NVR Logo
Prop. 4, Parental abortion notice, fails again
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Save and Share Share
1:30 p.m.LOS ANGELES — A ballot measure that would require doctors to notify parents before performing an abortion on a minor was rejected by voters, but supporters vowed Wednesday to put the issue on the ballot a fourth time.

With almost all precincts reporting, 52.1 percent of voters were opposed to Proposition 4 while 47.9 percent favored it.
Similar to laws in 35 states, the ballot initiative would also have required a two-day waiting period before minors could get abortions.

Voters twice defeated similar measures in 2005 and 2006, but with a historic presidential election inspiring huge voter turnouts, proponents hoped the election would bring enough of their supporters to finally pass the measure. A ballot initiative that succeeded in banning same-sex marriage was also expected to draw social conservatives to the polls.
Proponents of the measure conceded defeat and said it was a “grave injustice” to teenage girls, and vowed to continue to try to get the measure passed by voters.

“I think many Californians are going to be disappointed,” said Paul Laubacher, a spokesman for the Yes on 4 campaign. “What was Obama’s comment? ’Yes we can?’ I think that’s appropriate for our cause.”
Kathy Kneer, president of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, which funded and organized opposition to the measure, said the vote sent a clear message that voters here did not believe the measure was designed for the safety of young women.

“The proponents tried to deceive the voters,” Kneer said.

Ballot measures to limit or ban abortion were also defeated in two other states. In South Dakota, voters rejected an initiative that would ban abortion except in cases of rape, incest and serious health threat to the mother. In Colorado, voters defeated a measure that would have rewritten the constitution to define human life as beginning at conception, which both sides in the campaign viewed as a direct challenge to abortion rights.

In California, young and older voters appeared split on Proposition 4, with preliminary exit polls showing voters under 30 heavily opposed to it, while voters 65 and over supported it. Age groups in between were more evenly split.

Proponents of the abortion-notification initiative hoped minor language tweaks in their latest attempt would make it more palatable to voters. The changes were intended to answer arguments that some girls might be abused if their parents learned they were pregnant.

The latest version would allow minors to notify another adult relative, instead of a parent or guardian.

Opponents said Proposition 4 was a thinly disguised attempt to chip away at abortion rights.

Under a provision of the measure, girls who feared they would be abused if they told their parents they were pregnant would have to give a detailed statement to health care providers that would result in an investigation by authorities. Opponents said many teenagers would not want to disclose abuse if they knew it would lead to such a probe.

Proposition 4’s principal sponsor was James Holman, publisher of the San Diego Reader, a weekly newspaper. He contributed more than $1.3 million of the reported $2.6 million raised for the measure. He also bankrolled the 2005 and 2006 measures.

The No on 4 campaign, largely funded by Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, raised $8.2 million.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger supported Proposition 4, while the California Teachers Association opposed it.
20 comment(s)

Dirty Napkin wrote on Nov 5, 2008 4:26 PM:

" This was a very scarry prop. If girls can't get the help they need, they will resort to horrible, scary, dangerous ways of doing this for themselves. I hope it never passes. For the sake of all our daughters. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 5, 2008 5:24 PM:

" The only question I have, when there are medical complications with the abortion, who pays the medical bills?
Probably not the underage girl. Let's hear one of you anti-4 folks explain that wrinkle. "

dizzy wrote on Nov 5, 2008 5:42 PM:

" I would think that the young girl is covered through insurance, then they would have to step in and cover the medical costs. Not sure...?
At any rate, if it does fall on the tax payers, I would think there will be less chances for medical complications because the girls don't have to go to back alley quaks to perform the abortion.
Thank goodness we have a great relationship with our daughter, but not every parent does. Unfortunately there are parents out there who wouldn't be tolerant, understanding and supportive if their daughter ended up in a "situation". Those are ones that this law is protecting. Glad to see it passed. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 5, 2008 6:04 PM:

" Here's my point. The girl may not know what medical insurance the parents have, especially if communication between them is poor. The parents' insurance may not cover a non-preferred provider used by the girl for the abortion. So are the parents supposed to pay a huge bill out of their own pockets for something they had not okayed, and would have been covered under their preferred provider if only the girl had come to them first? "

1badwhiteboy wrote on Nov 5, 2008 6:33 PM:

" Ha Ha! What moron tried to pass this law again? It's not gonna happen. "

Dirty Napkin wrote on Nov 5, 2008 7:13 PM:

