Proposition has minors' well-being at heart

By Christopher King

Proposition 73 seems crafted to benefit pregnant minors, yet its popularity is trailing in the polls. I can't quite believe that it would not enjoy majority support if people had a better understanding of it before the upcoming Nov. 8 special election vote.

The proposed proposition would require that parents of a minor be notified 48 hours prior to an abortion. It does not apply to "emancipated" minors who are married or in the military, nor does it require parental consent, but only notification. This 48 hour notification, the core of the proposition, would serve several purposes:

First, it would give the minor the opportunity to get better counseling than she would likely otherwise have. Frequently, the only advice available to a minor who is hesitant to speak with her parents is that of her friends, her boyfriend, or the abortion providers themselves.

Her friends are unlikely to know any more than the minor herself, her boyfriend may encourage abortion to avoid liability for child support or statutory rape, and abortion providers are clearly biased, since their salary depends upon the number of abortions they perform. Parents, by contrast, are more likely to keep the best interest of their daughter in mind.

This slight restriction on the minor's rights is in keeping with the general legal concept that because minors have not yet developed good judgement, they should be afforded fewer rights than adults. Waiving this principle in the case of abortion leads to the oft-noted, absurd result that a minor cannot obtain an aspirin, but can obtain an abortion, without parental consent.

Second, the opportunity for parental involvement makes it more likely that victimization of the minor, such as sexual abuse or statutory rape, will be detected. As it is, secret abortions, often the result of duress, prove an effective method of eliminating evidence.

Third, the notification requirement means more to parents, who have been the primary caregivers for their daughters since birth, and who would surely desire to be aware of, and involved in, such an crisis in their daughter's life. And it also affords them the knowledge they need to provide any post-abortion support, should their daughter end up electing that choice.

Lest there be an objection to the proposition based on the concern that in certain cases the minor fears abusive parental reaction, it is important to note that the proposition provides relevant exceptions.

Primarily, it provides a speedy and confidential petition for judicial waiver of the notification requirement, which will be granted if the judge determines that notification is not in the minor's best interest (as in the rare cases of incest or abusive parents). Second, it provides an exception for cases of medical emergency.

The requirements of the proposition are hardly novel or controversial. Fourteen other states have already enacted similar laws and the U.S. Supreme Court has approved them. And a majority of Americans support such requirements: One poll found that 74 percent of Americans supported requirements that abortion providers notify parents prior to performing abortions on minors.

In short, it seems reasonable to require that an abortion cannot be performed on a minor until her parents have had a chance to learn of the situation and discuss it.

I fear that the reason that such an eminently reasonable and beneficial proposition is not more popular is due primarily to vague fears that the right to choose abortion is being threatened, fears which are hardly justified since there is in fact no restriction involved other than a modest 48 hour waiting period following parental notification.

Indeed, knowledge and time to reflect make for better choices. If "choice" has come to signify merely the ability to make a hasty decision out of fright, embarrassment and/or duress and without the advice of those who care most, however, then indeed the proposition is "anti-choice." But according to any more reasonable definition, choice will benefit from time to reflect and the soothing of fear that family support can provide.

I encourage those with any interest in the issue to examine the proposition in more detail. The text can be found at www.ss.ca.gov/elections/bp_nov05/voter_info_pdf/text73.pdf or www.caparentsrights.org/textof73.pdf.

Christopher King is a third-year law school student.