) 07:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy to have somebody replace this link with a print source (that is, a book or journal article discussing parental notification laws). However, simply removing it, as Chooserr did (partially justified by the fact that an advertisement for an abortion clinic appeared on their page -- sites don't control the content of advertisements), is not acceptable. In the meantime, the only citations in this article are to web sites, and as web sites go, this particular article on ReligiousTolerance is a pretty good one. Catamorphism 07:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Alienus 20:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: 'Corse you would alienus, but that doesn't mean they cannot control who they take money from. If their "bills are paid" by abortion how can you expect them to say that it isn't a good thing. Have you heard the phrase, don't bite the hand that feeds you? Chooserr 02:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you explain why you think this specific article is not neutral -- preferably using specific quotes from and references to the article -- rather than just assuming it must not be based on the fact that the site it's on receives money from advertising? Catamorphism 02:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Catamorphism, I think saying that "sites don't control the content of advertisements" is pretty naïve. They absolutely do control it - they can agree to sell each ad or not. I agree that it would be preferable to find a more neutral source, regardless of how neutral this particular article seems. Check out Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Evaluating secondary sources:Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Remember that conflicts of interest are not always explicitly exposed and bias is not always self-evident. Religioustolerance.org is a controversial source for a reason. They certainly aren't experts in parental notification laws. However - did anyone notice that their article has a whole slew of sources at the bottom of it? Why not chase some of those down? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religioustolerance.org 

message: Here is a link to the full text of a study called Changes in Abortions and Births and the Texas Parental Notification Law. I do not know if any of this information can help this article. The summary is that Parental Notification Laws seem to reduce the number of abortions in the 17 1/2 and under age group. As they point out, if abortion rates decline, births should increase "unless minors increase the use of contraception or decrease sexual activity in response to a parental notification or consent law." This study also shows the birth rates to decline as well (except for Hispanics). However, women in the 17 1/2 to 17 3/4 age group are more likely to wait until they turn 18 and have a risker 2nd trimester abortion or carry the pregnancy to term. --Andrew c 01:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Study in the [[New England Journal of Medicine]]

message: G&E added the term "advocacy groups" to the arguments against section to parallel the structure of the arguments for section. However, what are these groups advocating? I understand that a group can advocate for parental notification laws, but is it possible to advocate against something? That said, one of the points mentions medical societies. Are these advocacy groups? --Andrew c 21:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advocacy groups? 

message: Propose moving to "Parental notification (abortion)" or "Parental notification for abortion" or something equally clarifying, but I would like consensus first.  We could redirect there, until a relevant article about parental notification in general or something.
*Support as nominator Karwynn (talk) 15:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Move 

message: I've added a section entitled "Parental Involvement and Sexual Behavior" because the previous entry failed to discuss the most recent literature on the economics of fertility and abortion.  I only mentioned three sources in the section, because I wanted to first get it down before elaborating on it.  I'm not sure if readers think it is appropriate to actually review the literature or not.  For now, I just focused on Philip Levine's work on abortion.  You can link through to learn more about what that actually is.  
What I wanted to emphasize is a balanced, neutral portrayal of where that scientific literature currently stands.  Levine's theory of abortion contains a moral hazard component.  That is, if you raise the price of abortion, people will try to avoid becoming pregnant in the first place.  And if you lower the price, then the "cost" of pregnancy has fallen also, thus a downward sloping demand curve would predict an increase in pregnancy risk.  That could mean more sex, less condoms, or less precaution along some spectrum of pregnancy risk.  
The empirical literature on this is a bit mixed.  At the moment, I only include references to Levine's conflicting evidence.  Two studies, done differently, found weak evidence for parental involvement increasing condom use among adolescents, whereas the other study found no effect at all.  Using a different strategy, Klick and Stratmann in a forthcoming article (2008) show that parental involvement reduces risky sexual behavior among adolescent females.  They show this by virtue of the fact that parental involvement appear to reduce gonorrhea rates among White and Hispanic women 19 years and younger, but have no discernible effect on those 20+ years and older.  The data they use is from the Centers for Disease Control.  
I think that this should be included here, because these are scientific studies published in peer-reviewed academic journals.  The previous entry, as it stood, did not address the moral hazard argument, and that argument appears to have some scientific support.   Scunning 22:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Parental Involvement and Sexual Behavior Section

