What it does:

Requires doctors to notify parents before performing abortions on minors.

Why we oppose it:

The measure includes too many “poison pills” — even for those who favor parental notices.

No matter what voters believe about abortion or, more specifically, the importance of parental notice before minors can obtain one, Proposition 73 includes too many “poison pills” — in the form of riders largely unrelated to the main thrust of the measure — to make it tenable.

Proponents of this initiative argue that their main goal is to get kids to talk to their parents before terminating their pregnancies. However, there is little reason to believe that Proposition 73 would be effective: More than 60 percent of pregnant minors in California already talk to their parents and data from other states that have implemented parental-notice requirements do not suggest that their numbers are significantly higher.

On the other hand, the measure does contain several particularly pernicious sections. The most well-known is the addition of language into the state constitution that would, for the first time, define abortion as “the death of the unborn child, a child conceived but not yet born.” Critics have pointed out that such language could set an anti-abortion precedent for courts, though this is only a small part of our worries.

Other language in the initiative would subject doctors to lengthy annual reporting requirements, ostensibly so that the state can collect data on the number of minors who seek abortions. Though privacy concerns over this data are largely overblown, the additional paperwork and red tape will only decrease the already meager ranks of doctors willing to help end unwanted pregnancies, for women of all ages.

Most problematic are the details in the “judicial bypass” element of the measure, which would allow girls to go to judges, instead of their parents, to show that they are mature or that an abortion is in their best interest. Practical concerns over access to courts aside, the measure requires each judge to report the number of such cases they hear each year, and how they rule.

For judges, who in California must stand for re-election, the pressure to rule against the applicants would be great. We can imagine the negative campaign advertisements already: “Judge Smith ruled to kill 12 babies last year. Now he is asking for your vote …”

We agree wholeheartedly with the authors of Proposition 73, who say that pregnancy decisions should be made by patients, after consultation with their doctors and loved ones. This measure, though, only empowers politicians and bureaucrats.