The nanny state attacks

In his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Clarence Thomas referred to Texas's sodomy law as "uncommonly silly." Not to be outdone, the California legislature has enacted a host of laws that seem well-fit for that categorization. This article notes that California:

"has the nation's toughest helmet law for kids on bikes and skateboards, and calorie-laden soda pop was banned in elementary and junior high schools last year. Saturday, laws went into effect to restrict kids from riding scooters or riding in the front seat of a car. They'll also be kept out of tanning salons and face costly fines for drag racing in the streets. . . . [T]hey will face fines for playing with toy and BB guns that look too much like the real thing, or e-mailing pirated music and movies to friends."

The reason for these laws? "[P]arents don't have time to monitor their children's activities. 'That's where the state needs to step in, when there is sufficient information when it suggests that kids are doing certain things that harm them,' said [Assemblyman Leland] Yee, D-San Francisco. 'The state has an interest to protect them.'"

So now, "[c]hildren under 14 are banned from using tanning salons, unless they have a doctor's note, and those 14 to 18 need parental permission to receive a tan."

According (link in pdf format) to Pro-Choice America (formerly known as the National Abortion Rights Action League), "government cannot mandate healthy family communication. Laws requiring parental notice or consent actually harm the young women they purport to protect." Is NARAL-PCA referring to soda laws, or scooter laws, or tanning salon laws to protect children? Of course not. It opposes parental-consent laws for minors to obtain abortions. The paper states,

"The American Medical Association takes the position that: 'Physicians should not feel or be compelled to require minors to involve their parents before deciding whether to undergo an abortion. . . . [M]inors should ultimately be allowed to decide whether parental involvement is appropriate.' The American Academy of Pediatrics also opposes parental involvement laws: . . . '[M]inors should not be compelled or required to involve their parents in their decisions to obtain abortions, although they should be encouraged to discuss their pregnancies with their parents and other responsible adults.'"

Does NARAL-PCA have any legal support for these arguments that parents need not be notified before their minor children undergo a surgical procedure? Unfortunately, yes. The Supreme Court's abortion jurisprudence is a buffet for the pro-choice movement. The Court has stated that "a special-consent provision, exercisable by a person other than the woman and her physician, as a prerequisite to a minor's termination of her pregnancy and . . . without a sufficient justification for the restriction[,] . . . violates the strictures of Roe and Doe."

So now in California, a minor can't go to a tanning salon without written consent from a parent, but surgery? No problem, as long as it's for an abortion. It's the upside down world that Alice discovered down the rabbit hole, with tragic consequences.

Hat tip: The Corner.