California Proposition 4, Parental Notification of Abortion Initiative (2008)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
California Proposition 4
Flag of California.png
Election date
November 4, 2008
Topic
Abortion
Status
Defeatedd Defeated
Type
Constitutional amendment		Origin
Citizens

California Proposition 4, the Parental Notification of Abortion Initiative, was on the ballot in California as an initiated constitutional amendment on November 4, 2008. The ballot measure was defeated.

A "yes" vote supported requiring notification of a parent or legal guardian of an unemancipated pregnant minor at least 48 hours before performing an abortion and requiring physicians to report the number of abortions performed on minors.  

A "no" vote opposed requiring notification of a parent or legal guardian of an unemancipated pregnant minor at least 48 hours before performing an abortion and requiring physicians to report the number of abortions performed on minors.  


Übersicht

The ballot initiative would have added language to the California Constitution that prohibited abortion for unemancipated minors until 48 hours after the physician notifies the minor's parent or legal guardian.[1]

Election results

California Proposition 4

Result Votes Prozentualer Anteil
Yes 6,220,473 48.04%

Defeated No

6,728,478 51.96%
Results are officially certified.
Source


Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title was as follows:[1]

" Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.[2] ”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary was as follows:[1]

"
  • Changes California Constitution to prohibit abortion for unemancipated minor until 48 hours after physician notifies minor’s parent or legal guardian.
  • Permits notification to certain adult relatives if doctor reports parent to law enforcement or Child Protective Services.
  • Provides notification exceptions for medical emergency or parental waiver.
  • Permits courts to waive notice based on clear and convincing evidence of minor’s maturity or best interests.
  • Mandates reporting requirements, including reports from physicians regarding abortions on minors.
  • Authorizes damages against physicians for violation.
  • Requires minor’s consent to abortion, with exceptions.[2]
 ”

Fiscal impact statement

See also: Fiscal impact statement

The fiscal impact statement was as follows:[1]

" Potential unknown net state costs of several million dollars annually for health and social services programs, court administration, and state health agency administration combined.[2] ”

Constitutional changes

See also: Article I, California Constitution

The ballot measure would have added a Section 32 to Article I of the California Constitution.[1]

Support

Friends of Sarah, also known as Yes on Prop 4, led the campaign in support of Proposition 4.[3] Proponents of Proposition 4 referred to the ballot initiative as Sarah's Law.

Supporters

Officials

Organizations

  • Knights of Columbus[3]
  • Life Legal Defense Foundation[3]

Individuals

  • James Holman[3]
  • Don Sebastiani[3]

Arguments

The following supporting arguments were presented in the official voter guide:[1]

"

It’s time to close the loophole in California law that allows minor girls to be taken for secret chemical or surgical abortions by anyone—even an adult male who impregnated her—WITHOUT THE DOCTOR NOTIFYING ANY FAMILY MEMBER. These predators can even take girls out of school to hide their crimes.

Sarah was only 15 when she had a secret abortion. Within days a high fever set in. No one knew why, or how seriously ill she was. By the time she was hospitalized and doctors determined she had a deadly infection from a torn cervix, it was too late. Sarah died. Had someone in her family known about the abortion, Sarah’s life could have been saved.

Proposition 4—Sarah’s Law—would require doctors to notify a parent or, in case of parental abuse, another adult family member, such as a grandparent, aunt, or sister, before performing an abortion on a girl under 18. Parental consent is not required, but an adult who cares about her can help her understand all options, ensure competent care, and provide her medical history.

Over the past twenty-fi ve years, more than thirty states have enacted laws similar to Proposition 4. THESE LAWS REDUCE TEEN PREGNANCIES AND SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES, WITHOUT DANGER OR HARM TO MINORS.

Medical professionals and lawmakers know children are safer when a family member knows of their medical situation and is informed about risks to their health and safety. New California law requires a parent to provide written consent in person before a minor can use a tanning salon . . .

Yet a young girl can get an abortion WITHOUT A FAMILY MEMBER BEING NOTIFIED—and this could endanger her safety, even her life.

WHEN ABORTIONS ARE KEPT SECRET, ADULT SEXUAL PREDATORS GO FREE. Sarah’s Law will protect young victims of sexual crimes.

Planned Parenthood performed an abortion on a 14-year-old and then, at the request of the male predator who brought her in, gave her a shot of Depo-Provera so he could have sex with her again right away.

ABORTION PROVIDERS AREN’T REPORTING THESE CRIMES TO LAW ENFORCEMENT. Family members will!

Planned Parenthood failed to report the sexual abuse of a 13-year-old brought for an abortion by the 23-year-old who raped her. After the secret abortion, the same man impregnated her again, and she had a second abortion.

Sadly, the list of victims of secret abortions continues to grow. Without Sarah’s Law, most parents won’t know their minor daughter is seeking an abortion.

SECRECY ENABLES ABUSE TO CONTINUE, even abuse inside the home. Sarah’s Law will protect vulnerable girls by ensuring abuse is reported and putting their health and safety first.

DON’T LET YOUNG GIRLS LIKE SARAH FACE THE PHYSICAL AND EMOTIONAL RISKS OF SECRET ABORTIONS ON THEIR OWN—or worse yet, COERCED BY A SEXUAL PREDATOR!

