OPPOSES Proposition 73--Waiting Period and Parental Notification before Termination of Minor's Pregnancy. Initiative Constitutional Amendment DESCRIPTION | BACKGROUND | LEAGUE POSITION SUPPORTERS/OPPONENTS | RESOURCES | SUMMARY POINTS | GET INVOLVED

Proposition 73 would:

• amend the California Constitution, prohibiting abortion for an unemancipated minor until 48 hours after the physician notifies the minor's parent/legal guardian, except in a medical emergency or with a parental waiver
• define abortion as causing the "death of the unborn child, a child conceived but not yet born"
• permit the minor to obtain a court order waiving notice based on clear, convincing evidence of the minor's maturity or best interests
• mandate various reporting requirements
• authorize monetary damages against physicians for violation
• require a minor's consent to an abortion, with certain exceptions
• permit judicial relief if the minor's consent is coerced.

The Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) analysis of the proposal follows:

Notification Requirement

This proposition amends the California Constitution to require, with certain exceptions, a physician (or his or her representative) to notify the parent or legal guardian of a pregnant minor at least 48 hours before performing an abortion involving that minor. (This measure does not require a physician or a minor to obtain the consent of a parent or guardian.) This measure applies only to cases involving an "unemancipated" minor. The proposition identifies an unemancipated minor as being a female under the age of 18 who has not entered into a valid marriage, is not on active duty in the armed services of the United States, and has not been declared free from her parents' or guardians' custody and control under state law.

A physician would provide the required notification in either of the following two ways:

• Personal Written Notification. Written notice could be provided to the parent or guardian personally--for example, when a parent accompanied the minor to an office examination or to obtain the abortion itself.
• Mail Notification. A parent or guardian could be sent a written notice by certified mail so long as a return receipt was requested by the physician and delivery of the notice was restricted to the parent or guardian who must be notified. An additional copy of the written notice would have to be sent at the same time to the parent or guardian by first-class mail. Under this method, notification would be presumed to have occurred as of noon on the second day after the written notice was mailed.

Exceptions to Notification Requirements

The measure provides the following exceptions to the notification requirements:

Medical Emergencies. The notification requirements would not apply if the physician certifies in the minor's medical record that the abortion is necessary to prevent the mother's death or that a delay would "create serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function."

Waivers Approved by Parent or Guardian. A minor's parent or guardian could waive the notification requirements, including the waiting period, by submitting a signed, written waiver form to the physician.

Waivers Approved by Courts. The pregnant minor could ask a juvenile court to waive the notification requirements. A court could do so if it finds that the minor is sufficiently mature and well-informed to decide whether to have an abortion or that notification would not be in the minor's best interest. If the waiver request is denied, the minor could appeal that decision to an appellate court.

A minor seeking a waiver would not have to pay court fees, would be appointed a temporary guardian and provided other assistance in the case by the court, and would be entitled to an attorney appointed by the court. The identity of the minor would be kept confidential. The court would generally have to hear and issue a ruling within three business days of receiving the waiver request. The appellate court would generally have to hear and decide any appeal within four business days.

The proposition also requires that, in any case in which the court finds evidence of physical, sexual, or emotional abuse by the parent or guardian, the court must refer the evidence to the county child protection agency.

State Reporting Requirement

Physicians are required by this proposition to file a form reporting certain information to the state Department of Health Services (DHS) within one month after performing an abortion on a minor. The DHS form would include the identity of the physician, the date and place where the abortion was performed, the minor's month and year of birth, and certain other information about the circumstances under which the abortion was performed. The forms that physicians would file would not identify the minor or any parent or guardian by name. Based on these forms, DHS would compile certain statistical information relating to abortions performed on minors in an annual report that would be available to the public.

Penalties

Any person who performs an abortion on a minor and who fails to comply with the provisions of the measure would be liable for damages in a civil action brought by the minor, her legal representative, or by a parent or guardian wrongfully denied notification. Any person, other than the minor or her physician, who knowingly provides false information that notice of an abortion has been provided to a parent or guardian would be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine.

Relief from Coercion

The measure allows a minor to seek help from the juvenile court if anyone were to attempt to coerce her to have an abortion. A court would be required to consider such cases quickly and could take whatever action it finds necessary to prevent coercion.

Prior State Legislation

In 1953, a state law was enacted that allowed minors to receive, without parental consent or notification, the same types of medical care for a pregnancy that are available to an adult. Based on this law and later legal developments related to abortion, minors were able to obtain abortions without parental consent or notification.

In 1987, the Legislature amended this law to require minors to either obtain the consent of a parent or a court before obtaining an abortion. However, due to legal challenges, the law was never implemented, and the California Supreme Court ultimately struck it down in 1997. Consequently, minors in the state currently receive abortion services to the same extent as adults. This includes minors in various state health care programs, such as the Medi-Cal health care program for low-income individuals.

Additional background from the LWVC:

The California Reproductive Privacy Act of 2002 codifies the privacy rights established by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Roe v. Wade decision. It provides that every individual possesses a fundamental right of privacy with respect to reproductive decisions and that the state shall not deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose an abortion prior to viability of the fetus, as defined in the act.

Current law allows minors over 12 to access contraceptive services, prenatal care, sexually transmitted disease (STD) and HIV testing, mental health services, and adoption placement services without mandatory parental consent or notification.

