It has been my experience that medical procedures require consent from ONE parent, not both.

Requiring consent from both parents IS an undue burden, especially since there are many kids from single parent homes.

There are divorced parents who disagree on issues of abortion so it needs to be both parents making the decisions of their children. In most cases both parents should be readily available.

The only exception to that would be viable is if one parent had absolute and full custody of a child and the other parent was not available.

When the divorced parents disagree, does the young woman cast the deciding vote even though according to this law she is not capable?

There are also divorced parents that disagree on whether a particular medical procedure should be performed on a child. Consent for the procedure still only requires one parent.

If this is a child we are talking about (under 18 pregnant wanting an abortion her parents are still responsible for her. When you are under age your parents they still have control of your major life decisions.

Your not talking a simply and only a medical procedure. Abortion is the case of snuffing out another life in this medical procedure.

My comment was made in response to sgtdmski's post:

My point was that if it is a medical procedure that is at issue, then the consent of one parent will do- like all other medical procedures. Requiring the consent of BOTH parents IS an undue burden on the pregnant teen.

Abortion is safe, ten times safer than childbirth. So if we want young women to be SAFE, we must REQUIRE them to have abortions when they are young and pregnant. The only purpose for parental consent laws is to deny young women the procedure, and that is not true for any other medical procedure.

Ezra Klein: Politics of Choice

"Defenders of parental consent laws often compare abortion to tattooing, ear piercing, or any of the medical procedures for which many states require parental consent. They claim that if we require parental consent for a girl to get a tattoo, we should also require parental consent for an abortion. What I’m going to show here is that our reasons for requiring parental consent for tattoos are absent in the case of abortion. If you believe that an adult woman has a right to an abortion, you should believe that a teenage girl has that right as well, even if her parents say otherwise.
Tattoos are very difficult to undo. They also have the potential to make life harder for children when they become adults. So to make sure that children don’t burden themselves for life by tattooing song lyrics on their foreheads, we require them to get parental approval first. Given the occasional irrationality of children, we’re right to restrict actions that would deny them future opportunities. The whole point of parental consent laws is to make sure kids don't irrationally impose terrible constraints on their futures.
With abortion, the constraints work exactly the opposite way. Bearing a child is the choice that heavily constrains a girl’s future opportunities. Once she becomes a single mother, her prospects for education, employment, and marriage become much worse. But if she has an abortion, she can always choose to become a mother at some future time. All doors remain open to her."

When 2 parents disagree, WHO decides?

When or if two parents disagree if a child of theirs would have an abortion or not have an abortion. It would be apparent that a life is at stake, both the child's life and the child inside the childs life. The option would have to go before a court in the case of a desired abortion.

Supposing your next statement will be that is unreasonable. I would simply have to state that I disagree. We are not talking animal livestock. This is a human being from the moment that embryo in the female body is fertilized by the male sperm. More regard for life is given at the local animal shelters than to the human baby that was created by those who failed to consider that consequences could be pregnancy when they had sex.