Mischievous Maneuver

The California Legislature may be presented this week with a sensitive decision concerning the ability of pregnant teen-agers to obtain abortions when they absolutely need them. Given the record of that body on the issue in general, the prospects for teen-agers aren’t good.

At issue is a proposal by Sen. Joseph B. Montoya (D-North Whittier) that minors be required to have a parent’s consent in order to have an abortion, unless authorized by a court. Although the measure, SB 7, was buried in an Assembly committee, the concept behind it may be brought back before the state Senate through a parliamentary maneuver. It should be defeated.

There is no question that conscientious parents want their children to talk to them about sex, pregnancy and other very personal questions. There is also no question that abortion should be a measure of last resort. Any parent is right in being concerned that children need adult guidance in making medical and ethical decisions that they are sometimes not mature enough to make on their own. We appreciate all these concerns, but we do not think that they should be written into a law that could deny or delay abortion for a pregnant teen-ager with no other place to turn.

SB 7 pretends to speak to those concerns, but actually originates with the same people who seek to eliminate abortion. They are the same anti-choice forces that cut public money for poor women to obtain abortions and seek to deny funds to clinics that refer women, among all their options, to doctors who perform safe abortions.

Some form of mandatory parental-involvement law has been passed in 17 states. Such a law could be invalid under the California Constitution, which explicitly guarantees an individual’s right to privacy. In addition, the California Supreme Court ruled in 1971 that the state law that allows minors to obtain medical care relating to pregnancy without parental consent covers abortions.

The U.S. Supreme Court has a mixed record in its decisions in cases challenging these laws. Those that have been upheld generally involve the courts in bypassing parental consent, a position in which the California Judicial Council does not want to see judges placed. It opposes SB 7.

States with consent laws have found that such laws do not deter teen-agers from seeking abortions. But, because of the judicial proceedings required, minors may delay an abortion until it becomes more risky. And, even if they elect to go to court, there is no guarantee that their right to privacy can be protected--especially in a smalltown courthouse. The states have also found that when teen-agers do not involve their parents in abortion decisions, it is because they come from a troubled family situation that laws do not resolve.

Abortion and teen-age pregnancy are complex, delicate issues. This legislative maneuver will not make it any easier for teen-agers and their parents to deal with them. We agree with state Sen. Diane Watson (D-Los Angeles), who counseled that the Senate could better spend its time supporting a number of bills that take a positive approach to preventing teen-age pregnancies.