Proposition
85, which would require parental notification at least 48 hours
before a physician performs an abortion on a minor, is on the
ballot for the Nov. 7 elections, after a similar proposition was
narrowly rejected last year.
Proposition 85 is very similar to last year’s Proposition
73, which was rejected by a 50.8 to 49.2 percent margin.
Katie Short, co-author of the Proposition 85 initiative, said
there were a few changes made to this year’s proposition,
such as subduing the language. While Proposition 73 refers to
abortion as a procedure to cause the “death of an unborn
child,” Proposition 85 defines abortion as “termination
of a pregnancy” that does not result in birth.
Paul Laubacher, an intensive-care nurse in Sacramento and
proponent of the proposition, said it would give flexibility to
parents who want notice before a surgical procedure is performed on
their underage daughter.
“(Parents) spend years looking after their
(children’s) welfare, taking them to soccer games, and to
have this surgery done without them knowing is a serious lapse in
health-care policy,” Laubacher said.
But opponents of the proposition say they believe requiring
parental notification would place the most vulnerable teens in
danger.
Jessica Langtry, a supporter of the No on 85 campaign, said this
proposition would force teens from abusive homes to delay receiving
critical medical care, or turn to illegal or self-inflicted
abortions because they cannot go to their parents.
Langtry added that she believes the proposition is somewhat
unnecessary because many teens choose to inform their parents
anyway.
“Parents rightfully want to be involved and most teens,
around 70 percent, are already involving at least one parent in
these decisions,” she said. “We’re definitely in
favor of parent-teen communication, but we just don’t feel
that the government can mandate that sort of
communication.”
Langtry said the California teen-pregnancy rate has fallen
substantially over the past 10 years and attributed this drop to
programs that promote comprehensive sex education and communication
between parents and teens.
“California is leading the nation in the reduction of
pregnancy rates, which is why we question the need for a
proposition,” she said.
The proposition would give parents the choice to waive their
rights to notification and does not require parental consent.
“On all surgical procedures on minors, parental consents
are required,” Laubacher said. “Proposition 85 is only
requiring parental notification (in the case of abortion), not
consent.”
The proposition would also allow minors to petition against
notifying their parent or guardian.
But Langtry said she believes the distinction to be minimal in
the mind of a scared and pregnant teen.
“For a teen who comes from an abusive home, having to tell
her parents is what she fears, whether or not they agree with her
decision,” she said.
Langtry emphasized the difficulty teens might have navigating an
overburdened court system.
“She’s scared; she’s desperate, and she
doesn’t need a judge,” Langtry said. “She needs
to get herself to a counselor or medical care.”
Langtry said she and other opponents of the proposition believe
its supporters have a larger agenda to ban abortion itself and this
proposition is the first step toward reaching that goal.
But Laubacher pointed out that the proposition affects
notification of abortion, not abortion rights themselves.
“Sometimes you hear the claim that this is another
initiative to chip away at abortion,” he said.
“However, if one looks at the last clause of the initiative
text, it points out that this initiative is speaking only to the
requirement of notification and does not pertain to any other
rights to abortion.” Short said she feels confident about
this election since Proposition 73 was closer to being accepted
than any other proposition last year.