Clarifying Proposition 4 (Parental Notification) Arguments

November 3, 2008 Posted by Roger Overton

Californians have been subject to a variety of ads for and against
Proposition 4 over the last few weeks. Since most of the ads I’ve seen
are misleading, I thought it might be helpful to shed some light on the
arguments that have been made from both sides.

A summary of Prop 4:

Prop 4, also known as “Sarah’s Law,” would amend the California
Constitution so that parental notification would be required 48 hours
prior to an abortion. If the minor fears parental notification due to
potential abuse, the law would allow for certain adult relatives to be
notified and require the doctor to report the parents to Child
Protection Services. Exceptions are made for cases of medical
emergencies, prior parental waivers, or court waivers. Doctors would be
required to report statistical information on the abortions they
perform to the state of California. If the parents are not notified
properly, the law would allow them to file for damages in a civil
lawsuit. The law would also allow for minors to appeal to the courts if
they believe they are being coerced into having an abortion.

Fact Check #1:

The group behind Prop 4 named it “Sarah’s Law” after a fifteen year
old who died from complications resulting from an abortion. What they
don’t tell you is that this girl was in a common-law marriage with the
father. It is unclear whether or not she would have been required to
notify her parents in her specific situation. Furthermore, a
representative of the Prop 4 support group said that Prop 4 could have
saved “Sarah’s” life. There’s really no reason to believe it would
have. While it is hypothetical, given the situation it seems likely she
would have gone through with the abortion and would have been equally
vulnerable to dying from resulting complications. (source: http://www.lifenews.com/state3440.html)

Fact Check #2:

The most popular argument against Prop 4 is that it would put teens
in danger because it requires them to notify potentially abusive
parents. A commercial portraying this has been airing constantly and it
is all over the “no” group’s website. These commercials mislead the
public into believing that Prop 4 requires pregnant minors to report
their abortion only to their parents or legal guardians. However, the
option of notifying an adult family member is clearly and thoroughly
explained in the proposition. This adult family member could be a
grandparent, stepparent, foster parent, aunt, uncle, sibling,
half-sibling, or first cousin. Furthermore, opponents to Prop 4 have
not been able to cite a single case where the minor was victimized as
the result of notification in any of the thirty-five states where
similar laws currently exist.

Fact Check #3:

Another story cited by supporters of Prop 4 is that of a
fourteen-year-old girl who was raped over one hundred times by a
thirty-nine year old man. He took her to Planned Parenthood (PP) twice
and the supporters imply that PP performed the abortion. The ad faults
PP for not reporting the predator and implies that Prop 4 could have
lead to the predator being stopped. Only the pregnancy test was
performed at PP, not the abortion. PP could have notified authorities
regarding the pregnant minor, but they likely had no way of knowing who
the predator was to report him. The predator was actually the minor’s
stepfather and both the minor and stepfather claimed he was her father
to the hospital that performed the abortion. Had Prop 4 been in effect,
it would have changed nothing since it appeared that the parent was
notified.

Fact Check #4:

The website against Prop 4 claims that, “What we see happening in
other states with parental notification laws is that some teens opt for
a dangerous alternative – illegal abortion. Teens may even take matters
into their own hands (back alley abortions, self abort or worse).” This
is a typical slippery-slope argument from pro-choice debaters. Using
their logic we could argue that since robbing banks can be dangerous,
we should make it legal and banks should make stealing easier. What is
the result of Prop 4 on teens who refuse to have a “safe” abortion due
to parental notification? The truth is that there is no evidence that
this has ever happened in the 35 states that have similar laws to Prop
4.

Conclusion

Both sides have been misleading in some way in arguing for their
position. As voters, it is our responsibility to work through the
arguments and attempt to make a thoughtful decision based on the facts,
not the rhetoric. The “yes” and “no” websites are likely the best
places to start sorting fact and fiction:

http://yeson4.net
http://www.noonprop4.org

The problems I point out with the “pro” Prop 4 stories only have to do
with their anecdotes. I think the campaign seems to be grasping at any
story they can find that can be used to appeal emotionally to voters;
to the degree that they misrepresent some of the stories as I pointed
out. (There are more stories on their website and I would be surprised
if they embellished all of them.) However, the only problems I can find
are with their stories; not with the fundamental arguments why the
proposition is needed. I think their arguments are sound and
compelling, and they do themselves a disservice by the way they appeal to
these stories. My criticisms of the “no” side are with their
fundamental arguments. They have not provided any
good reason to reject the proposition.