A 16-year-old girl had an abortion. No big deal, you say. Ah,
but add to the facts. The girl is a ward of our federal government
and no one notified the head of the federal agency who is her
guardian in advance as required by state law — and more, employees
of an agency affiliated with the Catholic Diocese of Richmond
arranged the abortion with the advance knowledge of the Catholic
bishop.
Either of these two circumstances would make this case a big
deal. Both together definitely do.
Let me add a third wrinkle. The girl is a Guatemalan whose
parents are missing. What are the views of the Guatemala government
on how Americans have treated their citizen and her unborn
child?
The federal agency, Health and Human Services, in the person of
David H. Siegel, acting director of the Office of Refugee
Resettlement, was the girl’s guardian. His agency contracted with
the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops who in turn contracted with
the Catholic Charities of Richmond to provide foster care.
Late last year, Catholic Charities had the girl outfitted with a
contraceptive device. There are no public reports whether that act
required the consent of the guardian or whether the behavior of the
girl prompting this outfitting required notice to the guardian. In
any event, the outfitting was contrary to the official policies of
Catholic Charities.
Then the girl became pregnant. By whom did she get pregnant? Was
it the result of rape? statutory rape? sexual abuse? Was the
abortion committed to cover-up the identity of the father or the
manner of sexual intercourse? To cover-up any negligence in her
foster care?
The girl is vulnerable. Presumably she speaks Spanish, perhaps
only Spanish. She is without her parents. She’s in a foreign
country. Her guardian is a bureaucracy. So, did she consent to the
abortion?
Did she seek out an abortion? Did anyone pressure her to do so?
What motives did those counseling her about the abortion have? Who
arranged the appointment? Who arranged the transportation? Did she
speak with a Spanish-speaking doctor in order to give consent?
Enter the Virginia Commonwealth’s Attorney for Richmond,
Democrat Michael N. Herring, who made an announcement Monday. He is
not interested in any of the questions just raised.
He doesn’t say he has spoken with the girl, or the social
worker, or anyone else. He had not spoken with anyone from the
federal government. He uses words like “it appears” and “may have
been” and “probably” and “could.”
He says: “I would hate for any prosecution to be
colored by all the politics surrounding the issue of abortion.
Those who are pro-life, so to speak, are clamoring for prosecution.
Those who are pro-choice insist the actions do not warrant
prosecution.” (It is interesting that he follows “pro-life” with
“so to speak,” not granting them even their own terms of
self-identification.)
Well, Prosecutor Herring, there is a state criminal law
requiring advance notice to the parent or guardian of a minor. The
inspector general of the federal Health & Human Services, an
attorney for the guardian, is conducting an investigation of its
violation, but I guess you think that can only be political.
Herring added that the clamoring by those who are pro-life and
those who are pro-choice “could…overshadow [] a more important
issue, which may have been the girl’s health.” “It appears as if
the young lady was going to have an abortion by some means…to
resort to [means other than medical abortion], which probably would
not have been safe or sanitary.” He continued, “A 16-year-old
hell-bent on aborting a fetus is going to do it either way.”
Hmmm, let’s see where this new Herring exception fits into the
existing law of abortion. First, it should be noted that parental
notice laws do not require parental consent.
Second, in states where notice is required, a minor can obtain the
permission of a judge in lieu of notice under some circumstances
(called “judicial bypass”). And now, Herring’s exception: If a
minor is “hell-bent” on an abortion such that she would obtain a
back-alley abortion, then no notice to her parent or guardian or
judge is required. Mr. Herring has effectively nullified the
Virginia law on parental notice in his district.
Herring conceded on Monday, July 7, and again on Tuesday, July 8, that he would
investigate whether the person who signed the consent form believed
or did not believe that he or she had the authority to consent to
the girl’s abortion. Obviously, the person can easily say he or she
did so believe. And just as obviously, Herring’s remarks
demonstrate that he doesn’t really care since he doesn’t think
notice to, much less consent from, any adult was necessary.
Furthermore, if we may speculate in the same fashion as Herring,
we could say that the girl might have removed the birth control
device, that she was hell-bent on becoming pregnant and a mother,
and she may have been coerced into having an abortion. But Mr.
Herring shows no interest in ascertaining all of the facts.
