This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

H. Paul Lasky, MD
Cornwall Hospital Cornwall, NY

JAMA. 1993;270(21):2559.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.

—In her article entitled "Planned Parenthood v Casey: The Impact of the New Undue Burden Standard on Reproductive Health Care," Ms Benshoof¹ takes a number of positions that I must take issue with. She opposes the parental consent restriction with a number of arguments, some of which may have merit. Nevertheless, as a physician, I would never provide treatment to a minor in nonemergent situations unless I had parental consent. Why should abortion, an invasive procedure, be exempt from this requirement? Furthermore, minors who are seeking an abortion are having unprotected intercourse and are therefore at risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases such as acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. This makes parental involvement all the more important. I would doubt that an abortion clinic would be motivated to instruct its customers on how to avoid being its clients. I would therefore suggest that the potential benefits of parental . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?