Prop 4 Fails – Third Time Parental Notification Measure Defeated at the Polls
California voters rejected for the third time a proposed initiative that would have required minors to notify their parents 48 hours before getting an abortion. Like the two that preceded it, the latest proposition would have amended the California Constitution to remove rights currently guaranteed adolescents. In American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren, a case filed in 1987 by NCYL and several other organizations, the California Supreme Court recognized that minors have a right to privacy under the State Constitution and that this right includes the freedom to continue or terminate a pregnancy. NCYL has been actively involved in protecting those rights ever since.
NCYL’s adolescent health law project provides continuing education to health care providers and the public on minor consent and health confidentiality law, using publications, training, and its website, TeenHealthRights.org. NCYL Senior Attorney Rebecca Gudeman also works with public and private health clinics to ensure these rights are honored and that adolescents have access to needed health care. Over the course of the past year, Rebecca played a key role in advising the No on Prop 4 campaign, talking with the media, and educating voters on the legal impact of parent involvement laws.
Prop 4 would have required notification and a waiting period before unemancipated pregnant minors could obtain an abortion. Specifically, doctors would have been required to notify a teen’s parents of her intended abortion by delivering a state-scripted form in person or by mail. (The initiative had no provisions for counseling to accompany the government notice). After the completion of the notification process—which takes 2 full days in the case of mailed notification—the teen would have had to wait an additional 2 days before obtaining an abortion.
Unofficial results show California voters defeated Proposition 4 by 52.6 percent to 47.4 percent. The two previous, almost identical propositions – Prop 73 in 2005 and Prop 85 in 2006, were defeated by 52.7 percent and 54 percent, respectively.
Opposition to this type of initiative is widespread among experts on teen health and safety throughout the state. Opponents to Prop 4 included the American Academy of Pediatrics, California District; the California Medical Association; the California School Counselors’ Association; the California Association of Family Physicians; the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; the California Association of Family Physicians; the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; and the California Teachers Association.
Today, the majority of adolescents (and the vast majority of 14- and 15-year olds) seeking an abortion involve their parents—even without a mandate. Moreover, one study comparing states with a parental notification mandate and those without found a marginal difference in the rate of parental involvement in their daughters’ abortion decisions.
Experts say, however, that mandating notification could potentially endanger teens who cannot safely involve a parent. Instead of linking these youth to the medical and counseling services they need, they say Proposition 4 could lead teens to take desperate measures, like crossing state lines, obtaining self-induced or illegal abortions, delaying medical care, or contemplating suicide.
A wealth of research corroborates these experts’ concerns. For example, in one survey, more than 30 percent of adolescents who chose not to involve their parents in their abortion attributed this decision, at least in part, to fears of physical harm, being thrown out of the house, or other abuse. Many others pointed to difficult family situations, such as drug dependency, job loss, health problems, and marital issues.
The consequences of parental notification mandates are well-documented. In 2006, the New England Journal of Medicine reported that the percentage of second-trimester abortions rose dramatically for some teens upon the enforcement of a parental notification initiative. This spike was likely due to an increase in pregnant 17-year olds who waited until their 18th birthdays to obtain abortions in order to avoid parental notification.
More broadly, studies show that when confidentiality is not guaranteed, teens are reluctant to obtain reproductive health services but continue having sex. When teens fear that their confidentiality will not be protected, they are more likely to withhold pertinent information from their medical provider and less likely to return for follow-up visits.
Finally, a series of recent studies casts doubt on the efficacy of judicial bypass procedures in mitigating the risks associated with parental notification. Pregnant teens are often unaware of this alternative in states where it exists, and even when they do go to court, they often face judges who deny their petitions on arbitrary or ideological grounds.
