Peter Schrag: Don't underrate California abortion measure

[question everything]

The Daily Breeze

Monday, July 11, 2005

Don't underrate California abortion measure

Measure on Nov. 8 ballot could have privacy implications and chill abortion providers, who in some places are already harassed.
By Peter Schrag

(snip)

Most of the roughly $1.5 million raised to put it on the ballot came from three deep-pocket conservative Catholics -- James Holman, publisher of an alternative San Diego weekly and of a string of Catholic papers; vintner and ex-legislator Don Sebastiani; and Domino's Pizza founder Tom Monaghan. They tailored it to what they hoped California voters would support, not to what they ideally wished.

The measure would require a parent to be notified at least 48 hours before a doctor could perform an abortion, but it allows minors to get a waiver from a judge if he deems them mature enough to make an abortion decision, or if the court finds that parental notice is not "in the best interests of the minor."

Which in turn raises the familiar question: If she isn't mature enough to decide on an abortion, how could she be mature enough to be a mother? What would advocates of parental notification or parental consent, say if those things were required for a minor who wanted to have her baby? The proposed "Parents' Right to Know and Child Protection Initiative" indirectly answers the question. A second part of the measure says no one may coerce a minor into having an abortion "through force, threat of force, or threatened or actual deprivation of food or shelter," meaning that a parent can't throw the daughter out if she brings the baby home.

(snip)

Most teens go to their parents in such situations. But where there is no trust within families to begin with, the club of notification is not likely to re-establish it. "Real family communication," as pro-choice advocates say, "begins at home, not at the ballot box." But the California initiative also contains provisions that have hardly been discussed, one requiring the Judicial Council to keep public records, by judge, of the number of waiver petitions requested and granted. That requirement could subject judges to considerable political pressure from challengers and right-to-life groups, particularly in conservative areas.

The initiative also requires the state Department of Health Services to keep records on every abortion performed on a minor, what procedure was used, the length of the pregnancy, the age of the minor, the name of the doctor and facility where it was done, whether parents were notified, or whether the abortion was performed pursuant to a judicial waiver.

The law specifically prohibits identification of the minor in the reporting requirement and any identification of the physician in the abortion statistics the initiative requires the state to publish annually. Nonetheless it could still have privacy implications and chill abortion providers, who in some places are already harassed. Those reporting and record-keeping requirements make this a bigger deal than first appears.

Peter Schrag is a columnist for The Sacramento Bee.


Find this article at:
http://www.dailybreeze.com/opinion/articles/1679267.html