Madigan move on consent law isn't final word

Madigan move on consent law isn't final word
By Eric Zorn
Copyright © 2007, Chicago Tribune
Published January 23, 2007

What's Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan thinking?

It's the obvious question at the front-page news over the weekend that she has seemingly turned her back on her fellow abortion-rights supporters by calling on the federal courts to allow the 1995 Parental Notice of Abortion Act to take effect in Illinois.

Parental notice--the idea that a minor seeking an abortion must first inform a responsible adult in her life--has been a social and legal controversy here since 1977 when the General Assembly first passed such a law and abortion-rights supporters began the first in a series of successful legal efforts to overturn or thwart implementation of such laws.

Those in favor of parental notice tend to be opposed to abortion rights and argue that minors should not be allowed to undergo the emotionally and physically significant procedure to terminate an unwanted pregnancy without consulting a parent, grandparent or legal guardian.

Those opposed tend to support abortion rights and argue that notification laws ignore life's realities: Not every parent or guardian is understanding or supportive of a pregnant teen, and forcing girls to choose between full disclosure and an illegal abortion invites them to choose the latter with potentially tragic consequences.

Lawmakers and courts have tried to steer a middle course, allowing fearful teens to avoid the notice requirements by going through a judge, for instance. And the 1995 law had long been in limbo because the Illinois Supreme Court had declined to issue rules spelling out the exact circumstances under which a girl could get a waiver.

When the court issued those rules in September, abortion-rights supporters hoped that Madigan, a Democrat who campaigned as a strong supporter of abortion rights, would go to court to argue that the law still unconstitutionally impedes access to abortion. But Friday she said no, she planned to go to court to argue that, with the new rules in place, Illinois' parental notice law is at last constitutional.

Is she thinking this is a good move to the political middle in preparation for an anticipated run for governor in 2010? Is she thinking now is a strategic time to force the issue in Springfield?

After all, similar notification laws have withstood constitutional challenges in many other states, and Illinois law has long been a time bomb for abortion-rights supporters. Only a high-handed, unilateral and legally dubious refusal to act by the state Supreme Court had been postponing the day that bomb went off.

So why not set off the explosion today? Democrats now control both houses in Springfield, and the governor and state Senate president are strong supporters of abortion rights. The House speaker is an opponent of abortion rights, yes, but he also happens to be Lisa Madigan's father.

The political planets may never be better aligned than they are right now for passage of the "Adolescent Health Care Safety Act." That act, introduced last week with bipartisan sponsorship in anticipation of Madigan's announcement and authored by Rep. John Fritchey (D-Chicago), adds "adult family member or a member of the clergy" to the list of notification options for a pregnant teen seeking an abortion.

"It's a bill that makes sense because it addresses the real lives of young women," said Pam Sutherland, president of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council. Lorie Chaiten, director of the reproductive rights project for ACLU of Illinois, said she believes the existing law is still unconstitutional and that, ideally, "no law should mandate family communication." But she added that Fritchey's bill is "a good piece of legislation."

Lisa Madigan supports the idea behind Fritchey's bill, too, according to her chief of staff, Ann Spillane.

But what's she thinking?

Spillane says Madigan is thinking that a thorough, impartial review of court decisions shows the Illinois law is constitutional. She's thinking that, no matter what abortion notification rules she might write if she were queen, her job is to defend constitutional state laws, not write them. She's thinking it's high time (if not an ideal time) that our lawmakers and courts settle this little piece of the otherwise unsettlable abortion issue once and for all.

And that's what I'm thinking too.