Judge Rules on Abortion Notification Lawsuits
Requests from both sides were addressed in a battle over a proposed constitutional amendment regarding the sensitive issue of abortion in California.
Requests from both sides were addressed in a battle over a proposed constitutional amendment regarding the sensitive issue of abortion in California.
Proposition 73 is one of several measures to be voted upon in the November 8 special elections called by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The measure would require that abortion providers notify the parents of minors at least 48 hours before they perform an abortion.
Minors may seek a judicial waiver for notification, granted based upon the minor’s maturity or best interests. An exception is allowed in cases of medical emergencies. Only unmarried minors under the age of 18 would be subject to the proposed law.
Get Our Latest News for FREE
Supporters and opponents of the measure filed suits in the first week of August over language included in the state’s Voter guide. Last Thursday, Superior Court Judge Raymond Cadei ruled on the suits, giving slight victories to both sides.
Cadei rejected requests from Parent’s Right to Know, a group that supports the amendment, to take out a statement by opponents that “millions of concerned parents” are opposed to the amendment. Cadei also denied their requests to change the description issued by the attorney general.
The judge ruled that opponents of the measure must change the wording on a statement that minors are put “on trial” if they seek a judicial waiver. Cadei also refused to take out a statement by supporters saying that “these laws reduce minors’ pregnancy and abortion rates without danger and harm to minors.”
Campaign for Teen Safety, which opposes the amendment, had argued that parental notification laws can put teens at risk of increased family conflict and reduced access to timely medical care.
They and other opponents to the parental notification law asserted that “Proposition 73 would serve as a blatant intrusion by the government into sensitive family matters and would place scared, vulnerable teens in jeopardy.”
Fostering open communication between parents and teens is a key part of reducing teen pregnancy; however, parental notification will not automatically lead to increased communication within the family, argued Campaign for Teen Safety. Rather than mandating parental notification, they said, more efforts should be focused on education, counseling, and birth control.
On the other side, supporters of parental notification argue that parents need to be involved in major health decisions such as getting an abortion, in order to provide counseling and support for their children.
On the Parent’s Right to Know site, one parent shared her story about finding out just a few hours beforehand that her 13 year old daughter was to undergo an abortion. The clinic would not release any information to the mother of the teen, making her wait until the procedure was done to see her daughter.
Both sides agree on the need to reduce teen pregnancies but disagree over the means to reach this goal. The issue remains highly controversial and sensitive as debate continues in the public arenas of politics and society as well as on the intimate level of personal choice and family decisions.
More information can be found at the following websites:
Parent’s Right to Know: www.parentsright2know.org
Campaign for Teen Safety: campaign4teensafety.phoenix.vertex.net/index.php
