Vote no on Proposition 4
For the third time in three years, California voters are being asked to intervene in the dialogue between parents and juveniles regarding access to abortions.
For the third time in three years, Californians should reject a ballot measure requiring doctors to notify parents when minors seek an abortion.
Proposition 4 would amend the state Constitution to bar abortions for unemancipated minors until at least two days after a physician notifies the minors’ parent or legal guardian.
The law has other notification provisions if the minor is in the court protective system, and allows judges to bypass the notification requirement upon clear and convincing evidence of the minor’s best interests or maturity.
The measure grants doctors an exception to the law in the case of medical emergency, and allows doctors to notify family members other than the parent or guardian if there is reason to believe the teen has been or could be subject to family violence or abuse.
It also penalizes doctors who fail to comply with the notification provisions and mandates that the state track abortions among minors.
The ballot arguments on this measure could not be more polarizing. Both sides use hyperbole and scare tactics to persuade voters that they must do their part to protect teens from health risks, secrecy and poor decision-making.
But it is beyond the power of voters to force a family to be functional.
Voters cannot legislate, via the ballot box, trusting ties between parents and teens. Voters cannot ensure parents and teens are talking about the issues and making decisions together, or even that parents will act responsibly and in the best interests of their children at all times.
The responsibilities regarding these intensely personal and wrenching decisions fall to the parents and the teens themselves.
In a society divided about when and whether abortions are appropriate, a law such as Proposition 4 only adds responsibilities and pressure on young women and their families when they are most vulnerable and the situation most volatile. That serves no one.
We urge a no vote on Proposition 4.
The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.
What gets your comment posted?
• Staying on topic
• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less
• Avoiding name-calling
• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger
What gets your comment deleted?
• Personal attacks
• Derogatory remarks
• Name-calling of any sort
• Going off-topic
• Hate speech
• Racially-insensitive comments
• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict
• Posting e-mail addresses
• Posting comments of a commercial nature
• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS
• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.
The fine print
- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.
- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.
- Comments may take several hours to be posted.
- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.
- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our
virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.
- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact
online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.
pharper wrote on Sep 24, 2008 8:32 AM:
mikeb wrote on Sep 24, 2008 8:35 AM:
glenroy wrote on Sep 24, 2008 10:56 AM:
Avoiding the need for an abortion is really the only solution to this dilemma…. "
freeport56 wrote on Sep 24, 2008 11:00 AM:
Ther opening sentence says it all. It SHOULD be a dialog between parents and their children. I am not sure any 12 or 13 year old has enough maturity to deal with the scars this can create. besides what does it say about the relationship between parents and children.
This measure does not ban the childs abortion rights, it creates communication between parents and children. The way it should be in a family. destroy the communication, destroy the family.
It is irresponsible of the NVR to promote the destruction of the family unit.
VOTE YES ON PROP4! Preserve the family's ability to communicate and be honest with one another. "
cab e-girl wrote on Sep 24, 2008 11:28 AM:
Diane Lily wrote on Sep 24, 2008 12:00 PM:
Though abortion clinics and the medical profession in general are mandated reporters for suspected sexual abuse of minors abortion clinics cosider their net profit first and the safety of the minor, never.
This must stop. Parents don't raise their daughters so that they can be given as virtual concubines to dirty old men. Protect minor girls from sexual predators.
Vote YES on 4 "
pharper wrote on Sep 24, 2008 3:43 PM:
Freeport, one of the arguments I keep seeing is that the state is trying to take away a parent's right to parent their child. Mandating communication, as you've suggested this proposition will do, sounds a lot like government parenting to me. Face it: in some families, that's just not a possibility. Where is the protection for those girls? We can say, "Oh, of course there will be exceptions," but I find that hard to believe. What girls in that position would actually tell the truth to someone she doesn't know?
This proposition is dangerous for teenage girls. "
merri wrote on Sep 24, 2008 4:32 PM:
sigep739 wrote on Sep 24, 2008 5:12 PM:
But wait... that would require them to admit that abortions could potentially be traumatizing. "
pharper wrote on Sep 24, 2008 7:15 PM:
napadad wrote on Sep 24, 2008 8:54 PM:
And there is a great effort to stop any suspected abuse and you do these people a disservice by saying otherwise! Family planning is staffed with caring dedicated individuals who make every effort to see the women who come there get all the help they need and at a much lower pay scale than at a private practice. "
winemd wrote on Sep 24, 2008 9:10 PM:
Also, the statement "What girls in that position would actually tell the truth to someone she doesn't know?" Isn't that exactly what they ARE doing if they walk into a clinic? They are telling the truth to someone they don't know and who doesn't know or care about them (except in an abstract sense).
I have to consent to every other medical procedure for my child; why shouldn't I be informed about this? "
funnyme wrote on Sep 24, 2008 10:15 PM:
Vote YES. "
Diane Lily wrote on Sep 25, 2008 10:35 AM:
But the girl should not have to be the one to report on her father and Prop 4 will see to that. Any decent doctor would suspect something seriously wrong when a 12, 13 or 15 year old shows up pregnant. The doctor and the clinic personnel are the mandated reporters not the girl.
And, there is a California Bay area case of a 13 year old continually abused by her mother's boyfriend. He took her to a clinic and threatened her if she told her mother. The mother finally discovered what was happening and reported the abuser to the police. He is now behind b ars. But the parents shouldn't have to wait while abuse continues before protecting their daughter. Prop 4 will protect the daughter and provide the parent with his/her rightful authority "
DinoSilver wrote on Sep 25, 2008 6:38 PM:
By not mandating parental notification, we are protecting the man/boy who impregnated the girl, not the girl.
By not voting for Prop 4 (and by this articles own arguement) we are saying that abortion clinics have the bigger burden of responsibility if there is endangerment to the girl than the parent has. Or the burden of the minor boy's parents (as many the case may be).
If you are pro-choice or pro-life, when will we as a society, understand that by not addressing the root cause of why the minor girl got pregnant, we will never reduce the amount of abortions in this state.
Abortions to minors on demand does not "protect our children". It enables the wrong that put the girl in this position. That includes adult thugs and predators. "
a teacher wrote on Oct 24, 2008 6:47 AM:
I support a woman's right to choose, but not a child's right. I voted yes. "
srnitnw wrote on Oct 24, 2008 11:36 AM:
a teacher wrote on Oct 26, 2008 9:15 PM:
jeepracer10 wrote on Oct 28, 2008 12:57 PM:
cop105 wrote on Nov 3, 2008 10:18 AM: