Prop. 4, Parental abortion notice, fails again
By EVELYN NIEVES
Associated Press
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.
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.
Dirty Napkin wrote on Nov 5, 2008 4:26 PM:
John Richards wrote on Nov 5, 2008 5:24 PM:
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:
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:
1badwhiteboy wrote on Nov 5, 2008 6:33 PM:
Dirty Napkin wrote on Nov 5, 2008 7:13 PM:
dizzy wrote on Nov 5, 2008 7:17 PM:
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:
Dwayne wrote on Nov 5, 2008 7:22 PM:
Are these people crazy...!!! "
dizzy wrote on Nov 5, 2008 9:07 PM:
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:
John Richards wrote on Nov 5, 2008 11:07 PM:
wowquebonita wrote on Nov 5, 2008 11:41 PM:
Dirty Napkin wrote on Nov 6, 2008 8:27 AM:
winemd wrote on Nov 6, 2008 11:25 AM:
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 wrote on Nov 6, 2008 10:16 PM:
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:
winemd wrote on Nov 7, 2008 7:15 AM:
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: