are not required, and any doctor (notnsolely obstetricians) may perform abortions.nJustice Stevens’ concurring statementnin Danforth in 1976 is correct:n”The majority of abortions now arenperformed by strangers in unfamiliarnsurroundings, where minors are alone,nfurtive and frightened visitors subjectednto assembly line abortion techniques.”nDr. Edward Allred, who owns an abortionnclinic chain that performs 60,000nabortions annually, described clinicnpractices for the San Diego Union innan October 12, 1988, article:nVery commonly we hearnpatients say they feel like they’renon an assembly line. We tellnthem they’re right. It is annassembly line. . . . We’re tryingnto be as cost-effective as possiblenand speed is important. . . .n[W]e try to use the physician fornhis technical skill and reducenthe one-on-one relationship withnthe patient. We usually see thenpatient for the first time on thenoperating table and then not again.nThe absence of clinic regulations tonprotect women’s health and safety encouragesnslipshod operations, includingn”abortions” on women who were notnpregnant. The lack of emergencynequipment has resulted in tragedy.nWhile Debra L. was undergoing hernabortion, she swallowed her tongue andnattendants were unable to restore hernbreathing to normal. The clinic’s directorncalled Debra’s mother to conveynthat her daughter had had “minor surgery”nand was having “respiratory problems.”nHospitalized, Debra lay in ancoma for two and a half months, thenndied. Her mother, an amicus innHodgson, grieves that her daughterncould have had an abortion without hernknowledge.nOpponents of parental notificationnsay abortions are so problem-free thatnparents are not necessary, but evidencensuggests otherwise. Scores of medicalnjournals report that women under 18nwho obtain abortions are more susceptiblento physical injury, and have somenof the most catastrophic complications.nThe Southern Medical Journal citednadolescent case studies of abortionrelatedncomplications, including uterinenrupture or perforation, cervicalnlacerations, hemorrhaging, pelvic pain,nendometritis, incomplete operations.ninfertility, and repeated miscarriage. Antypical pattern emerges with a minor’sncomplications: she will delay healthncare out of fear of parental discovery ofnthe abortion, and then go to a hospitalnemergency room. “The teenager,nfrightened and mentally and physicallyntraumadzed by her abortion, will oftennnot seek help until she is almost moribund.nHer parents may be the last tonknow.” Ironically, she must have parentalnconsent for treatment.nDr. James Anderson, a Virginianemergency room physician, shockedneven committed abortion advocates atnthe Virginia General Assembly whennhe testified of his hospital experiences.nDr. Anderson frequently treats minorsnwho have had abortions (without parentalnknowledge) for severe post-abortionncomplications. He also observesnthe perilous adolescent pattern of delayingntreatment. One patient died lastnyear after becoming so infected afternan incomplete abortion that antibioHcsncould not save her. Furthermore, andoctor faces a life-threatening dilemmanin diagnosing a problem when a patientndenies having an abortion due tonfear of parental discovery — becausenproper treatment relies on accuratendiagnoses. The physician must guess atnthe truth. Dr. Anderson testified he isnoften forced to break the news tonparents.nHodgson amicus Rachel E. manifestednthis “vulnerability.” After undergoingna clinic abordon at 17 on thenadvice of her high-school counselor,nshe developed flu-like symptoms.nWithout post-abortion instructions,nshe assumed that these were unrelated.nAlthough she finally went to her familyndoctor, she did not inform him of hernabortion. Bacterial endocarditis, a resultnof a post-abortion infection, causedna blood clot, stroke, and coma. Rachelnregained consciousness, but remains anpermanently wheelchair-bound hemiplegic.nClearly, parental involvement alertsnparents to potentially dangerous physicalnand emotional problems of whichnthey otherwise would be unaware.nEmotional vulnerabilihes can be equallyncritical. More minors than oldernwomen suffer severe anxiety, acutendepression, long-term guilt, consternation,nand attempted suicide followingnabortion. The latter is particularlyncompelling. In Pediatrics (1981), Dr.nnnCarl Tishler alerts physicians to adolescentnsuicidal tendencies from “anniversarynreactions” — on the perceivednbirth date had the baby come to term.nOne wonders how many adolescentnsuicides were young, grief-stricken girlsnwhose parents were unaware that abordonntriggered their despondency.nDemographic evidence refutes thencharge that parental involvement willncause teens to postpone care and undergonmore dangerous late-term abordons.nMissouri, whose parental-judicialnconsent statute was upheld by the HighnCourt, provides excellent data to evaluatenthe law’s effect. For young womennunder the age of 18, the number ofnabordons done in 1984 (the last fullnyear before the statute took efl^ect) wasn2,564, with 361 done after 13 weeks.nIn 1987, those numbers were 1,859nand 286 respectively. In other words,nthe number of second-trimester abortionsnamong Missouri minors droppednby 20 percent after the statute’s enactment.nThe number of Missouri’s totalnminor abortions also declined — by 27npercent.nThe claim that births to teens willnincrease with parental involvement isnpatently false. Minnesota’s parentalnnotice law was in effect for four yearsnbefore being enjoined. Its data exhibitsnan unexpected benefit: a drasdc reducdonnin minor pregnancies, abordons,nand births. The 1986 Report of thenU.S. House of Representatives SelectnCommittee on Children, Youth, andnFamilies entitled Teen Pregnancy:nWhat Is Being Done? A State By StatenLook related that from 1980 to 1983,nfollowing enactment of a 1981 parentalnnotification law, births declinedn23.4 percent, abordons decreased 40npercent, and pregnancies fell 32 percentnamong fifteen- to seventeen-yearolds.nThe Minneapolis Star and Tribunen(April 20, 1984) reported:nThe surprise finding raises newnquestions about the effect of anparental notification law thatnwent into effect between thosentwo years. It also raises thenpossibility of some changes innadolescent sexual patterns. . . .n”It would appear that womennunder age 18 are reducing theirnrisk of pregnancy,” [Paul]nCunderson [the Health Depart-nOCTOBER 1990/55n