California's Proposition 4: It Seems Like It's a Good Idea, But It's Not
Several people have asked me about my position on Proposition 4 and wanted more details about why I'm opposed to it. On the face of it, this seems like a good idea. What parent wouldn't want to know if his or her daughter was pregnant and thinking of having an abortion? Sounds good. But it just isn't that simple.
This proposition is a replica of Prop 73 launched in 2005 and Prop 85 in 2006. So, this is third time in three consecutive elections that proponents have sought to restrict access to abortion by a teenager. California voters have rejected the first two attempts, but some groups don't give up easily. My hunch is that they don't have close working knowledge of the lives of marginalized teens.
Here are the details of the proposed legislation and why it's not in the best interest of teen safety:
Prop 4 would amend the California Constitution to require that a state parental notification document must be used to notify the parents of a teenager of her intent to have an abortion. Or it could impose court hearings and delays before a pregnant teen under 18 may obtain an abortion. In this way, Prop 4 resembles Props 73 and 85.
But Prop 4 goes much beyond that. It would dramatically expand the liability of physicians who care for teenagers and authorizes lawsuits against them as long as decades after an abortion is performed. So, part of the purpose of this proposed legislation appears to be driving the providers of service out of business.
A physician, in my local paper, The Sacramento Bee, wrote in her letter to the editor: "As a physician who specializes in adolescent health, I am grateful to Peter Schrag for exposing the dangers of Proposition 4 ("Parental notification: Who's the real target?” Oct.7). I treat marginalized youths in Sacramento and conduct research on violence and teen health. Safe, confidential care is essential for pregnant teens, especially those in unhealthy relationships. Under Proposition 4, the pregnant girls I see may not even seek care at all."
She continued: "Doctors recognize that parents are important supports for their adolescents, and we encourage our patients to communicate with their parents when possible. Unfortunately, not all teens have the advantage of parents who care. For them, the open door to confidential care is the only avenue to guarantee their safety. By mandating parental notification and destroying confidentiality, Proposition 4 would shut out those teens who need us the most. Proponents say they are targeting sexual predators, yet they would remove the mechanism that allows us to identify abuse among the most vulnerable teens."
Prop 4 mandates a path that has hazards to teenagers - some of whom live in very dysfunctional families. These are the teens who cannot safely notify their parents or obtain court orders. Proponents state that a teenager living in an abusive home may request that notification be sent to a substitute relative over 21. But the conditions of this option are severe. To satisfy the critiera of this path, the teen must first write out a history of charges against her parents and provide the document to the physician. The physician then must send this written history to law enforcement and send the state's abortion notice to the designated substitute relative. In addition, the physician must include a letter saying that the parents have been reported to a law enforcement agency.
This really does not protect the pregnant teenager. If law enforcement pursues the report or the substitute relative calls the parents, the parents will find out about the teenager's allegations against them, her pregnancy, and her abortion.
This set of "choices" would cause some teenagers to turn to dangerous self-induced abortions or worse scenarios to avoid notification or this court process.
Of course, parents want to participate in their daughters' lives. Most pregnant teens tell one or both parents. But government cannot mandate good family dynamics and communication. That's something that must start long before a teenager thinks about abortion.
Teenagers who think that they cannot safely talk to their parents about their pregnancy tend to have good reasons for not revealing this sensitive news to their parents. The most common are:
I wish that parental involvement laws could transform abusive, dysfunctional families into supportive ones. They don't. They just complicate the lives of pregnant teens when they are in a very rough time in their lives already.
Even teens who have their lives pretty together would have a difficult time following all these steps, not to mention the difficulty of having such personal information documented and discussed in court.
According to the ACLU of Northern California, the proportion of second trimester abortions for females under 18 increases in states with similar parental involvement laws. That is an undesirable side effect of that legislation. In some states, court clerks lecture minors about morals and judges refuse to hear abortion cases or they deny the petitions for personal ideological reasons.
The ACLU of Northern California spent 10 years examining the data of other states with parental involvement laws. They filed a lawsuit and the California Supreme Court ruled that this evidence overwhelmingly showed that these laws were dangerous and unconstitutional. Proposition 4 attempts to overturn the Supreme Court ruling and write this into the California Constitution.
The proponents of Prop 4 probably think that they are fostering parent-child communication. They also probably have not had much personal contact with the very group of teenagers that this law would impact the most. Otherwise, they would realize that Prop 4 is designed to inject more stress and chaos into the life of a young female who is already overwhelmed. Chances are, the families most affected by Prop 4 are not sitting at their computers reading this blog and contemplating the pros and cons of this potential legislation. Chances are, they have bigger fish to fry.
