For years, California’s history with abortion legislation has been a tug-of-war between the legislature, the courts and popular opinion. We had a Therapeutic Abortion Act six years before Roe v. Wade, a state Supreme Court ruling that a woman had a right to choose to have an abortion two years after that and, another two years later, a ruling that a minor had that same right, regardless of her dependency status. In 1987, the Legislature enacted a “parental consent” law, requiring that a minor seeking an abortion first obtain the permission of a parent or a judge. That law, after being tied up in the courts for a decade was finally declared unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court. Now the issue is back in a milder package for this November’s statewide election.
Proposition 73 is what is known as a “parental notification” law, which does not require the consent of the parents of a minor seeking an abortion, but stipulates that at least one parent must be notified at least 48 hours before the procedure is done. The initiative was expected to receive a lot more attention than it has, but whether or not it passes will not be a function of which side shouts the loudest. It won’t even be a function of how many pro-life voters versus how many pro-choice voters there currently are in California. It will be a function of how many pro-choice voters feel that parental notification is the most reasonable restriction possible on the troubling issue of underage abortions.
Current polls indicate that a plurality of voters — 48 percent — favor the bill, and there’s no statistic anywhere indicating that California’s proportion of staunch pro-lifers is even close to 48 percent. In fact, the pro-choice majority in this state, as in other states, is largely united in disapproval of parental consent laws, but there is a significant split when it comes to parental notification. A sizeable faction comes down, rightly, in favor of the law.
Pro-choice people are generally leery of allowing the government to dictate when and where an abortion is the proper choice, just as they are leery of allowing the government to interfere in any adult medical decision. But while the definition of a minor varies from state to state, their rights have always been recognized as more limited than those of adults. They cannot vote, drink, smoke or join the military, and when they enter a health care facility, they cannot demand that administrators not contact their parents. There is a natural and entirely justified view that parents should be notified when their child is in any danger. The parents bear ultimate responsibility for an underage child, and it’s important that they know the relevant information in any future health care decisions.
More than that, an unemancipated minor is in all likelihood still living with her parents, and while statistics consistently show that an abortion is a safer procedure than a live birth, complications sometimes happen, and it is those living with the minor who need to be watchful of any problems. It’s common for a friend, boyfriend or spouse to be told to be on the lookout for complications in an adult woman. A minor needs that kind of attention even more than an adult.
Opponents of Proposition 73 have given many well-intentioned reasons for why the measure should be rejected. Most of them hinge upon “what-ifs.” What if a girl is in an abusive home? What if she obtains an illegal abortion rather than tell her parents? Presumably those girls who have a good relationship with their parents will tell them without being forced to, so will this bill really help the girls who need it?
Proposition 73, like many similar bills enacted in other states, attempts to provide an option by including a judicial-bypass clause, which allows the girl to obtain an abortion without parental notification, if she can demonstrate that she is mature enough to make the decision in a confidential hearing with a family court judge. Critics are right to point out that the process is not an easy one, and an issue this time-sensitive is terribly vulnerable to the notorious delays of the judicial process. But minors can and have obtained judicial bypasses when they can prove that they are mature and understand the decision they are making. It should certainly be an easier process, but those who have serious reasons for not telling their parents do have an out.
The simple fact is that, absent such a reason, a parental notification law does not violate the minor’s rights. She retains the right to the final decision, as she well should. The parents may beg, plead or threaten to their hearts’ content, but the choice is still hers. Every abortion is an individual choice, and some are going to be made in more difficult situations than others. While this may sound cruel, it’s not the government’s job to shield young girls from their parents’ anger or disappointment, unless they pose a serious physical or mental threat to her. Abortion is a unique situation, but not so unique that it means all normal rules of procedure in treating minors should be thrown out.
The law can’t make dysfunctional families talk, and it doesn’t pretend to. But the fact that a minor wants to avoid telling Mom and Dad isn’t a signal of a dysfunctional home, it’s a natural reaction from a young person who knows she’s about to disappoint her parents. Some minors simply made a mistake and are dealing with it, others truly need help and refuse to ask for it. There are a few treatments that a minor can consent to and have it remain confidential, including STD treatment. But surgical procedures are an enitrely different ballgame; an abortion is an important medical decision, and parents need to know.
The claims from supporters of Proposition 73 that abortion rates will decrease are baloney. Not only have numerous courts and a study by a conservative think-tank concluded that this isn’t the case, but as we all know, young kids rarely stop to check the abortion statutes in their district before getting it on. Moreover, the disingenuous rhetoric about making sure young girls have their mommies and daddies by their side is difficult to stomach from staunch pro-life supporters. Clearly, they don’t want that at all; they want mommy and daddy to find a way to stop their daughter from going through with it. It’s their belief that abortion is pure murder and cannot be justified, and that’s fine, but it’s a view the majority of Californians don’t share.
Instead, many Californians recognize that, while a government cannot rightly declare that the rights of the fetus trump the rights of the woman, it is correct in declaring that the right of a parent to know what health care their child is receiving is almost inviolable. In the end, the difference between pro-choice voters on this issue boils down to the difference between those who believe that an abortion should be available completely unhindered, and those who believe that certain restrictions are reasonable. Proposition 73 is a reasonable restriction.
