Protecting Adolescents' Right to Seek Treatment for Sexually Transmitted Diseases without Parental Consent: The Arizona Experience with Senate Bill 1309
Free accessArticle commentaryFirst published online May, 2012
Protecting Adolescents' Right to Seek Treatment for Sexually Transmitted Diseases without Parental Consent: The Arizona Experience with Senate Bill 1309
In 2010, Senate Bill 1309 included language to repeal an existing Arizona law that enables minors younger than 18 years of age to seek diagnosis and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) without parental consent. Numerous implications were identified that would have stemmed from parental consent provisions originally proffered in Senate Bill 1309. These implications included diminished access to essential health services among minors, exacerbated existing health disparities, increased health-care spending costs, and thwarted efforts to curb the spread of STDs. Lastly, minors would have been deprived of existing privacy protections concerning their STD-related medical information. This case study describes how collaborative advocacy efforts resulted in the successful amendment of Senate Bill 1309 to avert the negative sexual and reproductive health outcomes among adolescents stemming from the potential repeal of their existing legal right to seek STD treatment without parental consent.
References
1.
S.B. 1309, State of Arizona Senate, 49th Leg., 2nd Reg. Sess. (2010).
2.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §44-132.01 (2011).
3.
ReddyDMFlemingRSwainC.Effect of mandatory parental notification on adolescent girls’ use of sexual health care services. JAMA2002; 288:710–4.
4.
ForhanSEGottliebSLSternbergMRXuFDattaSDMcQuillanGM, Prevalence of sexually transmitted infections among female adolescents aged 14 to 19 in the United States. Pediatrics2009; 124:1505–12.
5.
GavinLMacKayAPBrownKHarrierSVenturaSJKannL, Sexual and reproductive health of persons aged 10–24 years—United States, 2002–2007. MMWR Surveill Summ2009; 58(6):1–58.
6.
ChessonHWBlandfordJMGiftTLTaoGIrwinKL. The estimated direct medical cost of sexually transmitted diseases among American youth, 2000. Perspect Sex Reprod Health2004; 36:11–9.
7.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US), Division of STD Prevention. Sexually transmitted disease surveillance 2008Atlanta: Department of Health and Human Services (US); November 2009.
8.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US). CDC report finds adolescent girls continue to bear a major burden of common sexually transmitted diseases: Disproportionate impact on racial minorities persist [press release]; 2009 Nov 16 [cited 2011 Mar 8]. Available from: URL: http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/STDsurveillancepressrelease.html
9.
HaggertyCLGottliebSLTaylorBDLowNXuFNessRB. Risk of sequelae after Chlamydia trachomatis genital infection in women. J Infect Dis2010; 201suppl 2:S134–55.
10.
NessRBSoperDEHolleyRLPeipertJRandallHSweetRL, Effectiveness of inpatient and outpatient treatment strategies for women with pelvic inflammatory disease: Results from the PID Evaluation and Clinical Health (PEACH) randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol2002; 186:929–37.
11.
FlemingDTWasserheitJN. From epidemiological synergy to public health policy and practice: The contribution of other sexually transmitted diseases to sexual transmission of HIV infection. Sex Transm Infect1999; 75:3–17.
12.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US). Sexually transmitted disease surveillance, 2009. Atlanta: Department of Health and Human Services (US); 2010.
JonesRKBoonstraH.Confidential reproductive health services for minors: The potential impact of mandated parental involvement for contraception. Perspect Sex Reprod Health2004; 36:137–91.
31.
Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §32-1401(27)(ss)(v) (2011).
32.
HodgeJGJrPulverAHogbenMBhattacharyaDBrownEF. Expedited partner therapy for sexually transmitted diseases: Assessing the legal environment. Am J Public Health2008; 98:238–43.
