[The school counselor] was sympathetic and understanding. He felt there was no need to worry my family. He also explained about having a child, how tough it would be on me and that I wouldn't be able to do what I wanted to do. He said that the child would suffer because I was much too young to be a parent. He pointed out that the best thing for me to do was to abort the fetus at this stage so no one would be hurt. No mention was made of talking to my parents about this or carrying the baby to term. He indicated that adoption would be difficult and not an option for me.

. . . I felt as though I had no control over what was happening to me. I started to question what I was doing, but in my logic I'd refer back to what the counselor had told me, and then I would think he was right. But still today, I feel like I did not decide to have the abortion.⁽¹⁾

Sadly, Gaylene's story is not unique. In the United States, one out of every three abortion patients is a teenager. For teens, the possibility of developing psychological and emotional problems after abortion is substantially higher than for more mature women.⁽²⁾

One reason that teenagers are more vulnerable is because their psychological defense mechanisms are not fully developed. Their emotional immaturity leaves them more susceptible to events and circumstances that can profoundly damage their view of the world, other people, and themselves. Consequently, abortion can be especially harmful for teens because this major, traumatic experience occurs at a critical time in the development of their self-identity.⁽³⁾

Researchers have found that teenagers who have abortions face a number of higher risks. For example, teens are more likely to feel pressured into their abortions, to report being misinformed in pre-abortion counseling and to experience more severe psychological stress after abortion.⁽⁴⁾

They are also more likely to experience more intense feelings of guilt, depression and isolation after an abortion.⁽⁵⁾ In addition, while suicidal tendencies are higher for all women after abortion, teens are at an even greater risk for post-abortion suicide.⁽⁶⁾

Misinformed Consent

Many teens are simply not mature enough to understand the information they need to make such a life-impacting choice. As a result, they are at best only able to provide "misinformed" consent to an abortion.

Even some pro-abortion groups have acknowledged that teenagers need extra guidance when it comes to abortion. For example, Planned Parenthood's counseling guide states that teenagers have few or limited problem solving skills; are more likely than adults to lack responsibility; are more vulnerable; are more anxious and distrustful; are lacking in knowledge; and have difficulty in communicating. As a result, "counselors need to be aware of and appreciate the fact that pregnancy counseling with teenagers can be very different from counseling adults . . . pregnancy counseling with teens is often a crisis situation."⁽⁷⁾

Unfortunately, while Planned Parenthood counselors recognize the vulnerability of teens, they oppose laws that would guarantee the parents of teens the opportunity to help them understand the risks and alternatives to abortion. For counselors who seek to promote abortion as the preferred option, keeping teens away from loved ones who would counsel against abortion is an important part of maximizing their own influence.

This is why so many teens feel under such immense pressure to abort. Over and over, women who had abortion as teenagers use phrases like the following to explain how they ended up having an unwanted abortion.

My school counselor (Planned Parenthood counselor, teacher, pastor, boyfriend's mom, etc.) told me that if I didn't want my parents to find out, I would have to have an abortion . . .

My boyfriend threatened me if I didn't abort.

Everyone told me I was too young to have a baby and that my only alternative was abortion.

Any of these problems can dramatically exacerbate normal family tensions. Kept in the dark, parents cannot know that their child is struggling to cope with his or her abortion experience. With no frame of reference for understanding their child's disturbed behavior, parents are likely to become increasingly frustrated at being held at a distance. In turn, the parents' frustrations are likely to fuel the distrust or rebellious nature of the teen because they "simply don't understand" what he or she is going through.

Targeting Teens

Unfortunately school counselors, social workers and others in positions of authority can exert tremendous influence over a vulnerable teenager, steering her into an unwanted abortion.

For example, William Hickey, a high school guidance counselor in Hatboro, Pennsylvania, circumvented the state's parental consent law by arranging for a 16-year-old girl to have a secret abortion in New Jersey. The girl's parents, Howard and Marie Carter, subsequently filed a lawsuit against Hickey and the Hatboro-Horsham school district, charging that Hickey pressured their daughter to have an abortion despite her expressed doubts and beliefs against abortion.

The Carters say that Hickey "engaged in a course of conduct which was inherently coercive, was intended to and did exert undue influence upon [a minor], and ensured that she refrain from discussing with her parents her pregnancy and whether to obtain an abortion." They say that when their daughter told Hickey she had doubts about undergoing an abortion, he told her, "Someday you'll look back on this and laugh."

The lawsuit also states that school officials refused to cooperate when asked to investigate the situation. Instead, the Carters were told that the school district "has deep pockets" to defend itself from a lawsuit.⁽⁸⁾

Other examples of manipulation and coercion abound. In another court case, the state of Oregon recently settled a lawsuit with three women who were indicted for pressuring an 18-year-old girl into an abortion. Investigators found that in April 1994, Dorothy Carr, Colleen Fettig and Cynthia Frye took Lea Huber for an abortion without her parents' permission. Carr and Fettig were employees at Huber's high school, and Frye is the mother of Huber's boyfriend at the time she became pregnant.

