California voters may have a sense of deja vu when they reach
Proposition 4 on the November ballot.
By EVELYN NIEVES
Associated Press Writer
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) _ California voters may have a sense of deja vu when they reach Proposition 4 on the November ballot.
Twice before, in 2005 and 2006, they have defeated similar initiatives seeking to require notification of parents or guardians when unemancipated minors seek an abortion.
The political atmosphere this year is different than in the previous elections, giving supporters hope the initiative may finally pass.
The 12 propositions on California’s general election ballot are overshadowed by the presidential race, and Proposition 8, the same-sex marriage ban, will bring out just the kind of voters who are likely to support the parental notification requirement.
Supporters are banking on a higher voter turnout this year, which they believe will bring more of their supporters to the polls.
“We were very narrowly defeated in low-budget campaigns,” said Camille Giulio, a spokeswoman for the Yes on Prop. 4 campaign. “Those were both elections that did not have the voter turnout that this election will have.”
Voters in two other states will decide abortion-related measures that are expected to have a greater national impact than California’s notification initiative.
In South Dakota, abortion would be banned outright except in cases of rape, incest or when a woman’s life is endangered. A Colorado ballot measure asks voters to define human life as beginning the moment of fertilization.
The Colorado initiative would not explicitly ban abortion, but it could be used as a way to challenge legal abortion and even some contraception, such as the “morning after” pill.
The South Dakota measure is nearly identical to a law passed by that state’s Legislature in 2006 and then repealed by voters the same year. It invites legal challenges that abortion opponents hope ultimately will lead the Supreme Court to overturn the 1973 Roe. vs. Wade decision legalizing abortion nationwide.
Proponents of Proposition 4 on California’s ballot say the measure is meant both to protect young people and reduce the rate of abortions among minors. Its major backers include James Holman, publisher of the San Diego Reader, a weekly newspaper, who contributed $1.3 million of the $2.5 million that has been raised in support of the initiative. Holman also bankrolled the 2005 and 2006 measures.
But opponents, including the state chapter of The American Academy of Pediatrics, the California Nurses Association and the American Medical Women’s Association, say Proposition 4 not only chips away at abortion rights but also potentially endangers the health of young women.
“Research shows that teens have delayed care and counseling in states with forced notification laws,” said Amy Moy, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood Golden Gate in San Francisco. “That puts teens at risk if they delay care and counseling that could put their health in danger by prolonging the medical attention they might need.”
Dr. Pratima Gupta, a San Francisco obstetrician-gynecologist and board member of the Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, recalled a young patient who called her clinic about an abortion but balked when asked if her parents knew about her pregnancy. Four months later, she returned seeking an abortion. Asked why she had waited, she said she hoped it would go away.
“It really stuck in my mind that teenagers are just teens and they will do desperate and dangerous things when they’re scared,” Gupta said. “Proposition 4 just putting up another barrier is really dangerous. What I care about is teen safety.”
Supporters of the ballot measure say they know of no cases in which a teen’s life or health has been endangered in states with parental notification laws and even parental consent laws.
“That’s an argument that they put out there,” said Grace Dulaney, a spokeswoman for the Yes on Prop.4 campaign. “But we have to look at 35 other states. Thirty five other states have family involvement – actually, many of them have consent laws – and there’s not a single case that they can show us that supports their argument.”
Proposition 4 differs slightly from the two previous measures in that it attempts to address criticism that notification could subject pregnant girls to parental abuse.
The measure states that if abuse occurs, the girl must make a written statement and the health care provider must report the claim, triggering an investigation by Child Protective Services.
Proposition 4 also provides for judicial override of the notification requirement “based on clear and convincing evidence of (the) minor’s maturity or best interests.” Parents also can sign a state Department of Health Services form authorizing an abortion without parental notice. No notice is required if the physician concludes the abortion is necessary to save the minor’s life.
The initiative also would require a 48-hour waiting period before an abortion could be performed.
Opponents say many teenagers who fear abuse would not want to disclose it if they know it would trigger an investigation.
“A teen would basically have to write an extensive narrative of abuse,” said Moy, of Planned Parenthood. “The teen would then have to go home to that same door.”
Dulaney, of the campaign supporting the proposition, said she knows of no cases of abuse resulting from parental notification.
“Again,” she said, “we have to look at precedent. They have none.”
The two sides engaged in a legal skirmish this summer over ballot arguments supporting Proposition 4, which is nicknamed “Sarah’s Law” after a 15-year-old Texas girl who died in 1994 from complications arising from an abortion.
Opponents sued to have the ballot language changed, claiming Proposition 4 would not have applied to the teenager. The girl in question actually was emancipated under Texas law, lived with her common-law husband and already had a child with him.
In August, however, a judge ruled that “in ballot arguments, proponents are allowed to engage in hyperbole.”
