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
Lasky HP. Planned Parenthood v Casey. JAMA. 1993;270(21):2559. doi:10.1001/jama.1993.03510210045021