Proposition 73 -Vote No
Here we go again. The governor, whose initiatives have not enjoyed great success in the Legislature, is going to the voters with five propositions on the Nov. 8 ballot. If you get your info from the media, as most of us do, you are probably as confused as I am. What to do?
O.K. I’ve done some homework on one of them and you’re welcome to it. Turnout for this election is predicted to be at an all time low, so every informed vote counts.
See you at the polls.
State Measure 73
This is a very emotional and controversial issue, perceived by many as a “Right to Life” tactical move, and by others as protecting a parent’s rights and responsibilities regarding their minor daughter’s healthcare decisions. The measure prohibits abortion for unemancipated minors until 48 hours after a physician notifies the minor’s parents or guardians. An exception is made for medical emergencies to protect the girl’s life or with written parental waiver. Physicians in violation are subject to monetary damages.
Arguments in favor of the measure stress that it is only common sense that parents assume responsibility for medical decision making; that a teenager, dealing with this onerous life choice, requires the guidance and support of the people who love her and are responsible for her well-being, and that only parents can provide the maturity, perspective and information to decide what’s best for their child. After all, when permission is required for school officials to provide an aspirin to a student, should medical professionals be able to assist a young woman in terminating her pregnancy without her parent’s or guardian’s consent?
Arguments opposing the measure ask the question: Is it the job of the government (or is it even possible for government) to mandate how an individual or family behaves in such a situation? Is it fair to assume that every family enjoys the kind of open, supportive parent-child communication that is required? Will young women who have not been fortunate enough to be able to openly discuss pregnancy with their parents now do so? And, as difficult as it may be to imagine parents or guardians who would be insensitive, cruel or punitive in such a situation, or are simply physically unavailable or incompetent, this is indeed the reality for many of today’s teenagers. If such a young woman is unable to obtain medical assistance without their permission, will she be able to maneuver her way through a bureaucratic and over-burdened court system to get it? Or, will she resort to dangerous and life threatening means to end her pregnancy?
Two strong arguments? Not an easy decision? Wait, there’s more…
There are also at least two other issues that are not part of either media campaign but that we should be very aware of when voting on Proposition 73. The first is that, embedded in the legislative language is a new definition of abortion. The new legislation defines abortion as a procedure that purposely causes “the death of the unborn child, a child conceived but not yet born.” Currently, abortion is defined under state law as a “medical treatment intended to induce the termination of a pregnancy.” It is not hard to see why pro-choice factions see this as a linguistic ploy to reframe the entire abortion debate in California.
The other issue that could have significant political repercussions for judges requires the court system to act in loco parentis. If parental permission is not forthcoming, the pregnant young woman is required to seek such permission from a Superior Court judge. The measure initiates a process whereby a hearing is held, and while the identity of the woman and other details are confidential, each court is required to issue an annual public record of the number of abortion requests granted and denied to minors by each judge. While some argue that this is nothing more than a matter of accountability, it doesn’t take a great deal of imagination to see that this record has the potential of being used (misused?) when Superior Court judges stand for re-election or are considered for other judicial or other elected offices. The American Civil Liberties Union considers this reporting unnecessary and points out that it is not required for any other type of legal decision in California.
It should also be noted that the text of the measure, as it appears in the “Official Sample Ballot and Voter Instruction” booklet distributed by the county, mentions “potential unknown net state costs of several million dollars annually for health and social services programs, the court and state administration combined.”
The California initiative system has the potential for good and evil. To create citizen legislators by giving us the ability to write and pass legislation can be a good thing, especially when government is corrupt and unresponsive. But the process can be co-opted when special interest groups use the system to present simple solutions to complex social issues to move their own political agenda. Who could argue against a parent’s right to know what is in their child’s best interest? And who could argue against a young woman’s right to support, information and guidance as she determines her future. But, who will deny her the medical care she needs if she seeks to end her pregnancy without these resources?
Not I.