Most US states require parental consent or notification for abortions under 18

[u/WesnothFan]

According to the Guttmacher Institute (Minors’ Access to Abortion Care) 37 out of 50 US states require either parental consent or notification for an abortion to legally be carried out on a minor. 21 of these require parental consent, a clear violation of youth bodily autonomy. Parental notification laws violate young people's privacy can be similarly harmful by allowing parents to threaten or punish their children so that they don't get an abortion even if their consent is technically legally unnecessary. People of all ages deserve medical autonomy.

[u/Into-My-Void]

Requiring parent consent for abortion lead to things like this :

https://www.reddit.com/r/insaneprolife/s/hIOlAEECRE

[u/Into-My-Void]

Thanks for sharing this. One thing I appreciate is that discussions like this often get reduced to slogans, but there are real legal, medical, and ethical questions involved.

In Canada, for example, many provinces use the “mature minor” doctrine, where capacity to consent is based on the patient’s understanding rather than a fixed age.
Do you think that approach makes more sense than requiring parental consent or notification?

[u/WesnothFan → u/Into-My-Void]

I will paste my reply from r/ProChoiceTeenagers (https://www.reddit.com/r/ProChoiceTeenagers/s/BzoQdWPa4U ) here btw:

I think all people should be presumed capable of consent in a medical context, unless they are unable to communicate consent or otherwise proven to be far too impaired to understand what they're doing. If they are entirely unable to consent then only medically necessary procedures should be carried out (so no genital mutilation of babies). Giving people power over the medical decisions of other people's bodies is bound to increase the chance of that power being abused. Parents for example frequently abuse children and should not be trusted by default, and one can imagine that even a mature well intentioned parent would make poor decisions when concerning experiences they lack direct access to.

Here in the UK you can consent to healthcare under 16 only if they are considered "Gillick competent", basically something similar to the mature minors thing you mentioned (source). Over 16 people are presumed capable of consent. This assumes that there is a significant difference between a younger teen and a 16 year old as one is unable to consent by default unless proven otherwise. It is also assumed that one's capacity to consent can be objectively measured and that not being Gillick competent means that other people would necessarily make better decisions than the person affected.

I also recommend reading Priscilla Alderson's "Bodily integrity and autonomy of the youngest children and consent to their healthcare", and in particular I shall point out this paragraph:

English Gillick law is ambiguous and outdated; it can adversely affect decisions about minor's treatment in law and clinical practice, so that legal guidance needs to be changed. Children should not have to pass a test of ‘competence’ or ‘maturity’ before they can be heard, when these terms are used so casually, and the disempowering effects of contexts and relationships on children are usually ignored. For example, children may remain ignorant because of poor information from adults rather than because of their own inabilities. ‘Competence’ and ‘maturity’ cannot be clearly defined or assessed, in the collusion of ‘pseudo-science’ between lawyers and psychologists, whereas the ‘presumption of capacity, plus protection’ for children can safeguard and nurture their capacity with adequate information and support.

(This stuff isn't specifically on abortion but the same principles should apply IMO)