SCIENCE&HEALTH: Prop. 73 retreads failed territory

By Sarah Fisher

Proposition 73, which will appear on the statewide special
election ballot next week, proposes to mandate parental
notification for minors who get abortions.

As someone involved with public health, I believe this is not a
beneficial measure for young girls.

The California Nurses Association, California Academy of Family
Physicians and California Medical Association all oppose the
proposition as well.

The most telling fact in this debate is that similar legislation
has already been tried and has failed in California. In 1987,
California lawmakers passed legislation requiring minors to obtain
the consent of a parent or a court before having an abortion.

But because of legal challenges, the law was never implemented,
and the California Supreme Court struck it down in 1997.

In fact, the California Wellness Foundation reported that
California’s teen birth rate dropped more than 40 percent
over the last decade without constitutional amendments or forced
notification laws. The report said the declines were due in large
part to comprehensive sex education programs, which provide
information on birth control while promoting sexual abstinence.

The key in this debate is choice. Prop. 73 proposes to take that
choice from minors by mandating physicians to notify a parent or
guardian at least 48 hours prior to the actual abortion
procedure.

Proponents for the bill argue that it will better prepare
parents for the physical, emotional and psychological problems that
could result from their daughter’s abortion.

But what about the daughter?

The primary concern here should not be whether or not the
parents are notified ““ it should be their daughter’s
safety. Safety is a concern for those minors who are not able to
talk to their parents and are unaware of other options.

Minors would have the option of seeking a waiver through the
juvenile court system if notifying their parents is not possible.
The minor would not have to pay court fees and would be provided
with a lawyer, and the judge would have to hear and decide on the
case within three days of receiving the request.

But while this sounds great on paper, in reality minors may not
be in the proper state of mind to seek a waiver from a judge when
they just find out they are pregnant.

The last thing these girls need is to face a judge ““ they
need a counselor.

Another disturbing fact about this legislation is the language
that describes an abortion as causing “death of an unborn
child, a child conceived but not born.”

This definition has nothing to do with the proposition, but just
makes it easier for future politicians to propose new anti-abortion
laws that could affect adult women as well. It is easier to sway
the populace when you use the word “child,” rather than
“embryo” or “fetus.”

Lastly, family communication is not something that can be
mandated by the government.

Parents need to talk to their children from an early age so they
know and understand their options, practice safe sex, and feel
comfortable coming to their parents should they become
pregnant.

Most girls do involve a parent in the decision, but we need to
look out for girls who come from abusive, neglectful and troubled
homes.

Voters on Nov. 8 should remember that the primary concern should
be the minor’s safety, not whether the parent was
notified.

Fisher is a student in the School of Public Health. Graduate
student columns will run every two weeks on the Science &
Health page.