relatives. . . . Many of the homelessnmust also be persons with whom it isndifficult and perhaps painful to maintainna pleasant relationship. . . .nWhatever the process, the outcome isnthat many of the homeless are completelynisolated, and most have onlynvery superficial ties to others.”nFractured lives and ruptured ties —nthese are the reasons for the “newnpoor” and “homeless families.” Thesenindividuals are not families at all; indeed,nthey are the antithesis of family.nCommitment and support are the forcesnthat prevent homelessness; they arenthe “ties that bind.” Family values arenwhat in the past provided these defenselessnwomen and children, andnchildren with children, a place to callnhome. Only in recent decades, as thentraditiorial institutions of family,nchurch, and community have comenunder increasing assault, have familynties frayed to the point of breaking.nWomen now are besieged by the samenmisfortunes men are, and families cannor will no longer protect them fromnthese forces.nWhat are usually called “homelessnfamilies” can best be considered .1990nfemale versions of the bum, wino, andntramp of earlier times. Then hencouldn’t tolerate the oppressive dailyngrind. She can’t now. He wouldn’tnstop drinking. She can’t quit crack. Henfound friends who would accept him asnhe was. She has them now. He had anplace to go. She has one now. Thennfamilies were expected to nurture andnsupport—at the very least, to toleraten— the wild teen girl, the retarded child,nthe rebellious daughter. Lately thenAmerican family has dissolved, and fornthe first time its parts are scattered tonthe streets. The female remnants arenmuch like the male ones, except shenhas a baby or two and now is called “anfamily.”nIn answer to Zigas’s question, I toldnhim of my visit to the shelter andnRayeann’s statement that there hadnbeen only one or two couples therensince August of 1989. “It is nearlynimpossible to find homeless families,nthat is husband-wife families, toncount,” I told him. To my extremenright a hand shot up. I recognized anmiddle-aged former labor organizer,nrecently ordained as an Episcopalnpriest. He said, “Yeah, but that’s herenin South Bend. With all our economicn54/CHRONICLESnproblems, no homeless families comenhere. They go somewhere else.” Thenmyth of the homeless families, like allnmyths, dies hard.nDan McMurry is a professor ofnsociology at Middle Tennessee StatenUniversity in Murfreesboro.nLAWnAlone AmongnStrangersnby Anne Marie MorgannAbortion and ParentalnConsentnAt the moment the U.S. SupremenCourt upheld the right of states tonenact parental consultation abortionnstatutes, the abortion-advocacy organizationsnwent into high gear. ThenHodgson v. Minnesota and Ohio v.nAkron Center for Reproductive Healthndecisions “endangered teens,” theynclaimed, and NOW President MollynYard charged that the Court hadn”thrown down the gaundet before thenyoung women and girls of America.”nHowever, a rational — rather thannemotive — analysis of the relevant issuesnreveals that the Court’s decisionsnwere very sensible ones. Notwithstandingnthe pained protests, the rulingsnshould have a critical impact on whethernyoung, frightened, pregnant minorsnwill be the recipients of their parents’ncounsel or the abortionist’s zeal, andnwhether the lucrative abortion-on-demandnindustry will continue virtuallynnnunrestrained.nOf the 1.5 million abortions performednin the U.S. annually, nearlynone-third are on minors, many withoutnparental consent or even knowledge.nWhile state laws require parental permissionnfor other surgery on minors,nabortion has been the sancrosanct exception.nYet there is broad-based publicnsupport for parental involvement laws;nfor example, a 1989 USA Today pollnreported that 75 percent believe parentsnshould be notified before a femalenunder 18 has an abortion. A nationwidenLos Angeles Times survey ofnwomen who have themselves undergonenabortions indicated that fully twothirdsnagreed that “Minors should havento get their parents’ permission beforenthey can get an abortion.”nNonetheless, this is not the practicenin most states. While 37 states havenpassed parental involvement statutes,nuntil this Supreme Court decisionnmost were temporarily or permanendynenjoined. Other legislatures seekingnpassage became battlegrounds for bitterndebates.nWhy is there such intense oppositionnto laws that the public views asnsimply common sense? Privately, abortionnadvocates desperately fear thatnparental consultation laws mark thenproverbial foot-in-the-door to overturningnabortion-on-demand. Publicly,nthey offer an array of unsubstantiatednobjections.nOpponents’ arguments can be examinednin light of three compellingnstate interests for requiring parentalnconsultation, as delineated in the HighnCourt’s 1976 Bellotti v. Baird decision:n”The peculiar vulnerability ofnchildren; their inability to make criticalndecisions in an informed, mature manner;nand the importance of the parentalnrole in child rearing.” In the pastndecade, substantial documentation hasnemerged to sustain the Court’s position.nCritics contend that parents are extraneous,nsince minors will have abortionsn”in consultation with their doctors.”nThis is an exaggeration. Manynyoung girls never see a doctor untilnthey undergo surgery. Most aborhonsnare performed at free-standing abortionnclinics, not in hospitals, and nearly allnstates have repealed clinic regulationsnor licensure. Pre- and post-aborhonncounseling and emergency equipmentn