On this Day in 1997, George Allen Made Pro-Life History
By Michael Fletcher | Tuesday, March 22nd, 2011 | Politics
And I happened to be there for the battle.
In 1994, I joined the A-Team as a Special Assistant to Kay James, Allen’s Secretary of Health and Human Resources. As such, I got to be there for some of the important battles, including welfare reform and parental notification.
I’d moved on to another position by the time the legislation passed and was signed. But I remember the day. I remember the significance. I remember the victory.
And I remember that Governor Allen was committed to getting the bill right, leading to the 1994 veto of the much weaker version.
As Governor Allen notes on his blog he signed the bill on March 22, 1997.
After an 18-year struggle, on March 22, 1997, George Allen signed into law a true and honest parental notification bill requiring parents or legal guardians to be notified if their minor daughter is going through the trauma of an abortion.
Over 2,500 people joined Allen outside the State Capitol to watch Virginia join the 36 other states to have implemented similar parental notification and/or parental consent laws.
“The family is the bedrock of society and the backbone of our economy. For generations, loving, caring families imparted to us and our forbearers the very values that made America good: individual initiative, personal responsibility, honesty, hard work, compassion for those less fortunate, and of course, faith in God,” stated Allen. “Parents have the right and responsibility to be involved with the important decisions in their young children’s lives. Today we are signing legislation affirming the importance and necessity of a parent’s guidance and counsel if their young daughter is facing the trauma of an abortion.”
Allen’s parental notification bill (SB 1148) requires a physician to notify at least one parent or legal guardian at least 24 hours before performing an abortion on an unwed girl under 18 years old.
Committed to achieving a strong notification law, Allen vetoed a weakened version of the bill in 1994 that would have lowered the age requirement to 16 as well as allowed relatives other than parents to be notified.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Michael Fletcher works as a freelance writer and consultant in Richmond, Virginia. He blogs regularly at http://www.thewritesideofmybrain.com, http://www.richmondvabusiness.com and http://365thingsibelieve.wordpress.com
Comments
8 Responses to "On this Day in 1997, George Allen Made Pro-Life History"
Notification? Your kidding, right? Teens need CONSENT to get a piercing or a tattoo.
But Allen OPPOSED consent as, you know, too radical.
You moderates that want pro-life to be a side issue (or no issue) are pathetic in how you try to spin George Allen’s pro-choice history. Yeah, he isn’t virulantly pro-choice, but he has NEVER been pro-life.
Ciao
Rtwingtroll, whether we like it or not, requiring parental consent is unconstitutional. That Allen didn’t support something that is unconstitutional isn’t a knock in my book.
Parental notification is critical and Allen deserves a lot of credit for getting that done. That he was kept from doing more by the Supreme Court isn’t a fair attack.
rtwingtroll,
No compromises, no middle ground, and no prisoners, right? Your way or the highway.
That ain’t how politics work in a democracy, bud. Your position is that minors must have parental consent for an abortion. The lefties believe that a minor should be encouraged to have an abortion without her parents or the father of the child even knowing about it.
Both sides can stick there thumbs in their mouths and hold their breath until they turn blue. Or, they can compromise. Which way is more productive?
This was a productive compromise on the abortion issue, one of far too few.
Aside from abortion are there any other medical procedures for minors that do not require the consent of the parents?
Yes @rtwingtroll, that a child needs consent for a piercing was one of our arguments. But the reality is both chambers were still controlled by the Democrats. Consent would never have passed.
I fail to see the logic behind the purists who say “if we can’t save all of them, we won’t save any of them.”
Being against consent is different than being for it , but being realistic & getting what you can get passed. If you can demostrate that, then you can defeat rtwingtroll’s argument. If not, he has a legitimate point.
@Britt, I think first @rightwingtroll needs to show where Allen opposes consent.
As I explained above, in the mid 90s when Allen was governor, there was no hope that consent would pass the General Assembly. It was nearly a four-year struggle to get notification.
So, until he coughs up some evidence of Allen saying he opposes parental consent, there’s really nothing I need to demonstrate.
And the fact remains that National Right to Life rates Allen’s voting record at 100%. And NARAL gives him a zero.
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.