Source: http://www.mcgeorge.edu/Publications/California_Initiative_Review/Past_Initiatives_(Before_November_2005)/2003_October_Special_Election.htm
Timestamp: 2018-02-20 21:31:04
Document Index: 621232659

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 32', '§ 32', '§ 32', '§ 32', '§ 32', '§ 32', '§34', '§25958', '§ 32']

2003 October Special Election — McGeorge School of Law
Home > Publications > California Initiative Review > Past Initiatives (Before November 2005) > 2003 October Special Election
Proposition 53 — Infrastructure Finance. (initiative did not pass)
Proposition 54 — Classification by Race, Ethnicity, Color or National Origin: Initiative Constitutional Amendment. (initiative did not pass)
Report — California Recall Election Laws: Potential Reforms to Avoid the Next "Circus"
The Oct. 7, 2003 Initiative Reviews were prepared under the supervision of Mary-Beth Moylan, Instructor of Legal Process, for the Capital Center for Government and Policy/Governmental Affairs Program.
Proposition 73, the Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of a Minor’s Pregnancy, is an Initiative Constitutional Amendment. California Official Voter Information Guide, Text of Proposed Laws, Proposition 73 (Secretary of State, 2005) (accessed August 28, 2005). Proposition 73 would create a 32nd section to Article 1 of the California Constitution. It requires physicians to provide a parent or legal guardian with written notification at least 48 hours before performing an abortion for an unemancipated minor. Notification may be delivered in person or sent by both first class and certified mail. If there has been no response within the 48 hour waiting period, the abortion may be performed.
Proposition 73 is viewed by supporters as a means for parents to assist their daughters in a life altering choice. It will “restore Californian’s right to counsel and care for their young daughters before – and after – an abortion.” Proposition73 (accessed August 28, 2005).
Opponents of Proposition 73 say that teen safety supersedes parents’ rightful desire to know about their child’s pregnancy and possible abortion. If the government attempts to mandate communication, “scared, pregnant teenagers ... may resort to unsafe, illegal abortions.” Id. This law will not keep teenagers safe, but will put them in further danger. Id. Furthermore, mandating notification infringes upon privacy rights protected in the California Constitution. David Ollier Webber, Proposition 73 Parental Notification: Facts & Analysis, (accessed September 9, 2005).
Proposition 73 proposes a 32nd section to Article 1 of the California Constitution. This section would require physicians to provide written notice to the parent or legal guardian of a minor at least 48 hours prior to performing an abortion. Proposition 73, § 32(b). This notice requirement may be waived in the event of a medical emergency, or if the minor chooses to avail herself of the judicial bypass option. Id. at § 32(f-g). Through this option, the minor may petition the juvenile court for a hearing. If the judge determines that the minor is of sufficient maturity to make this decision independently, or if the judge determines that parental notification is not in the minor’s best interest, then waiver may be granted. Id. at § 32 (h)(1). All judicial proceedings will be conducted in a timely manner, consistent with “U.S. Supreme Court rulings on parental notification laws in other states.” David Ollier Webber, Proposition 73 Parental Notification: Facts & Analysis, (accessed September 9, 2005). All proceedings and representation will be held at no cost to the minor, who will also have the right to appeal an unfavorable ruling in another timely proceeding. Proposition 73, § 32(j).
Different states have enforced judicial bypass laws in different manners. Minnesota state courts grant a majority of requests for waiver of parental notification, and one Massachusetts study showed that only nine of four hundred and seventy seven abortion requests were denied. Planned Parenthood, Teenagers, Abortion, and Government Intrusion Laws, (accessed September 12, 2005).
Proponents of Proposition 73 have expressed discontent with the ballot label assigned to the proposition by the Attorney General: Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy. “Almost before the ink was dry on the proposed voter information materials compiled by the Secretary of State, Yes on 73 campaigners filed suit in Sacramento challenging the ballot label assigned by the Attorney General.” David Ollier Webber, Proposition 73 Parental Notification: Facts & Analysis, (accessed September 9, 2005). Proponents argue that the phrase “waiting period” is misleading, as the initiative focuses on parental notification, with the waiting period being a matter of secondary concern. Id. This type of misnomer may confuse voters who rely on the ballot label to inform them of the nature of a proposition. While voters who have read the full text of the proposition will understand the relationship between the waiting period and parental notification, those who read only the ballot label may not fully understand what Proposition 73 will do if passed. However, in August the Sacramento Superior Court held that the ballot label assignment was appropriate, noting that the proponents had failed to clearly demonstrate that the language was incorrect. Laubacher v. McPherson, Case No. 05CS01151, August 15, 2005. Presiding Judge Raymond Cadei noted, “We are not here to convince the court that one person’s way of saying it is better than someone else’s,” and upheld the ballot label and brief description drafted by the attorney general and legislative analyst’s office. Steve Lawrence, Mixed Ruling on Ballot, (accessed September 10, 2005). In spite of this seemingly conclusive ruling, “both sides are preparing” for the eventuality of further legal challenges. David Ollier Webber, Proposition 73 Parental Notification: Facts & Analysis, (accessed September 9, 2005).