According to a brief published by the Bixby Center for Reproductive Health Research & Policy at the University of California, San Francisco, rates of pregnancies, births, and abortions among adolescents in the U.S. have declined significantly over the past decade, and California's rates have fallen even more steeply than those in the rest of the country. (See RESOURCES.) Adolescents in California report delayed sexual activity and increases in contraceptive use. The brief reviews the characteristics of adolescents having abortions; research on parent-daughter communication about abortion decisions and on the effect of parental involvement requirements on abortion rates; and current laws in other states that impose such requirements. According to the brief, research "suggests that parental notification can have the negative consequence of putting adolescents' health at risk by delaying and otherwise complicating access to care."

LWVUS position on Public Policy on Reproductive Choices: The League of Women Voters of the United States believes that public policy in a pluralistic society must affirm the constitutional right of privacy of the individual to make reproductive choices.

SUPPORTERS Signing ballot arguments for	OPPONENTS Signing ballot arguments against:
William P. Clark California Supreme Court Justice, 1973-1981	Robert L. Black, M.D., FAPP, Officer of the Board American Academy of Pediatrics, California District
Mary L. Davenport, M.D. Fellow of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists	Ruth E. Haskins, M.D., Chair Committee on Legislation, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, District IX California
Maria Guadalupe Garcia, Organizing Director Parents' Right to Know and Child Protection/YES ON 73	Deborah Burger, RN, President California Nurses Association

The rebuttal to the supporters' argument was signed by Deborah Burger; Kathy Kneer, CEO, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, and A. Eric Ramos, M.D., President, California Academy of Family Physicians.

Other organizations opposing Proposition 73 include the American Association of University Women, California; American Civil Liberties Union, California Affiliates; California Medical Association; California Church IMPACT; Latino Coalition for a Healthy California; and the League of Women Voters of California.

RESOURCES

Sheila Hoff, LWVC Program Director for Reproductive Choices, choff74523@aol.com

Jack Sullivan, LWVC Legislation Director, legislation@lwvc.org

Trudy Schafer, LWVC Program Director/Advocate, 801 12th Street, Suite 220, Sacramento 95814, 916-442-9210, Fax 916-442-7362, tschafer@lwvc.org

Campaign for Teen Safety, 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 510, Sacramento 95814, 916-669-4802, www.NoOnProposition73.org. The campaign Web site is highly recommended for anyone advocating against Proposition 73. Visit it to download reference and campaign materials; volunteer and learn about upcoming campaign events; find local campaign contacts; send a message about the proposition to friends; and learn how to host a house party to inform others and raise funds for the campaign.

Bixby Center for Reproductive Health Research & Policy, University of California, San Francisco, Adolescents & Parental Notification for Abortion: What Can California Learn From the Experience of Other States?, August 2005.

SUMMARY POINTS

Campaign for Teen Safety

• Parents rightfully want to be involved in their teenagers' lives and all parents want what is best for their children. But good family communication can't be mandated by government.
• The best way to protect our daughters is to begin talking about responsible, appropriate sexual behavior from the time they are young and foster an atmosphere that assures them they can come to us.
• The real answer to teen pregnancy is prevention, and strong caring families--not new laws that endanger our daughters.
• 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. And even teenagers who have good relationships with their parents might be afraid to talk to them about something as sensitive as pregnancy.
• This law puts those vulnerable teenagers--those who most need protection--in harm's way, or forces them to go to court. These teens don't need a judge, they need a counselor.
• In other states, when parental notification laws make teenagers choose between talking with parents or having illegal or unsafe abortions, some teens choose the illegal abortion--even though it is dangerous. And if, in desperation, teenagers turn to illegal, self-induced or back-alley abortions, many will suffer injuries, and some will die.
• If--for whatever 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.
• The California Nurses Association, the California Academy of Family Physicians, the California Medical Association, Planned Parenthood, and millions of concerned parents all oppose Proposition 73. Mandatory notification laws may sound good, but, in the real world, they just put teenagers in real danger.
• As parents, we want to know when our daughters face a decision like this so we can be helpful and supportive. But also, as parents, our daughters' safety is more important than our desire be informed.

Note: Please adapt this letter to your own community and check your local paper's word limit for published letters.

Editor:

Proposition 73, an initiative requiring parents of minors to be notified 48 hours before an abortion, is on the November ballot. If the proposition passes, the safety and health of our teenage daughters will be put in serious danger.

While all parents rightly want to be involved in their teenage daughters' lives, good family communication cannot be imposed by government. If a teenager gets pregnant, our first concern must be for her safety. Parental notification laws force some teenagers to choose between talking with parents and having illegal, unsafe abortions.

Proposition 73 puts our most vulnerable teens--those who live in troubled homes--in harm's way. If our daughters can't come to us, for whatever reason, we must make sure they get safe medical attention from qualified doctors and nurses.

The real answer to teen pregnancy is prevention and strong, caring families--not new laws that endanger our daughters. The best way to protect our daughters is to talk about responsible, appropriate sexual behavior from the time they are young, so they know they can come to us.

Please join the League of Women Voters and doctors, nurses, health care providers, educators and millions of parents in saying NO to Proposition 73.

Sincerely,

(your name)

For more information on this proposition, go to Smart Voter's coverage.