Huber later told investigators that she never wanted the abortion and that Carr "had coerced her into having an abortion by threatening to turn her in for sex abuse" of her teenage boyfriend. Carr and Fettig were indicted by a grand jury for kidnaping, records tampering, and conspiracy, but prosecutors later dropped the charges. The three women then sued the school district, the city, and the state for false arrest and malicious prosecution.⁽⁹⁾

Yet another recent news story involved a 14-year-old Arizona girl. The furor over this girl's abortion began in late August of 1999, when child welfare officials supposedly acting on her behalf requested a court order allowing her to be transported out of state for a late-term abortion. The girl, who was 24 weeks pregnant, is a ward of the state and had been in and out of foster care since the age of five. The 37-year-old man alleged to be the baby's father has since been charged with statutory rape.

Since abortions after 20 weeks are illegal in Arizona, the Arizona Supreme Court circumvented the state law by ordering the girl to be escorted to Kansas by a "civilian volunteer" for a late-term abortion at George Tiller's infamous partial-birth abortion clinic.

The decision provoked an outcry from pro-life officials demanding that the case be examined to determine if laws were violated or if any state money was used toward the abortion in any way. Even some pro-choice politicians expressed reservations about ignoring Arizona state law to end an unborn child's life so late in the pregnancy.⁽¹⁰⁾

One of the most troubling aspects of this case is the question of just who wanted the abortion. The officials who had charge of the girl said that she wanted the abortion, and in fact, news stories said a request was originally made for an abortion when she was 14 weeks pregnant. But before the abortion could be performed, the girl ran away, which naturally suggests that abortion was not her preferred choice. When she was picked up by the police several weeks later, state social workers immediately began to seek a way to secure a late-term abortion, in or out of state.

Since most of the details involving this girl's case have been kept under wraps by state officials, no one knows much about how this girl "chose" to have an abortion or what the impact has been on her. Did she run away in the first place to avoid an abortion, or was she simply coerced, bribed, or browbeaten until she consented to the procedure?

Was she ever fully informed about the risks of abortion to her physical and mental health? Was she told or shown the horrid truth about what a partial birth abortion really involves before she agreed to the late-term abortion? Almost certainly not. Apparently, for teenage wards of the state, misinformed consent is more than adequate.

Conclusion

Unfortunately, there are few safeguards currently in place to protect teenagers from coerced abortions. As we pointed out in a previous issue, in states where parental consent is needed for an abortion, the judicial bypass system is seriously flawed (See "Two Wrongs Won't Make It Right," The Post-Abortion Review, Summer 1998).

Without a mechanism to provide for cross-examination of witnesses and the introduction of witnesses who would testify that the abortion is not in the girl's best interests, how can judges make an informed decision? How can we be sure that the adults seeking permission for the young girl to abort without notifying her parents are not themselves manipulating or pressuring the girl to choose abortion?

In addition, as the Carter case discussed above demonstrates, even in states that require parental consent, it is all too easy for those pushing abortion to simply transport the girl across the state line. Fortunately, the Child Custody Protection Act, pending in Congress, would make it a federal crime for anyone except a parent or legal guardian to take a girl out of state for an abortion in order to avoid involvement in the situation by the girl's parents.

Even this will only protect a few teens, however. Sadly, in many cases it is the parents who are pressuring or coercing their teenage daughters into abortion. Planned Parenthood, however, is remarkably silent regarding the problem of protecting teens from pressure or manipulation by parents who favor abortion. The only way to protect these teens is to pass laws that will make abortionists liable for failing to protect women, especially teens, from coerced abortions.

• The Many Faces of Coercion
• Who's Making the Choice? Women's Heightened Vulnerability During a Crisis Pregnancy

1. Reardon, D., Aborted Women, Silent No More (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1987) 37-38.

2. Rue, V. & Speckhard, A, "Post Abortion Trauma: Incidence & Diagnostic Considerations," Medicine & Mind, 6: 57-75 (1991).

3. Deutsch, M., "Personality Factors, Self-Concept, and Family Variables Related to First Time and Repeat Abortion-Seeking Behavior in Adolescent Women." Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Washington, D.C.: American University, 1982.

4. Franz, W. & Reardon, D., "Differential Impact of Abortion on Adolescents & Adults," Adolescence, 27(105):162-172.

5. Biro, F., Wildey, L., Hillard, P., & Rauh, J., "Acute and Long-Term Consequences of Adolescents Who Choose Abortions," Pediatric Annals, 15(10):667-672 (1986).

6. Mika Gissler, Elina Hemminki, Jouko Lonnqvist, "Suicides after pregnancy in Finland: 1987-94: register linkage study" British Medical Journal 313:1431-4, 1996; Campbell, N., Franco, K. & Jurs, S., "Abortion in Adolescence," Adolescence, 23:813-823 (1988).

7. Saltzman, L. & Policar, M., The Complete Guide to Pregnancy Testing and Counseling (Alameda, CA: Planned Parenthood, 1985) 113-114.

8. Pro-Life Infonet.

9. Green, Portland Oregonian, 11/11/99.

10. See articles in The Arizona Republic, Aug. 29 - Sept. 1, 1999.

Originally published in The Post-Abortion Review, 8(1), Jan.-March 2000.  Copyright 2000, Elliot Institute.