In 1999, the Child Custody Protection Act was unveiled.[i] This federal bill would have made it a crime to transport minor girls across state lines to avoid parental involvement laws. It had become apparent that some vicious people were willing to avoid these pro-life laws to get away with their crimes of impregnating underage girls. While the federal bill never became law, it has been introduced many times over the years. Furthermore, it has begun to see success in the states where similar laws have been passed.[ii] These particular laws prohibit the transportation of minor girls across state lines to get abortions without parental permission.

 

 

Idaho passed their law over a year ago, and it was challenged immediately. Sadly, it was enjoined.[iii] It has made its way up to the appellate court where it was recently allowed to partially take effect.[iv] At its heart, the law dives into the issues of parental responsibilities and the notion of rights themselves. While pro-abortion advocates argue that there is a right to travel, the question really becomes is there specifically a right to travel across state lines for an abortion for a minor girl who does not want her parents to know? Pro-abortion advocates seem to assume that there is an absolute right to travel when it comes to the subject of abortion. But, of course, their argument lies on the presumption that abortion is a right to begin with. As has been argued in a prior article,[v] the idea of abortion as a right simply does not hold up. Since all human beings have the moral duty to protect innocent human life, no right to abortion can be derived. As such there certainly is not a right to travel for an abortion particularly since one does have the duty to protect life.

 

 

Every bit as troubling is the blatant disregard for the moral duties of the parents by pro-abortion advocates. Abortion is so fundamental within their mindset that they ignore parental moral duties and responsibilities that have been recognized under the law for eons. Many laws prevent minors from entering into contracts without parental permission, prevent minors from taking an aspirin at school without parental permission, and cannot even receive a tattoo without parental permission. Why? The law normally presumes that minors do not have the moral or intellectual development that allows them to fully recognize the consequences of their actions. As such, they may not do these actions until they reach the age of majority. Certainly, they would not be able to have an elective major surgical procedure done without permission and if it were done, the doctor would be criminally and civilly liable. As aforementioned, abortion advocates simply do not believe abortion falls into this category. Somehow, abortion is exempt from this normal rule. In the past, abortion advocates would argue against pro-life parental involvement laws by arguing that these laws were not in the best interest of the minor girl because of abusive parents. The argument has shifted quite a bit since those days. Abortion is now equated with freedom and in particular abortion advocates argue that one has the fundamental right to travel in order to get an abortion. Why this shift?

 

 

It is possible that the shift happened for several reasons. One of which relies on a 1998 study that showed that roughly two-thirds of pregnant minors were impregnated by men 20 years of age and older.[vi] This study squashed the narrative that minor girls had to avoid abusive parents, but rather the reality showed that these girls were dealing with sexual predators. The narrative had to shift. In the present, abortion advocates do not tend to rely on the “abusive parents” narrative, but rely on more philosophical grounds of their version of “freedom.” As argued in a previous article,[vii] abortion is not freedom since freedom is directed toward the good. Ultimately, abortion advocates confuse freedom with autonomy. And that vision is particularly weak philosophically. One does not argue that they are free to murder. One would not even argue that someone is really free to travel in order to murder another person. It just sounds absurd and is contrary to common sense. One may have the right to travel, but not to do evil deeds. So, that is why the states and the federal government have laws that prohibit the smuggling (transportation) of contraband or human trafficking. One does not have the right to transport kidnapping victims. Since abortion is inherently evil, as such there is no right to travel for an abortion. In particular, there certainly is no right to transport minor girls across state lines to obtain a secret abortion. This is clear since this 1) violates the responsibilities of the parents to give permission to any sort of medical care, and 2) this so-called “right for abortion travel” allows sexual predators to get away with crimes.

 

 

While there is a right to travel, one needs to understand what this means. Rights derive from moral duties. So, for example, one has the obligation to work or to obtain food, this duty entails the need for travel. As such, the right to travel comes into existence. One has to get from Point A to Point B in order to perform these obligations. One does not have the duty to perform evil acts, as such, no right to travel can be derived. That is why the human smuggler has no right to use the roads to do his smuggling. It is in this vein that Idaho’s law is just. In many ways, the transportation of minor girls across state lines for secret abortions is a form of human trafficking. Furthermore, by allowing this trafficking the state fails to properly protect the integrity of the family by failing to uphold the duties and responsibilities of parents.

 

 

Ultimately, this is why it is important that while abortion is legal in many states, pro-life states ought to pass such pro-life legislation. Legalized abortion breeds vice, particularly among those who wish to get away with their crimes. It is incumbent and important that states help secure the sanctity of the family by not only doing away with abortion but to protect minors from abortion trafficking.

 

____________________

[i] See https://nrlc.org/federal/ccpa/why_we_need_ccpa/.

[ii] At the time of this writing Idaho and Tennessee have passed such laws.

[iii] Popik, Jennifer, “Pro-Life Trafficking Laws Temporarily Put on Hold,” Sebastian’s Point, October 28, 2024, retrieved on December 10, 2024, https://www.societyofstsebastian.org/abort-traffiicking-popik.

[iv] The US Ninth Court of Appeals mandated that doctors who refer for abortions across state lines could not be prosecuted. But those who did transport minors for abortions without parental permission across state lines could be prosecuted.

[v] Kral, Joe, “Abortion Is Not A Right And Never Will Be,” LifeNews.com, September 6, 2022, retrieved on December 10, 2024, https://www.lifenews.com/2022/09/06/abortion-is-not-a-right-and-never-will-be/.

[vi] American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Adolescence, “Adolescent Pregnancy – Current Trends and Issues: 1998”, 103 Pediatrics 516.

[vii] Kral, Joe, “Abortion is not Freedom,” Sebastian’s Point, October 12, 2023, retrieved on December 18, 2024, https://www.societyofstsebastian.org/abortion-not-freedom-kral.

​

​