Calif. Judge Rules That Disputed Language For Parental Notification Ballot Initiative Can Stay On Voter Guide

Main Category: Abortion
Article Date: 13 Aug 2008 - 7:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   view / write opinions   rate article

A California judge on Friday ruled that information about a 15-year-old Texas girl who died of blood poisoning in 1994 after abortion-related complications can remain on the official voter guide for a parental notification ballot initiative in November, the Sacramento Bee reports.

The ballot argument for Proposition 4 -- which would require a 48-hour waiting period before minors could receive an abortion, during which time a physician would notify the minor's parent or legal guardian -- says, "Sarah was only 15 when she had a secret abortion" and suffered a "deadly infection," adding, "Had someone in her family known about the abortion, Sarah's life could have been saved." Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Michael Kenny said that although he is "troubled by the Proposition 4 proponents' artful characterization" of the girl, he cannot find any "convincing evidence" that the language could convince voters that the measure could have saved the girl's life. Prior to issuing the ruling, Kenny told lawyers that the "courts have recognized that in ballot arguments, proponents are allowed to engage in hyperbole" (Hecht, Sacramento Bee, 8/9).

Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California and other groups earlier this month filed a lawsuit that asked the California secretary of state to remove the language from the voter guide (Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 8/4). Attorney Beth Porter, who represented PPAC and the other groups in court Friday, said that "Sarah" is a pseudonym for 15-year-old Jammie Garcia Yanez-Villegas, who was considered a married woman under Texas "common law" regulations because she was living with her fiancé at the time she underwent the abortion procedure. According to Porter, Proposition 4 requires parental notification only for "unemancipated" minors, and the Texas girl would not have fallen under the scope of the measure. "It's absolutely false to say if someone had known about it, her life would be saved."

Catherine Short, an attorney for proponents of the initiative, said that the girl's parents would have been required to be notified of her abortion under the measure because she did not represent herself as married and because California has no common law marriage statute (Sacramento Bee, 8/9).

Editorial

Although Proposition 4 might be similar to "well-meaning but misguided effort[s] ... to force minors to notify their parents before seeking an abortion" that were rejected by California voters in 2005 and 2006, "this year's version is even more insidious," a San Jose Mercury News editorial says.

According to the Mercury News, less than 3% of teen girls in California become pregnant, and "it's well documented that the vast majority" who do become pregnant tell their parents. Teens who do not tell their parents are more likely to be rape or incest survivors and often are fearful of violence or being thrown out of their home, the editorial says, adding that these "are the girls who most need help," but Proposition 4 would "make their tragic circumstance worse by giving them two choices -- one worse than the other."

The editorial says one choice would be trying to convince a judge to give a bypass on the parental notification requirement. "Navigating the courts scares the bejabbers out of most adults, let alone frightened teenagers," and "delays" because of court hearings could jeopardize girls' health, according to the Mercury News. The other choice, which the editorial says represents a "new low," allows minors to tell "certain adult relatives" instead of their parents if they tell a physician in writing that they have been victims of child abuse, the editorial says. Such a statement would "automatically trigger" police action, the Mercury News writes, adding that teens "trying to deal with a pregnancy could quickly be mired in a child abuse investigation involving the parents she was afraid to talk to in the first place."

The "need for this kind of law in California is widely exaggerated" and should be rejected, the editorial says, adding that supporters of the initiative could not find a "better example" to "illustrate the need" for the measure than a case of a girl who lived in another state more than a decade ago. "Reducing the number of teenage abortions is an excellent goal," the editorial says, concluding, "The way to make that happen is through education and effective contraception -- not by preying on the most troubled of pregnant teens to make a political point" (San Jose Mercury News, 8/10).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2008 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.