Twenty-two year old Matthew Koso married his pregnant girlfriend
Crystal in Kansas last May. The bride was 14 years old. The two
began dating when she was twelve and made hurried plans to marry
earlier this year when it was learned she was pregnant. The two
lived in Nebraska, but traveled to Kansas where it was legal for
them to marry with permission of Crystal’s parents.
In an August 31 editorial titled “What’s the Matter With
Kansas?” the New York Times blasted the marriage, citing
the young age of the bride. The Times opined, “The fact
that parents are willing to go along with these unions does not
make them right.” Further, the Times complained that
“neither parental nor state approval makes it right to tie a girl
as young as 12 to another person in what is supposed to be a
lifetime commitment.”
But do not get caught up in the notion that the Times
has taken a principled stand on the inability of underage girls to
properly decide what is right for themselves even with parental
consultation. For more than a decade, the Times has
assumed the strong editorial position that parental notification
laws for underage girls getting abortions — even for those who
cross state lines — are wrong.
In a March 29, 1993 opinion, the Times endorsed pending
federal legislation that would have streamlined the ability of
minors to get abortions without parental consent. In a series of
1996 editorials, the paper labeled state parental consent laws
“wrongs on abortion” (September 3) and claimed that abortion rights
were “under siege” (January 25) by state laws such as the one in
Delaware restricting underage girls from getting an abortion until
24 hours after at least one parent had been notified.
During the 2000 election season the Times tried to
inject state parental notification requirements into the
presidential race, calling them an attempt to “chip away at a
woman’s right to choose” (May 27) and labeling them a curb on
“reproductive freedom” (October 11).
When the New Jersey Supreme Court struck down that state’s
parental notification requirement for minors seeking abortions, the
Times called it “enlightened rejection” (August 18,
2000).
More recently, the Times attacked U.S. Appellate Court
nominee Priscilla Owen in an April 28, 2005 editorial over her
legal opinion as a Texas Supreme Court justice in a case regarding
parental consent requirements. Two years earlier (April 17, 2003),
the Times urged a filibuster against Owen’s nomination
citing the same issue as justification to block a confirmation
vote.
In an April 19, 2002 editorial, the Times criticized a
proposed federal law that would have made it illegal for an
underage girl to cross state lines to pursue an abortion with any
adult other than a parent if the minor had not satisfied her home
state’s parental consent requirements. The Times called it
a violation of “state sovereignty.” Three years earlier (June 30,
1999), the Times called a similar bill “a cold-hearted
piece of legislation” because it criminalized the actions of any
adult other than a parent when accompanying a minor across state
lines for an abortion without proper parental notification.
Upon reviewing the editorial positions of the New York
Times, one may conclude the paper believes the Matthew and
Crystal Koso marriage scenario should have played out as follows: A
14-year-old, pregnant girl should not have been allowed to marry
the 22-year-old father of her child, an act that could be reversed
via divorce or annulment, even with parental consent. Assuming
responsibility for his actions, attempting to make a go of
marriage, and starting a family by the father is out of the realm
of possibilities. Yet the Times believes the same underage
girl should be able to cross state lines without parental
notification and accompanied by the very same 22-year-old man who
got her pregnant in order to get an abortion, a major medical
procedure, and an act that cannot be undone.
What the Times’s editorial stance illustrates is that
the paper is unconcerned with the best interests of underage girls
and is instead entirely preoccupied with making abortion available
to anyone of any age regardless of the actions leading up to the
pregnancy and the consequences of having an abortion.
It is challenging to imagine what deliberative arguments the
Times used to arrive at such an illogical position.
Whether one supports or opposes abortion does not change the fact
that underage girls who did not consider the consequences of having
sexual relations at a tender age cannot be expected to miraculously
consider all of the consequences of having a permanent procedure
such as an abortion without counsel from at least one parent. That
the editorial staff of The New York Times cannot see this
is very troubling, indeed.