Related Topics:
This proposition is a replica of Prop 73 launched in 2005 and Prop 85 in 2006. So, this is third time in three consecutive elections that proponents have sought to restrict access to abortion by a teenager. California voters have rejected the first two attempts, but some groups don't give up easily. My hunch is that they don't have close working knowledge of the lives of marginalized teens.
Here are the details of the proposed legislation and why it's not in the best interest of teen safety:
Prop 4 would amend the California Constitution to require that a state parental notification document must be used to notify the parents of a teenager of her intent to have an abortion. Or it could impose court hearings and delays before a pregnant teen under 18 may obtain an abortion. In this way, Prop 4 resembles Props 73 and 85.
But Prop 4 goes much beyond that. It would dramatically expand the liability of physicians who care for teenagers and authorizes lawsuits against them as long as decades after an abortion is performed. So, part of the purpose of this proposed legislation appears to be driving the providers of service out of business.
A physician, in my local paper, The Sacramento Bee, wrote in her letter to the editor: "As a physician who specializes in adolescent health, I am grateful to Peter Schrag for exposing the dangers of Proposition 4 ("Parental notification: Who's the real target?” Oct.7). I treat marginalized youths in Sacramento and conduct research on violence and teen health. Safe, confidential care is essential for pregnant teens, especially those in unhealthy relationships. Under Proposition 4, the pregnant girls I see may not even seek care at all."
She continued: "Doctors recognize that parents are important supports for their adolescents, and we encourage our patients to communicate with their parents when possible. Unfortunately, not all teens have the advantage of parents who care. For them, the open door to confidential care is the only avenue to guarantee their safety. By mandating parental notification and destroying confidentiality, Proposition 4 would shut out those teens who need us the most. Proponents say they are targeting sexual predators, yet they would remove the mechanism that allows us to identify abuse among the most vulnerable teens."
Prop 4 mandates a path that has hazards to teenagers - some of whom live in very dysfunctional families. These are the teens who cannot safely notify their parents or obtain court orders. Proponents state that a teenager living in an abusive home may request that notification be sent to a substitute relative over 21. But the conditions of this option are severe. To satisfy the critiera of this path, the teen must first write out a history of charges against her parents and provide the document to the physician. The physician then must send this written history to law enforcement and send the state's abortion notice to the designated substitute relative. In addition, the physician must include a letter saying that the parents have been reported to a law enforcement agency.
This really does not protect the pregnant teenager. If law enforcement pursues the report or the substitute relative calls the parents, the parents will find out about the teenager's allegations against them, her pregnancy, and her abortion.
This set of "choices" would cause some teenagers to turn to dangerous self-induced abortions or worse scenarios to avoid notification or this court process.
Of course, parents want to participate in their daughters' lives. Most pregnant teens tell one or both parents. But government cannot mandate good family dynamics and communication. That's something that must start long before a teenager thinks about abortion.
Teenagers who think that they cannot safely talk to their parents about their pregnancy tend to have good reasons for not revealing this sensitive news to their parents. The most common are:
- Their family may already be in crisis.
- They anticipate that their parents would force them to have the baby.
- Their parents are violent.
- A family relative has caused the pregnancy.
I wish that parental involvement laws could transform abusive, dysfunctional families into supportive ones. They don't. They just complicate the lives of pregnant teens when they are in a very rough time in their lives already.
Even teens who have their lives pretty together would have a difficult time following all these steps, not to mention the difficulty of having such personal information documented and discussed in court.
According to the ACLU of Northern California, the proportion of second trimester abortions for females under 18 increases in states with similar parental involvement laws. That is an undesirable side effect of that legislation. In some states, court clerks lecture minors about morals and judges refuse to hear abortion cases or they deny the petitions for personal ideological reasons.
The ACLU of Northern California spent 10 years examining the data of other states with parental involvement laws. They filed a lawsuit and the California Supreme Court ruled that this evidence overwhelmingly showed that these laws were dangerous and unconstitutional. Proposition 4 attempts to overturn the Supreme Court ruling and write this into the California Constitution.
The proponents of Prop 4 probably think that they are fostering parent-child communication. They also probably have not had much personal contact with the very group of teenagers that this law would impact the most. Otherwise, they would realize that Prop 4 is designed to inject more stress and chaos into the life of a young female who is already overwhelmed. Chances are, the families most affected by Prop 4 are not sitting at their computers reading this blog and contemplating the pros and cons of this potential legislation. Chances are, they have bigger fish to fry.
