In about three weeks, there’s going to be a host of ballot initiatives here in California courtesy of our crappy actor/governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger. I’m going to spend a few posts going through the various ballot measures and give my thumbs up or down. In the past, I’ve tried covering everything in one post, but that proved to be a little unwieldy. So I’ll be breaking things up a bit.

Proposition 73 – From the description in the voter’s information guide :

WAITING PERIOD AND PARENTAL NOTIFICATION BEFORE TERMINATION OF MINOR’S PREGNANCY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

Amends California Constitution, prohibiting abortion for unemancipated minor until 48 hours after physician notifies minor’s parent/legal guardian, except in medical emergency or with parental waiver.

Defines abortion as causing “death of the unborn child, a child conceived but not yet born.”

Permits minor to obtain court order waiving notice based on clear, convincing evidence of minor’s maturity or best interests.

Mandates various reporting requirements.

Authorizes monetary damages against physicians for violation.

Requires minor’s consent to abortion, with certain exceptions.

Permits judicial relief if minor’s consent coerced.

In theory, I agree with parental consent laws. If I were a parent, I’d hate to think that my daughter was receiving medical care without my consent, but you’d have to be pretty obtuse to believe that this is about a “parent’s right to know”. In 1953, a state law was passed to allow minors to receive pregnancy-related medical care without a parent’s permission, but Prop 73 isn’t aimed at overturning that law, but modifying the existing law so that it doesn’t cover abortions. If you’re anti-abortion, this makes sense, but to hide behind the “parents deserve to know” argument is disingenuous. Especially since the first line of the pro-argument is “In California, a daughter under 18 can’t get an aspirin from the school nurse, get a flu shot, or have a tooth pulled without a parent knowing.” Shouldn’t all of these hypothetical parents be equally concerned about their daughter receiving prenatal care such as a cervical exam or a Pap test? You’d think…

As far as the “death of the unborn child” controversy is concerned, the proposed constitutional section begins with “For purposes of this section, the following terms shall be defined to mean…”. That, to me, seems to indicate that the proposed wording would only apply to the parental notification section. Not that it matters much to me, since I think this is a blatantly dishonest bill designed to chip away at the abortion. Call me a centrist, but I believe there probably is a little room to compromise when it comes to abortion, but this isn’t it. Hiding behind your children isn’t the way to reach that middle ground.

In summary, I’m voting NO on this one. If the proponents of this change to the California constitution really believed the words they were speaking, they’d be fighting to overturn the 1953 law that allows minors to receive pregnancy-related medical care without parental notification, not amending the constitution to put limits on abortion.