Join doctors, nurses, teachers, parents, and law enforcement officials who urge you to protect our daughters and stop child predators by VOTING YES on PROPOSITION 4![2]

”


Opposition

The Campaign for Teen Safety led the campaign in opposition to Proposition 4.[5]

Opponents

Parties

Organizations

  • ACLU[5]
  • California Family Health Council[5]
  • California Federation of Teachers[5]
  • California Medical Association[5]
  • California Nurses Association[5]
  • California Teachers Association[5]
  • California SEIU[5]
  • Feminist Majority Foundation[5]
  • National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter[5]
  • National Organization for Women (NOW)[5]
  • Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California[5]

Arguments

The following opposing arguments were presented in the official voter guide:[1]

"

PROPOSITION 4 PUTS TEENS AT RISK.

The AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS, CALIFORNIA DISTRICT,

The CALIFORNIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION,

The CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY PHYSICIANS,

The AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS AND GYNECOLOGISTS, DISTRICT IX,

The CALIFORNIA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION,

And parents throughout California urge you to VOTE NO on 4.

MANDATORY NOTIFICATION LAWS MAY SOUND GOOD, BUT, IN THE REAL WORLD THEY PUT TEENAGERS IN REAL DANGER.

A SCARED, PREGNANT TEEN who can’t go to her parents can feel trapped and desperate. Instead of seeking the counseling and safe medical care she needs, she MAY CHOOSE AN UNSAFE, BACK ALLEY, ILLEGAL ABORTION, GO ACROSS THE BORDER, OR EVEN CONTEMPLATE SUICIDE.

Proposition 4 is DANGEROUS.

PARENTS RIGHTFULLY WANT TO BE INVOLVED IN THEIR TEENAGERS’ LIVES. We want our daughters to come to us if they become pregnant. BUT, IN THE REAL WORLD, NOT ALL TEENS LIVE IN HOMES WHERE COMMUNICATION IS POSSIBLE, and, even in the best homes, many teens aren’t able to talk about something as sensitive as pregnancy.

IF OUR DAUGHTERS COULDN’T COME TO US, for whatever reason, THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS KEEPING THEM SAFE. New laws cannot force our teens to talk to us, but they may force them into the back alleys . . . or worse.

PROPOSITION 4 DOESN’T PROTECT TEENS IN DANGEROUS HOMES. A scared pregnant teen is not going to go to her doctor, claim mistreatment, and then stand by as law enforcement comes to the door—the same door she has to return to. She may not seek care at all.

Prop. 4 is not about “family involvement.” Family notification is no more than a state-scripted form letter sent to another relative who may not live in the same town. Prop. 4 contains NO REQUIREMENT FOR COUNSELING and no requirement that the other adult help her when she is in crisis. PROP. 4 PUTS OUR MOST VULNERABLE TEENAGERS IN HARM’S WAY . . .

OR FORCES TEENS TO GO TO COURT.

Think about it: she’s pregnant, she can’t go to her parents, and she’s already desperate. She isn’t going to go to court to reveal the most intimate details of her life to an unfamiliar judge in an impersonal courthouse. SHE DOESN’T NEED A JUDGE; SHE NEEDS A CARING COUNSELOR AND SAFE, QUALITY MEDICAL CARE, WITHOUT DELAY.

MANDATORY NOTIFICATION LAWS MAKE SCARED, PREGNANT TEENS WHO CAN’T GO TO THEIR PARENTS DO DANGEROUS THINGS.

And if in desperation, teenagers turn to illegal, self-induced, or back-alley abortions, THEY WILL SUFFER SERIOUS INJURIES AND SOME WILL DIE.

REAL FAMILY COMMUNICATION MUST START LONG BEFORE A TEEN FACES AN UNPLANNED PREGNANCY. The best way to protect our daughters is to begin talking with them about responsible, appropriate sexual behavior—including abstinence—from the time they are young and fostering an atmosphere assuring they can come to us.

Because NO LAW CAN MANDATE FAMILY COMMUNICATION and while mandatory laws like these may sound good, IN THE REAL WORLD THEY JUST PUT TEENAGERS IN REAL DANGER.

TO PROTECT TEENS, please vote No on 4.[2]

”


Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in California

In California, the number of signatures required for an initiated constitutional amendment is equal to 8 percent of the votes cast at the preceding gubernatorial election. For initiated amendments filed in 2008, at least 694,354 valid signatures were required.[3]

See also

2008 Measures

California

News and analysis


External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 California Secretary of State, "Voter Guide, General Election 2008," accessed February 22, 2021
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 Cal-Access, "Friends of Sarah," accessed February 21, 2021
  4. ↑ Press Telegram, "Prop. 4 abortion measure loses," November 5, 2008
  5. ↑ 5.00 5.01 5.02 5.03 5.04 5.05 5.06 5.07 5.08 5.09 5.10 5.11 5.12 Cal-Access, "Campaign for Teen Safety," accessed February 21, 2021
v • e
2008 ballot measures in California
Flag of California
v • e
State of California
Sacramento (capital)
Elections

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2024 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Regierung

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy

Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=California_Proposition_4,_Parental_Notification_of_Abortion_Initiative_(2008)&oldid=8851464"