message: The recent page move is problematic for a number of reasons. First of all, it broke process. There was no formal proposal to move, or even an informal request here on talk. Typically, it is seen as bad form to make a controvesial move without prior discussion. (Uncontroversial moves are a different matters). Especially because there has been debate over the title of this article before, the article shouldn't have been moved without talking it out first. Second of all, the title is problematic because it has an unnecessary parenthetical comment. Parenthetical comments are for disambiguation purposes. IF there were an article titled Parental involvement already, then we would need to DAB, but since there isn't, the title is unnecessarily long. And finally, the term "parental involvement" is NOT the primary term used in the abortion debate (neither by the pro-choice or pro-life movements, nor in the legislature). I understand that there are both "Parental Consent" and "Parental Notification" laws. And if we are covering both topics here, maybe a title change is needed, but I find the current title problematic. I am going to revert it and then request other editors' imput in this matter. I'm sure we can come to a reasonable title that we can all agree upon.--Andrew c 22:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Parental notification," in my opinion, is a problematic title, as this article is designed to cover both parental notification and consent legislation. "Parental involvement"  is the broader alternative term I used in titling my map of U.S. state laws, "Minor Abortion & Parental Involvement Laws in the United States of America." Sometimes, Wikipedia opts for less-used terms in titling for reasons of NPOV or accuracy (See female genital cutting. "Female genital mutilation" or "female circumcision" might be more familiar terms to most readers, but the former is not NPOV, and the latter is not accurate). -Severa  (!!!) 04:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it is a bit wordy, but what about Parental involvement legislation in the United States? or Minor abortion law or something which is a bit more descriptive? And then have parental consent and parental notification redirect here?--Andrew c 21:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would discourage Parental involvement legislation in the United States on the basis that I believe the U.S. is not the only nation to have such restrictions on abortion. The Center for Reproductive Rights' map, "The World's Abortion Laws, includes several other countries with parental consent laws. This article needs to be expanded to be less Amerocentric in this regard. Thus, I'd recommend Minor abortion law, or perhaps  Minors and abortion, after Religion and abortion and Paternal rights and abortion. We could create a disambiguation page at Parental consent, to create a placeholder/stub for an article about parental consent in contexts other than abortion (i.e. in the context of other medical procedures, body modification, early marriage, or academic activities, etc.), and then link to the retitled Minor abortion law article from there. -Severa  (!!!) 21:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Minors and abortion sounds good. When I read the Paternal rights article at first, I thought I saw Parental rights and abortion which also may work. Creating disambig pages could also be helpful. Good ideas!--Andrew c 22:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Parental rights and abortion would be a good title. However, I think "paternal" and "parental" are close enough in appearance (in fact, they're anagrams) that it might be confusing for quicker readers to see them side-by-side in an alphabetized "See also" list. My vote is with Minors and abortion or Minor abortion law as being the most accurate and least problematic. -Severa  (!!!) 03:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  One possibiliity would be to reimagine this title as inclusive of all abortion restrictions, and have a heading for "parental involvement" as such.  This way, we could have a single legal background section that detailed the evolution of abortion regulations.  Since many of the cases that forced the Court to clarify the extent to which abortion could be regulated were fundamental for parental involvement, but also other laws like mandatory delay, it might be more efficient.  For instance, if we named it "abortion regulation," we could talk about Medicare Funding, Parental Consent, Parental Notification, and Mandatory Delay on the same page.  That would also solve the problem of the name.Scunning 05:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  First, apologies are in order.  I'm a neophyte and did not know that protocol on moving existed.  In retrospect, it's obvious that such protocol would exist and I should've anticipated that.  I am glad you reverted the page to its original.  That being said, I don't think that this page should be entitled parental notification.  You note that politically these laws are bundled under parental notification.  But other communities use parental invovlement.  For instance, economists and demographers routinely use the latter when describing the laws.  "Parental Notification" is incorrect, since consent laws are different from notification laws.  If we include consent on the same page as notification - and I strongly believe we should - then we should use "parental involvement."  It would make the page consistent with some scholarly community's taxonomy (e.g., economists and demographers), and it would also be clearly.  And, "parental involvement" does describe these two laws very well, unlike "notification" which simply does not. Scunning 05:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent page move