Advertisement

Suits Filed on Abortion Ballot Item

Share
Times Staff Writer

A November ballot initiative that would require parental notification for minors seeking abortions sparked its first public fireworks this week, as supporters and opponents accused one another of lying.

In lawsuits filed in Sacramento County Superior Court, foes and promoters of Proposition 73 said information submitted for the official voter ballot pamphlet was false or misleading, and asked a judge to intervene. The dueling suits ask that certain language be struck from the pamphlet, which will be mailed to voters before the Nov. 8 special election. A hearing is likely next week.

Proposition 73 would prohibit abortions for girls younger than 18 until 48 hours after a physician notified the minor’s parent or legal guardian, except in medical emergencies. Judges could grant exemptions for girls they deemed mature enough to make an independent decision, or when notifying parents would not be in the minor’s “best interests.”

Advertisement

Proponents and opponents of a ballot initiative are allowed to submit written arguments for the voter pamphlet, as well as a rebuttal to the other side’s argument. Disputes over the assertions must be settled in court.

Sponsors of the measure struck first, arguing in court papers Thursday that their opponents’ pamphlet submission included three questionable statements.

One, they said, is the claim that “millions of parents” urge a no vote on the initiative, a statement they called “political rhetoric passing itself off as an objective statement of fact.”

Proponents also took issue with opponents’ use of the word “teenager” throughout their ballot arguments, because the initiative would cover only girls 17 and younger -- not 18- and 19-year-olds, who account for the majority of abortions among teenagers in California.

Finally, supporters objected to the suggestion that girls who asked a judge to exempt them from the notification rule would be “put on trial” in a “crowded courtroom.” Rather, they say, the process would involve a confidential hearing before a juvenile-court judge.

“These characterizations simply have no basis in fact,” said Albin Rhomberg, a spokesman for the Yes on 73 campaign. “This is the official voter guide that goes to millions of households. Their information needs to be accurate.”

Advertisement

On Friday, opponents filed their suit, challenging proponents’ assertions that parental notification laws in other states have cut pregnancy and abortion rates among teens and that they have done so without causing them “danger and harm.”

Those statements, “quite simply, are false,” the foes argued. Instead, their lawsuit said, the record shows that any drop in abortions was offset by girls who traveled to neighboring states to undergo the procedure.

They also argued that parental notification rules put minors at risk in a variety of ways -- by compelling them to seek illegal abortions, by causing potentially dangerous delays in the procedure and by forcing girls in abusive families to discuss their pregnancies with angry parents.

“The record is very clear in other states: These laws do not transform dysfunctional families into healthy, supportive ones,” said Maggie Crosby, an attorney for the measure’s opponents.

Dubbed the Parents Right to Know and Child Protection Initiative, Proposition 73 is expected to trigger an emotionally charged debate.

If passed, it would add California to a list of more than 30 states that have adopted laws requiring parental notification or consent for minors seeking abortions.

Advertisement

A Field Poll in June found that 48% of California voters favored the initiative and 42% opposed it. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has said he favors parental involvement in abortion decisions, but he has not taken a position on the initiative.

Backers say requiring parental notification would reduce the abortion and pregnancy rates by prompting teenagers to act less promiscuously. Proposition 73 sponsors say on their website that “it is reasonable to expect a minimum of 20,000 fewer abortions during the first year following passage of the initiative.”

The ballot pamphlet language targeted in court is more general, but it says the “real world experience” of other states “shows these laws reduce minors’ pregnancy and abortion rates without danger and harm to minors.”

“When the teen culture knows there is no longer secret access to abortion, that changes teen behavior,” said Rhomberg, the campaign spokesman.

Foes say there is no firm evidence of such an effect. As proof, they cite the legal fight over a 1987 California law that required parental consent for minors seeking abortion. The law was never enforced and ultimately was declared a violation of a minor’s right to privacy by the California Supreme Court.

During the decade-long fight over its fate, three courts -- including the state high court -- examined the experience of states with similar statutes. The courts concluded that such laws “do not reduce teen pregnancy rates and do inflict demonstrable harm” on girls, says the lawsuit filed by Proposition 73 opponents.

Advertisement

Since then, it adds, other research has buttressed that conclusion. A 2004 study by the conservative Heritage Foundation found that “parental involvement laws are less effective than other types of public policy” in reducing abortion rates and “do not reach statistical significance.”

The initiative comes at a time when teen pregnancy and abortion rates are falling. Since 1992 in California, the abortion rate has dropped 42%, and the pregnancy rate has fallen 40%, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit research group that focuses on reproductive health.

Advertisement