The Parents’ Right to Know measure is likely to appear on
the next special election ballot, a measure which would create a
state constitutional amendment requiring physicians to notify a
parent or guardian 48 hours before they perform an abortion on an
unmarried minor, and would impose civil penalties on individuals
who coerce a minor to have an abortion.
It is a measure that is likely to appeal to parents of
adolescent girls from both sides of the abortion debate, but at
what price?
Opponents say that it will seriously reduce access to and use of
abortion services for this high-risk age group, instead of creating
effective parent-teen interaction on these sensitive issues.
If passed, the state Department of Health Services would be
required to maintain detailed records of abortions performed on
minors.
On April 13, initiative supporters submitted more than 950,000
signatures to qualify the measure for the next statewide ballot.
The group exceeded the 598,105 valid signatures needed, and will
most likely qualify once names and addressed are verified.
The measure is sponsored by anti-abortion organization Life on
the Ballot, spearheaded by newspaper publisher Jim Holman and
longtime anti-abortion advocate and spokesman Albin Rhomberg.
Despite its wide sponsorship by anti-abortion groups and social
conservatives, the Sacramento Bee reports that such a measure
“would bring out voters on both sides of (the) state’s
continuing battle over a woman’s right to
abortion.”
The idea that a minor in school could be taken to an abortion
clinic without the parents knowing may be a concern for a lot of
parents on either side of the abortion issue. Thus critics and
supporters alike are agreeing that this measure has broad
constituency.
Some experts though, speculate a significant reduction in access
to abortion services in California. The California Legislative
Analyst’s Office estimates the measure would reduce the
number of abortions performed in the state by 25 percent.
Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California and the national
Feminist Majority Foundation are already gearing up their
constituencies to fight the initiative, calling it an “unsafe
and inappropriate intrusion by government into families’
private lives.”
Planned Parenthood has said, “We want to encourage good
family communication and we don’t see this initiative as
something that can force families to communicate about sensitive
issues such as this.”
Surprisingly, the criticism is not just coming from the abortion
rights arena. Anti-abortion advocates are concerned this particular
measure is not the best strategy for reducing adolescents’
access to abortion services.
The measure wasn’t the only abortion notification measure
attempting qualification for the ballot this year. The Parental
Notification campaign pulled its petition efforts once it became
obvious that supporting two initiatives was jeopardizing their
shared goal.
The two measures were nearly identical, except the
Parents’ Right to Know version has additional reporting
requirements and audits. Those additions have some anti-abortion
experts concerned about its ability to eventually pass, as they
believe the reporting requirements will raise red flags with
privacy advocates.
In addition, the coercion provision of the measure is one
critics believe may open the document to a legal challenge, saying
it violates a California law which limits initiatives to a single
subject.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has not come out strongly for or
against this measure, lest he distract from his own special
election agenda. Schwarzenegger’s press secretary stated the
governor “supports the concept but has not endorsed the
proposal.”
Carroll is a doctoral student in Community Health Sciences
at the School of Public Health, and a member of the Legislative
Watch and Student Action Committee.