Little Notice, but a Lot of Emotion

Tina Jacobson has a close relationship with her teenage daughter. Shireen Miles and her daughter are close too.

Jacobson believes her teen, Karissa, would come to her for help if she became pregnant. Same goes for Miles.

But that’s where the common ground ends for these two California mothers, who stand on opposing sides of what may be the most emotional -- and littlenoticed -- measure on the state’s Nov. 8 special election ballot.

Proposition 73 would require physicians to notify parents of girls under 18 before performing an abortion. Only those facing a medical emergency, or obtaining a waiver from a judge, would be exempt.

Supporters, who include Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, say the measure would reduce the teen abortion rate and protect girls by ensuring that they receive a parent’s advice when faced with an unintended pregnancy.

Jacobson, 38, a legal assistant in the Sacramento suburb of Elk Grove, shares that view. At 18, she became pregnant and had an abortion. It was a difficult time, she says, adding: “I could not have gotten through it without my mother standing by.”

Foes of the measure, including Planned Parenthood and many of the state’s large medical organizations, say no law can compel healthy communication between parents and children. They predict that teens fearful of disclosing their pregnancies -- those who live in abusive homes, for example, or are victims of incest -- could be driven to seek unsafe abortions.

Miles, a 57-year-old school administrator, said personal experience helped her come down on the no side. Pregnant in her early 20s, before the U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion, she felt she could not confide in her parents and was forced to get permission for the procedure from a panel of psychiatrists at a local hospital.

“It was the most intrusive experience of my life,” recalls Miles, who lives in the Sacramento County town of Carmichael. “My feeling is, when it comes to scared teenagers, we shouldn’t put barriers in the way of them getting the medical care they need.”

In 1987, the California Legislature passed a law requiring parental permission, or the approval of a judge, for teens seeking abortions. Then-Gov. George Deukmejian signed it, but a legal challenge kept it from taking effect.

After almost a decade of litigation, the state Supreme Court upheld the law. But foes asked for a rehearing, and a year later the court reversed itself, with two newly appointed justices joining others in declaring the law unconstitutional.

Almost three dozen states now have laws requiring either parental consent or notification, though some of those have been enjoined by courts. If passed, California’s Proposition 73 would become an amendment to the state Constitution.

One recent poll showed voters about evenly split, and many Californians who support abortion rights view the proposition favorably. Some political analysts say foes must neutralize the gut feeling of many voters that parents always deserve a legal right to know about their children’s decisions.

“It’s one thing for an individual to support keeping abortion legal,” said GOP consultant Dan Schnur. “But a lot of those same voters are parents who would want to know if their daughter was thinking about taking a step like this.”

Reflecting their push to get voters to think twice about the measure, opponents have named their effort the Campaign for Teen Safety, arguing in literature that “while notification laws sound good, they put our most vulnerable teens at risk.”

“As parents, all of us would like to think our daughter would come to us in the event she became pregnant,” said Kathy Kneer, president of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, which has contributed $1.15 million to defeat the measure. “But the most important thing, in our view, is that these teens get the safe, quick medical care they need.”

Under Proposition 73, parental notification would not be required if a doctor concluded that an abortion was necessary to prevent the patient’s death, or that a delay would “create serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function.”

And like most states with such laws on the books, California’s proposed version would provide girls with a bypass option allowing them to ask a judge for an exemption. After a hearing, judges could grant such a waiver “based on clear and convincing evidence of minor’s maturity or minor’s best interests.”

Proponents say that option would protect girls who feel they cannot confide in a parent. Jacobson, a mother of four daughters, including 16-year-old Karissa, put it this way: “It involves one more mature adult in the decision, rather than leaving it all to the minor.”

Dr. Jennifer Sayles, an internist at UCLA Medical Center who opposes Proposition 73, argues that assuming pregnant teens will seek help in court is unrealistic.

“To expect an overwhelmed, scared teenager to find the courthouse, get transportation there and navigate a judicial system that many adults don’t understand is a lot to ask,” said Sayles, whose clientele includes young women. “The sad fact is such a process could delay things to a point where terminating a pregnancy carries a higher risk.”

In addition to providing written notification to a parent 48 hours before performing an abortion, doctors would be required to supply state health authorities with a record of abortions they perform, including the physician’s name, the time and place the procedure occurred and the minor’s month and year of birth.

Opponents say that element -- as well as one making doctors liable for civil damages if they fail to comply -- could further limit the availability of abortions.

Because of protests at abortion clinics, as well as occasional attacks on doctors who provide abortions, the number of physicians willing to perform the procedure has decreased markedly over the last two decades.

Foes also are disturbed by language in the initiative that defines abortion as causing the “death of the unborn child.” Opponents prefer the term “fetus” or “embryo.”

Although critics of parental notification laws say the measures are a step toward further restrictions on abortion, supporters of Proposition 73 deny any broader agenda.

“This is designed to bring some sanity into the law,” said Carol Hogan of the California Conference of Catholic Bishops, which is producing materials for the state’s 1,100 parishes to distribute at Mass in the coming weeks. “It’s not set up to roll back abortion law in California. It’s something a lot of pro-choice parents can support.”

Paul and Barbara Laubacher, who have two college-age daughters, agree.

They are the named legal proponents on the initiative, and Paul Laubacher, a registered nurse in Sacramento, said he just wants “to protect the health and well-being of girls under the age of 18, by letting their parents be informed.”

“If parents aren’t involved, there is no one there to give an adequate medical history to the physician ... or to be on the lookout afterward for signs of hemorrhage or infection,” Laubacher said. “It’s not good public health policy.”

Abortion rates have been declining nationwide since 1990, and are now at their lowest rate since the mid-1970s. In California, the teen pregnancy rate fell 40% from 1992 to 2000, according to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy.

The state does not compile abortion statistics, but a reproductive research and education center, the Alan Guttmacher Institute, estimates that one in four California pregnancies ends in abortion among women of all ages.

Proposition 73 is supported by the California Conference of Catholic Bishops, California ProLife Council and California Republican Assembly. Backers have raised $1.1 million, most of it from James Holman, publisher of the San Diego Reader and a string of Catholic newspapers. Other top contributors are vintner Don Sebastiani and Domino’s Pizza founder Tom Monaghan, a strong opponent of abortion who lives in Michigan.

The largest donor against the initiative is Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, which operates 100 clinics that provide family planning and prenatal services (and, at a third of those locations, abortions). Also opposed are the California Medical Assn., American Academy of Pediatrics (California District IX) and California Nurses Assn.