Health & Welfare | Daily Report

freedigitalphotos.net

In the past five years, three measures attempting to restrict abortions for minors have appeared on California ballots.

Last week, another state initiative "entered circulation," which means organizers have until July 11 to gather enough signatures to get it on the ballot. In December, another version failed to make it to the ballot, but proponents aren't giving up.

Like other recent measures, this initiative proposes [PDF] to change the California Constitution to require physicians to notify the parents or legal guardian of a minor seeking an abortion. The minor would have to prove parental abuse or argue her case in court to get an exemption.

Though almost identical in language to Proposition 4, which voters rejected by 52 percent in 2008, the initiative's abuse exemption is unique in that it requires a minor who has been abused by a parent to document it with a signed and notarized statement from a relative who is at least 21 years of age, a law enforcement officer, or a child protective services agent who has investigated the abuse. The doctor performing the abortion would then give a copy of the statement to police or a child protection agency.

The past measures have been largely financially supported by Jim Holman, the editor and publisher of the San Diego Reader – who spent over $1 million on Proposition 4. Other donors have included California winemaker Don Sebastiani, the Knights of Columbus, and the Life Legal Defense Foundation. 

Albin Rhomberg, spokesman for the Parental Notification Initiative Campaign, the group behind the new initiative and previous statewide propositions, described the effort as "a long project – 25 years in the making."

Aside from the three previous parental notification propositions, there have been dozens of initiatives that didn't gather enough signatures, Rhomberg said.

Proponents of current and past measures argue that when minors get abortions without notifying their parents, they are less likely to get prompt care for complications, sometimes life-threatening. They also say that "secret abortions" contribute to the exploitation of young women by sexual predators.

“This law may sound good on the surface, but when we talk to voters, they understand that it doesn’t work and it puts vulnerable teens at risk,” said Kathy Kneer, president of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California.

A 2008 UC San Francisco report [PDF] found that it's "likely that poor adolescents and adolescents of color would bear a larger proportion of the likely impact if a parental involvement mandate was implemented."

The recast initiative comes at time when several controversial anti-abortion measures have been introduced at the federal level. The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act would prohibit the use of federal subsidies to cover the cost of abortions in cases of rape. The bill includes an exemption that says federal assistance will only available in cases of “forcible rape” – not statutory rape or coerced rape. Its author, Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., agreed to withdraw the controversial clause last week after it drew public outcry, but the language has not been removed from the bill. 

“This House is more pro-life than it’s ever been,” Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Penn., told the New York Times. Pitts authored the Protect Life Act, which would allow hospitals to refuse to perform an abortion.

According to recent figures from the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive health research group, "measures designed to restrict access to abortion account for more than half of the introduced bills, compared with 40 percent in 2010.”

As of Feb. 1, nearly 400 measures related to reproductive health and rights have been introduced in state legislatures. Today, 36 states enforce parental involvement requirements, the Guttmacher Institute reports. Twenty-two require one or both parents to consent to the procedure, while 12 require that one or both parents be notified and four states require both parental consent and notification.

Kneer said pro-life groups began writing parental consent initiatives after the Supreme Court upheld the right to an abortion but expanded the rights of states to create restrictions. She said though the majority of federal leaders are pro-life and a majority of states have parental notification laws, she's not worried that California might follow.

“California helped stop the red tide. Barbara Boxer did not lose her re-election," Kneer said. “I think California voters are very thoughtful."

"I think voters say, ‘Gee, I would like my daughter to come to me, but what about those daughters that don’t have someone to go to? I don’t want to hurt them,’" she said. "A lot them change their minds in the election booth.”

But the past three state ballot measures have been close calls. In 2005, 47 percent of the voters supported Proposition 73; in 2006, 45 percent supported Proposition 85; and in 2008, 48 percent supported Proposition 4.

According to a 2009 study by the Public Policy Institute of California:

Since January 2000, the percentage of Californians who oppose limits on access to abortion has declined 10 points (71 percent) – while the percentage who back abortion restrictions has increased 8 points (27 percent).

The report concluded that a majority of Californians do favor parental notification.

Although voters rejected the three state ballot measures, the report reads, "Californians today favor the idea when asked outside the context of a political campaign."