Roughly 28 years ago, Illinois passed the Parental Notice of Abortion Act, mandating that underage girls could not undergo an abortion without prior notification and consent from their parents or guardians. It was tied up in the courts until 2013 when it finally went into effect. The law was viewed as an endorsement of parental rights, ensuring their ability to be involved with the development of their children. But on Friday, Governor J.B. Pritzker signed a law repealing the PNAA. The measure barely passed in the legislature, with even some of the Democrats joining all of the Republicans in opposition. So this is apparently the direction that Illinois is heading under single-party Democratic leadership. (Chicago Tribune)

So let’s review how the state of Illinois views the independence and treatment of minors for a moment. Can a girl under the age of 18 get a tattoo in that state? No, she can not. (And the tattoo artist can go to jail if she does.) Can she buy and consume a beer? Nope. In fact, she has to wait until she’s 21. Can she go into a theater to see an R-rated movie? Well… she can if she’s seventeen and has a valid ID. Otherwise, her parent or guardian has to purchase the ticket for her.

But at 16, if she becomes pregnant and wants to have an abortion or she decides she wants to be a “he” and have male hormones pumped into her without her parents knowing about it, that’s just fine and dandy. I understand that Illinois in 2023 is almost certainly a state that wouldn’t impose many – if any – restrictions on abortions in the post-Dobbs world, but this just seems like a case of liberals trying to shove it in everyone’s faces.

It shouldn’t matter what your personal position on abortion is, be it pro or con. This question is about something bigger. Children need their parents’ help when making big decisions that will impact them for the rest of their lives. That’s why we have age of consent laws. Children are not deemed able to provide informed consent.

Supporters of this repeal measure have stated that the law places children at risk if they are in homes where they are subject to abuse or even incest. But we’re talking about a (thankfully) tiny number of households. And that argument also fails the test of logic. Current laws already allow minors to request intervention from a judge to waive the notification requirement if they fear for their safety at home. And as the linked report admits, 99.5% of such requests were granted since the law went into effect. If they really wanted to strengthen such protections they could have made the waiver process even easier and more transparent rather than repealing the entire bill.

This is part of a larger and very disturbing trend we’re seeing around the country. Primarily, though not entirely in liberal states, people who claim to care about children are actually making it even easier for children to be damaged. And this speaks to a larger culture that rejects parental rights and believes that the state knows what’s best for children rather than their parents, unless, of course, the state is run by conservatives.