WE OPPOSE PROPOSITION 73
The League of Women Voters of California opposes Proposition 73 on the November 8, 2005 special election ballot. The League's opposition to this attempt to require parental notification before a minor can obtain an abortion is based on our position that public policy in a pluralistic society must affirm the constitutional right of privacy of the individual to make reproductive choices.
Background: Currently the law protects a minor's confidentiality to obtain an abortion. The California Reproductive Privacy Act of 2002 codifies the privacy rights established by Roe v. Wade. It provides that every individual possesses a fundamental right of privacy with respect to reproductive decisions and that the state shall not deny nor interfere with a woman's right to choose an abortion prior to viability of the fetus, as defined in the act.
A parental consent law was enacted in California in 1987 and was overturned by the California Supreme Court, which found that it violated the explicit right to privacy in the state Constitution. Although the court recognized that protecting the welfare of adolescents and promoting family harmony are significant objectives, it found that the parental consent law did not advance those goals and was in fact harmful to young women.
This measure, titled "Termination of Minor's Pregnancy. Waiting Period and Parental Notification," would amend the California Constitution to bar an unemancipated minor from having an abortion until 48 hours after the physician notifies the minor's parent or legal guardian, except in a medical emergency or with a parental waiver. The notice is to be conveyed in writing, signed and dated, and delivered in person or by certified mail. The measure permits judicial waiver of notice based on clear and convincing evidence of the minor's maturity or the minor's best interests. The minor must file a petition with the juvenile court to obtain such a waiver and must appear personally in the proceedings.
A dangerous proposal. Parental notification laws might seem reasonable, but in a real world, they do nothing to keep teens safe or to promote family communication. Parents rightfully want to be involved in their teenagers' lives, and all parents want what is best for their children. But good family communication cannot be mandated by the government. And the provisions of this proposition would be locked into the state Constitution.
Family communication must begin long before a teen faces an unplanned pregnancy. The best way to protect our daughters is to begin talking about responsible, appropriate sexual behavior from the time they are young and to foster an atmosphere that assures them they can come to us. The real answer to teen pregnancy is prevention and strong, caring families.
But some teens live in troubled homes. The family might be having serious problems, or parents might be abusive, or a relative may even have caused the pregnancy. Even teenagers who have good relationships with their parents might be afraid to talk to them about something as sensitive as pregnancy. If for any reason our daughters can't or won't come to us, we must make sure they get safe, professional medical attention and quality counseling from caring doctors and nurses. In other states, when parental notification laws make teens choose between talking with parents or having illegal or unsafe abortions, some teens choose the illegal abortion, even though it is dangerous.
--LWVC