Proposition 73 contains a definition for “abortion,” defining the procedure as “the use of any means to terminate the pregnancy of an unemancipated minor female known to be pregnant with knowledge that the termination with those means will, with reasonable likelihood, cause the death of the unborn child, a child conceived but not yet born.” Proposition 73, § 32(a)(1). Opponents of Proposition 73 contest this definition of “abortion,” arguing that its use of the language “unborn child” could have far reaching consequences. David Ollier Webber, Proposition 73 Parental Notification: Facts & Analysis, (accessed September 9, 2005). Because Proposition 73 is a Constitutional Amendment initiative, if passed the above definition of “abortion” would become a part of the California Constitution, and may have authority in future reproductive rights lawsuits. Opponents assert that this definition is the terminology favored by abortion opponents over more scientific descriptions like embryo and fetus, and assert that a neutral definition would be more appropriate for the Constitution. Id. The definition further defines “unborn child” as “a child conceived but not yet born.” Proposition 73, § 32(a)(1). Opponents emphasize this definition has “nothing to do with parental notification and could have far-reaching consequences.” Campaign for Teen Safety, Frequently Asked Questions,. On its face, the definition appears to limit itself to the text of Proposition 73, qualifying the definition as applying “for purposes of this section.” Id. If this statement proves effective, it could isolate the definition from criticism by effectively distinguishing it from the definition of abortion in other contexts. However, opponents fear that insertion of this definition into the California Constitution will establish a precedent for defining abortion in a manner favored by abortion opponents, when a neutral definition may be more appropriate. If Proposition 73 passes, it is likely that opponents will continue the challenge of this language via judicial proceedings. David Ollier Webber, Proposition 73 Parental Notification: Facts & Analysis, (accessed September 9, 2005).
In 1987 the California Assembly enacted AB 2274, which was never enforced because its application was stayed by the lower courts pending its validity. Lungren, 66 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 213. Had it been enforced, AB 2274 would have added language to Civil Code §34.5 stating “that section shall not be construed to authorize a minor ... to receive an abortion without the consent of a parent or guardian other than as provided in §25958 of the Health and Safety Code.” David Ollier Webber, Proposition 73 Parental Notification: Facts & Analysis, (accessed September 9, 2005). Thus, in the absence of a medical emergency or judicial waiver, abortion would have been prohibited for minors absent parental consent. The United States Supreme Court has upheld a similar mandatory parental involvement requirement with a bypass option. Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S.622 (1979) [”Bellotti”]. The California Supreme Court, however, has consistently interpreted the privacy clause of California’s Constitution to protect reproductive freedom more expansively than would the federal constitution. David Ollier Webber, Proposition 73 Parental Notification: Facts & Analysis, (accessed September 9, 2005).
Proposition 73 would require a 48 hour waiting period after a parent or guardian is notified before a minor can obtain an abortion procedure. Proposition 73 § 32(b). Such waiting periods between the time of notification and the time an abortion can be performed have been upheld when such as an adequate judicial bypass procedure is written into the law. William H. Danne, Jr., J.D., Validity, Construction and Application of States Requiring Parental Notification of or Consent to Minor’s Abortion, 77 A.L.R.5th 1 (2005).
Opponents state that requiring a minor woman to notify a parent or guardian prior to receiving an abortion does nothing to promote teen safety or open communication among families. Opponents of 73 claim that in most cases minor women will consult with their parents when deciding whether or not to seek an abortion but that some young women do not because they cannot do so safely. Opponents claim that laws such as Proposition 73 only result in postponing medical care and risking health complications for these most vulnerable teens thus putting their health and lives in jeopardy. Planned Parenthood of California, Protect California Teens, (accessed on August 26, 2005).
Opponents point to statistics which show that California’s teen pregnancy rate has fallen over 41 percent in the past decade. They assert that this drop can be credited to educating teens about responsible sexual behavior and contraceptive use. (accessed on August 26, 2005) (citing: Adolescents and Parental Notification for Abortion, a brief published by The Bixby Center for Reproductive Health and Policy, ).
Opponents state that California Courts may not be prepared to handle judicial bypass requests from adolescents. Looking to statistics from states that have parental notification laws with judicial bypass requirements opponents claim that this can result in undue delay in obtaining an abortion making the procedure more complicated. Helena Silverstien & Leanne Speitel, “Honey, I Have No Idea”: Court Readiness to Handle Petitions to Waive Parental Consent for Abortion, 88 Iowa L.Rev. 75 (2002). Though abortions are safe medical procedures in the U.S., the risk of complications increases if the abortion is delayed into the second trimester. For example, opponents point to Mississippi, where a judicial bypass to the parental notification requirement to obtain an abortion is available. In that state adolescents who obtained an abortion after that state’s parental consent requirement took place were 10-20 percent more likely to do so in the second trimester. (accessed on August 26, 2005) (citing, Adolescents and Parental Notification for Abortion, a brief published by The Bixby Center for Reproductive Health and Policy, ). They point to statistics found when comparing states that have parental notification laws (Minnesota) and those without (Wisconsin) finding that the adolescents involve their parents in the decision whether or not to have an abortion at similar rates (65.3 percent and 62.1 percent respectively). Id.
They point to the mandated reporting of these procedures to the government as a further invasion of the state into private family matters. Opponents also claim that the passage of Proposition 73 will result in more self-induced and unregulated abortions putting the lives of young women greatly at risk. Opponents state that the most important factor in the choice of whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is the safety of the minor female. Planned Parenthood of California, Protect California Teens, (accessed on August 26, 2005) (citing, Adolescents and Parental Notification for Abortion, a brief published by The Bixby Center for Reproductive Health and Policy, ).