Related Topics:
Labels: abortion, civil rights, election08, teen pregnancy

9 Comments:
When I was at school, a girl committed suicide because she was pregnant and was scared her parents would find out. She wasn't even from a dysfunctional family. It was just that her parents refused to discuss sex and anything even slightly sexual was taboo.
How scared do you need to be to want to die?
My name is Paula and I’m an intern for Ms. magazine. I just came across your wonderful blog post about California Proposition 4 and wanted to let you know about a new video that has just been released from the Feminist Majority Foundation, the publisher of Ms.
This November, South Dakotans will vote on a draconian abortion ban – Initiated Measure 11. I’m sure you are very aware how dangerous Measure 11 is to women’s reproductive health and rights, as it aims to make it nearly impossible for a woman to obtain an abortion in South Dakota. With help from some celebrities like Camryn Manheim, Amy Brenneman and Sara Ramirez, this video urges people to vote NO on 11 this November on the South Dakota ballot. Check it out/spread it around:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkRYqZnU0Zc
http://www.feministcampus.org/vote/StateInitiativeSD.asp
And of course, please check out our Vote No on 4 video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUVi1l-6M84
Please consider posting these videos onto your website so it is made available to your visitors. We must do all that we can to preserve women’s reproductive rights and let women know what’s at risk this election!
Thanks for your consideration,
Paula Silinger
Ms. magazine
psilinger@msmagazine.com
I think that laws make it harder to figure out an adult decision. If the world was perfect them families would be too and these problems wouldt be-thats not the reality though.on the other hand the reprocussions on doctors isnt fair, they are truly here to help people. young women should not feel so scared to ask someone for help. point being it shouldnt be so hard to get help. When someone is turned away b/c of legal issues im sure it leads to more despair.Each individuals situation should be eval. and then go from there.
This is an issue that is extremely important. As a parent of two teenage girls, I demand that my parental rights be respected. That means the State can not override my authority to make decisions for my children. Why are parents required to consent to non-reproductive health decisions -acne treatment, wisdom teeth,etc. but not reproductive ones? I'll tell you why- money. Planned Parenthood will make less b/c the incidence of abortion will drop if parents are involved.
Parental notification prior to an adolescents' abortion provides increased protection against sexual predators-men having sex with minors, in this case. They won't be able to cover up their crime (statutory rape)by procuring an abortion for their victim. This occurs far more often than you think.
For those who are interested in the medical point of view of adolescent medicine and reproductive health decisions please visit the American College of Pediatricians website. This link is to a pertinent article:
http://www.acpeds.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=10005&art=163&BISKIT=3810120142
I would put a lot more weight in the position of the American College of Pediatricians than I would the ACLU (a committed leftist organization), Ms. Magazine or any "celebrity".
The ACP gives some wonderful advice but it's all theory. In the real world, how many pregnant teens can count on their "loving parents" to help them through their pregnancy or to make their decision to abort? Seriously?
The US has a history of having hangups with discussing sex. IMO, abstinence-only teaching is approved by parents who are uncomfortable with the idea of discussing sex with their children and see it as a way out.
We should be more worried about AVOIDING teen pregnancies by giving teens adequate information about their bodies and contraception for them to be responsible than about who should take which decision for them. If we gave them enough information we might be able to bring down the high number (MUCH higher than all other industrialized countries)of teenage pregnancies.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_tee_pre_percap-health-teenage-pregnancy-per-capita
The US has 50% more teen pregnancies (per capita) than the second in the list, Slovakia ... How does that figure to you?
I don't agree with abortion on any front, so this doesn't apply to me i guess. Babies have a heartbeat the second they are conceived, a week old they can move around. I value Human LIFE. Abortion should be illegal.
No, a cluster of cells does not have a "heartbeat." And that's what it is at first - a cluster of cells, not a baby.
It doesn't matter if you are Pro Choice or Pro Life. If you've ever been face with something like this then you know how hard it is to go to a parent. My sister was rapped by our Uncle and attempted to tell our parents, but they just brushed it off. She wound up getting pregnant and refused to tell our parents because of what happened when she told them about our Uncle. She couldn't get an abortion without parental consent and wouldn't tell our parents, and I guess she felt like she was all out of options so she killed herself. I think it's important for teens to have other options if they feel they can't tell their parents.
Post a Comment