" John, An abortion costs around $250-$350 depending on where you go.. But if a girl in a pickle uses another method of said termination, it could cost her life. You need to open your mind and think about how many babys are "thrown away" in dumpsters, and left in bathrooms because these girls are just too scared to tell anyone. I for one would not ever want to find out that a girl died because of a botched home abortion.. Its happened im sure.. "

dizzy wrote on Nov 5, 2008 7:17 PM:

" I do get your point John, but I am more worried about the girl and what options she might resort to if she can't go to her parents than the parents getting stuck with a bill. And I honestly believe there would be more such medical emergencies that would put the girls life in jeopary, let alone cost thousands if young girls feel they can't go to a trusted medical practice.
I'm not trying to be snarky here, but if I was a parent stuck with a huge bill for a procedure gone awry related to something I didn't ok - perhaps I should be looking the in mirror and asking myself where I went wrong as a parent, not worrying about the total on the bill. "

mytwocents wrote on Nov 5, 2008 7:17 PM:

" John Richards: I have three daughters, they all know what medical coverage we have. If God forbid something happened and I had to pay out of pocket to save my daughters very life I would do so. What's sad is I would have to explain that at all. Simply put, they mean more to me than money.I voted no on this prop for the second time this election and will do so again and again. Females have hard won reproductive rights in this country, why would we take them away? It's clear to me that Prop 4 IS a thinly disguised attempt to chip away at pro-choice. And I don't need to hear from pro lifers on their stance. I've heard it all before, you won't change my mind so save your breath. "

Dwayne wrote on Nov 5, 2008 7:22 PM:

" Schools cannot administer an aspirin without parental and doctors consent, yet can take a child through an abortion and keep t a secret...???

Are these people crazy...!!! "

dizzy wrote on Nov 5, 2008 9:07 PM:

" Dwayne
First - You can't begin to compare a child with a headache (or maybe faking being sick to go home, get out of a test, etc) to a young girl facing an unexpected pregnancy.
Second - Not giving a child an aspirin results in what....a headache. There is little risk that that child is going to go see a doctor behind the school to get an illegal prescription for their headache. A young girl who can't go to her parents with a life altering situation is more likely to resort to desperate measures.
Do I think it is silly that the school can't give my child an aspirin...sure. But maybe my child is allergic to aspirin. Maybe I am a Christian Scientist and it is against my beliefs. Regardless - it is a headache.
Besides, the school isn't giving out the abortions.
This law gives those girls (who are afraid for whatever reason) access to safe medical treatment. "

Joe wrote on Nov 5, 2008 10:50 PM:

" This is ridiculous. I would not want my daughter to have an operation that could put her life in danger without me knowing about it. I would want to help her find a safe doctor to do it. "

John Richards wrote on Nov 5, 2008 11:07 PM:

" Dirty Napkin, I understand your point, however, Prop 4 had an escape clause where the girl could get approval from a judge if she was estranged from her parents. You haven't answered my objection concerning what happens when there is an expensive medical complication. "

wowquebonita wrote on Nov 5, 2008 11:41 PM:

" Wooooooooooo Hooooooooooooooooo!! My VOTE did count..haha...for the second time I voted "NO' on Proposition 4. "

Dirty Napkin wrote on Nov 6, 2008 8:27 AM:

" If it was me, I would go to the ER. They still have to help me, and it comes out of your pocket. I suppose thats what you want to hear, right? Call them and ask. Im just glad it got voted down, just for people like you, who are just looking to argue. I fully support pro choice. Also, one added thing.. They do NOT do abortions here in Napa, yet the people picket every week. I want to go stand on the other side of the street, with my pro choice signs.. Who wants to join me? "

winemd wrote on Nov 6, 2008 11:25 AM:

" No teen wants to have a difficult conversation with their parents. I know, because I had to tell my dad that I was being molested by an “upstanding member of the community” when I was 14. If I had not told my dad and it continued, I could have ended up pregnant and this person could have pressured me to get an abortion and my dad would not have known. There are situations where telling the parents is not the right thing to do (thus the ability to notify another adult), but there are situations where telling the parents is the right thing to do and the teen might not, not because their parents would abuse them, but because the “boyfriend” or molester pressures them. I personally find this a more likely scenario than a parent abusing their child because they got pregnant.
Also, if a parent doesn’t know that their daughter has had an abortion, how do they deal with the emotional aftermath, even if there are no physical complications? They might react in a completely inappropriate way if they don’t know what is going on and why. Most parents have their child’s best interest at heart, despite that child’s fears of how they are going to react. Will the parents be happy? Most likely not, but that does not mean that they will not help their child make a good choice. "

Okaaay wrote on Nov 6, 2008 9:32 PM:

" Winemd, I can understand your point of view, but at the same time, you have to respect people's rights to make choices even if they are a minor. Just because the clinic doesn't call to notify the parent, doesn't mean that the girl wont ever tell them, but it should be up to her. I'm sure you have done things that your parents know NOTHING about- how would you like it for someone to go brodacasting it them??? Let's take it a step further, what if every time you told a lie or did something wrong someone had to report you... You wouldn't stand for it! You wouldn't have the basic freedoms to live your life. I believe that abortion is wrong, but REQUIRING doctors to notify parents is CRAZY! If she chose not to tell, that's her choice! and she will have to deal with the consequences of her actions for the rest of her life. Besides it's the parents responsibility to talk to their child about stuff like this BEFORE it happends. If your child is so desperate that she doesn't want you to know, you have much bigger issues! "

winemd wrote on Nov 6, 2008 10:16 PM:

" Does a minor have a (legal) choice when it comes to alcohol? If they break the law and drink alcohol should the police not call the parents? Shouldn't it be the minor's choice to tell their parents about that?

I agree that parents need to have the lines of communication open in advance. But even when parents do have the lines of communication open, an outside influence (peers or predators) can sway a child not to talk to their parents. I am not saying this is true in all cases, but opponents of parental notification raise the rare issue of abusive parents without commenting on the also rare issue of another party interfering with the communication between parents and children in this area. Many children don't want their parents to know if they are drinking, smoking, doing drugs, having sex, or got pregnant, whether they have bigger issues or not.
And there is still the question of parents not being able to help their child to deal with the consequences of the child's actions if they don't know what the actions are. Having an abortion can cause an emotional reaction due to hormonal issues. A parent could react to the way the child is reacting in a way that could cause further damage if they don't know about it.
I understand that there are circumstances when abortion is necessary. And I understand that you don't think that doctors should tell parents about the children having abortions. We are not likely to change each others' opinions, which is fine. My belief is that most parents would be of more benefit to their children than harm. "

Okaaay wrote on Nov 6, 2008 10:49 PM:

" Alcohol is a controlled substance that is dangerous to people, which is why there are so many laws regarding it, so of cousre the parent should be notified! However, medical history is protected. A husband can't even call the clinic to find out about his wife's medical records, so why should any other type of "medical condition" be different? Being preganant is NOT a crime! Being drunk as a minor is! That's where you draw the line. A parent should be informed when there is immediate danger to their child, however, having an abortion does not garauntee any type of immediate or "emotional issues" after. For all anyone knows that child might be completely fine, but if not she'll have to come to grips with that when she's ready. Just like you made the choice to tell your father, some will and some wont, but that's for her to decide. Also, they say the law would have allowed the minor to chose another adult... what would that solve? What a huge amount of responsiblity to know you're best friend daughter will have an abortion. Should YOU have to tell them? What if she beeged you not to tell and you felt obligated to? Do you think she'd EVER trust you or another adult again? Or what if the adult she chose was the abuser or boyfriend who was pressuring her to have the abortion. If he knew the law all he'd have to do is force her to chose him and she'd still be in the same situation. "

winemd wrote on Nov 7, 2008 7:15 AM:

" You are the one who brought up doing something wrong and it being reported, so that is why I chose that analogy.
Minors' choices are limited for a very good reason. They often do not have the physical or emotional maturity to deal with some situations. That is why parents are there. Many people who have wanted and had abortions and thought they would only feel relief still have emotional issues due to biological reasons (hormones are a powerful emotional influence).
The difference with telling another adult when the court is involved is that the adult will realize that they are telling them for a reason, not just because it is uncomfortable. I would feel comfortable not telling the parents if the telling came from the court. And the court should be able to determine if the adult that the child requests is an inappropriate person, such as the boyfriend if he is an adult or an abuser. The abuser can't force her (through the court) to choose him and is not likely to want to get up in front of a court if he is an abuser. Right now there is nothing stopping this situation from occurring.
So you are saying that parents should not have access to their children's medical records, even though they are responsible for said children's health and well-being. Or just this one area? "

winemd wrote on Nov 7, 2008 10:28 AM:

" Teens want to have all of the rights of adulthood without the responsibilities of adulthood. You can't have one without the other. "

Comment Guidelines
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.
Search:
Web Search Powered
By Yahoo! Search
Napa Valley Register on Facebook
Copyright © 2009 Napa Valley Publishing, a member of Lee Enterprises, Inc.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy