Difference between revisions of "California Proposition 4, Parental Notification for Minor's Abortion (2008)"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Opposition)
(Ballot language)
Line 19: Line 19:
 
}}
 
}}
 
:: ''Final results from the [http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2008_general/7_votes_for_against.pdf California Secretary of State]''
 
:: ''Final results from the [http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2008_general/7_votes_for_against.pdf California Secretary of State]''
 +
 +
==Constitutional changes==
 +
 +
If Proposition 4 had been approved, it would have added an entirely new [[Article I, California Constitution#Section 32|Section 32 to Article I]] of the [[California Constitution]].
  
 
==Ballot language==
 
==Ballot language==

Revision as of 07:57, 13 August 2011

Proposition 4, or the Abortion Waiting Period and Parental Notification Initiative, also known to its supporters as Sarah's Law, was on the November 4, 2008 ballot in California as an initiated constitutional amendment, where it was defeated.

Had it passed, it would have added a new amendment to the California Constitution.[1],[2],[3]

The initiative petition would prohibit abortion for unemancipated minors until 48 hours after physician notifies minor’s parent, legal guardian or, if parental abuse has been reported, an alternative adult family member.

See also: La Propuesta 4 de California

Election results

Proposition 4
Result Votes Percentage
Defeatedd No 6,728,478 52.0%
Yes 6,220,473 48.0%
Total votes 12,948,951 100.00%
Voter turnout % of registered: 79.4%
Final results from the California Secretary of State

Constitutional changes

If Proposition 4 had been approved, it would have added an entirely new Section 32 to Article I of the California Constitution.

Ballot language

Title

The ballot title was:

Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor's Pregnancy. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

Summary

The official summary provided to describe Proposition 4 said:

  • Changes California Constitution to prohibit abortion for unemancipated minor until 48 hours after physician notifies minor's parent or legal guardian.
  • Permits notification to certain adult relatives if doctor reports parent to law enforcement or Child Protective Services.
  • Provides notification exceptions for medical emergency or parental waiver.
  • Permits courts to waive notice based on clear and convincing evidence of minor's maturity or best interests.
  • Mandates reporting requirements, including reports from physicians regarding abortions on minors.
  • Authorizes damages against physicians for violation.
  • Requires minor's consent to abortion, with exceptions.

Fiscal impact

See also: Fiscal impact statement

The fiscal estimate provided by the California Legislative Analyst's Office said:

  • "Potential unknown net state costs of several million dollars annually for health and social services programs, court administration, and state health agency administration combined."

Lawsuit over language

Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California and others filed a lawsuit with the Sacramento County Superior Court in August 2008 to strike out all references to "Sarah" and "Sarah's Law" and "other misleading language in the voter's guide" for Proposition 4. The title "Sarah's Law" refers to the case of 15-year-old "Sarah" who died as a result of an abortion in 1994. Proposition 4's ballot language in the official voter's guide suggests that "Sarah" might have been saved had her parents known about her abortion. Opponents of Proposition 4 argued that "Sarah" was not considered a minor in Texas, where the abortion was performed, and that she already had a child with a man who claimed to be her common law husband. Opponents asked that for these reasons, the references to Sarah be stricken.

In responses, Proposition 4's proponents argued the name "Sarah" was given to the minor in her court case. Proponents of Prop 4 therefore claimed they referenced her as "Sarah," remaining consistent with the court filings to protect the identity of a minor who died as a result of a botched abortion. Proponents also argued that Sarah obtained her abortion as a self-identified 15 year old, single girl. Opponents were unable to provide evidence of the common law marriage. Therefore, Sarah's Law would have applied to the teen. Medical experts in her case stated has someone in her family known about the abortion, her life could have been saved.[4]

Judge Michael Kenny of the Sacramento Superior Court ultimately ruled against the opponents, allowing the original proposed ballot language and arguments, including references to Sarah, to stay in the official California voter's pamphlet.

Support

Supporters

  • The Friends of Sarah, the Parental or Alternative Family Member Notification Act was the official ballot committee.[5]
  • Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger [6]
  • Dr. Joseph R. Zanga, M.D., FFAP, Past President American Academy of Pediatrics [7]
  • Barbara Alby, Author, California's "Megan's Law" Child Protection Legislation [8]
  • Mary L. Davenport, M.D., Fellow American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists [9]
  • Thomas Murphy Goodwin, M.D., FAAP, FACOG, Professor Of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Pediatrics Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California [10]
  • The Honorable Rod Pacheco, J.D., District Attorney, Riverside County [11]
  • The Honorable Tony Rackauckas, J.D., District Attorney, Orange County [12]
  • The Honorable Bob Brooks, Sheriff, Ventura County [13]
  • The Honorable Dennis Downum, Sheriff, Calaveras County [14]
  • Frank Lee, President, Organization for Justice & Equality [15]
  • Dr. Kenneth Williams, School Board Member, Orange County [16]

Arguments in favor

Notable arguments that were made in favor of Proposition 4 included:

  • When a minor obtains an abortion without the knowledge of a family member or guardian, her health can be endangered if health complications arise after the abortion. Prop 4 is named after a 15 year old minor, Sarah, who died after receiving a botched abortion. Family is needed to assist with medical history and appropriate after care.[17]
  • If a minor becomes pregnant because of sexual violence or predation, a sexual predator may be missed, because the abortion clinic may not report the sexual crime. Although clinics are mandated reporters of abuse, repeated cases of sexual predators concealing crimes through secret abortions reveals a broken system in CA and the need for family notification.

Donors

$3,202,911 was contributed to the campaign in favor of a "yes" vote on Proposition 4.[18]

Donors of $100,000 or more were:

Donor Amount
James E. Holman $1,454,032
Don Sebastiani $530,000
Knights of Columbus $375,000
Mary Jane Creamer $183,030
Lenawee Trust $125,000
Caster Family Trust $100,000

Opposition

Opponents

The Campaign for Teen Safety was the official ballot committee against the proposition.

  • American Academy of Pediatrics, California District
  • American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, District IX
  • California Academy of Family Physicians
  • California Family Health Council
  • California Nurses Association
  • California School Counselors Association
  • California Teachers Association
  • Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California
  • California NOW
  • Equality California
  • The Let California Ring coalition[19]

Arguments against

Notable arguments that were made against Proposition 4 included:

  • Mandated parental notification laws don't work. No law can mandate family communication.
  • Some teenagers can't go to their parents because they fear being kicked out of the house, beaten, or worse.
  • Prop 4 may force these teens to delay medical care, turn to self-induced abortions, or consider suicide.
  • If a teen chooses to go to another adult, her parents would automatically be reported to authorities and an investigation would ensue.[20]

Consultants

The No on 4 campaign hired the Dewey Square Group.[21] as a consultant.[22]

Donors

$10,504,042 was contributed to the campaign in favor of a "no" vote on Proposition 4.[18]

Donors of $100,000 or more were:

Donor Amount
Planned Parenthood Mar Monte $1,119,182
Planned Parenthood Los Angeles $1,089,851
Planned Parenthood Shasta Diablo $766,398
Planned Parenthood of San Diego and Riverside Counties $747,643
California Teachers Association $615,512
Planned Parenthood of Orange and San Bernardino Counties $537,965
Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California $365,754
Karen, Eva and Andrew Grove $355,645
California State Council of Service Employees $250,000
Planned Parenthood (Santa Barbara, Ventura, San Luis Obispo) $239,668
Planned Parenthood Golden Gate $150,688
California Democratic Party $150,000
Rebecca Q. Morgan $140,000
Susan Packard Orr $100,247
Gordon Moore $100,000
John P. Morgridge $100,000

Polls

See also Polls, 2008 ballot measures.

The Field Poll has conducted and released the results of three public opinion polls on Proposition 4, in July, August and September.[23],[24],[25]

Mark DiCamillo, director of the polling agency, said he believes the current version is running stronger because Latinos overwhelmingly favor it and are expected to vote in higher-than-usual numbers in November.[26]

Month of Poll Pollster In favor Opposed Undecided
July 2008 Field 48% 39% 13%
August 2008 Field 47% 44% 9%
September 2008 Field 49% 41% 10%
Oct 12-19, 2008 PPIC 46% 44% 10%[27]
Nov. 1-2 SurveyUSA 40 percent 46 percent 14 percent[28]

Editorial opinion

"Yes on 4"

"No on 4"

  • The Bay Area Reporter[31]
  • Contra Costa Times[31]
  • The Los Angeles Times encouraged a "no" vote on 4, saying, "If this measure passes, some girls will seek out illegal abortions rather than notify their parents."[32]
  • Oakland Tribune[31]
  • Riverside Press-Enterprise[31]
  • Sacramento Bee[31]
  • The San Francisco Chronicle was opposed, writing, "Family communication cannot be forged by government edict, and reckless teen behavior will not be deterred by merely making abortion more difficult."[33]
  • The San Francisco Bay Guardian called the measure "horrible" and "another erosion of abortion rights".[34]
  • San Jose Mercury News[31]

Path to the ballot

Clipboard48.png
See also: California signature requirements

As an initiated constitutional amendment, 694,354 signatures were required to qualify Proposition 4 for the ballot.

The signature-gathering drive to qualify Proposition 4 for the ballot was conducted by Bader & Associates, Inc., a petition management company owned by Tom Bader and Joy Bader, at a cost of $2.555 million.[35]

See also: California ballot initiative petition signature costs

Prior attempts at passage

Proposition 4 marked the third time that California voters considered the issue of a parental notification/waiting period for abortion. The two previous, unsuccessful, initiatives were Proposition 85 (2006) and Proposition 73 (2005).

When Proposition 73 lost in 2005, some supporters thought that a similar measure would fare better in a general election. However, Proposition 85 did worse. Unlike 85 or 73, the Sarah's Law initiative petition allows an adult relative of the minor seeking an abortion to be notified, if the minor's parents are abusive.

Camille Giulio, a spokeswoman for the pro-4 campaign, said that the campaign believed that the November 2008 election was a better opportunity to pass a parental notification law because:

  • There would be a higher voter turnout in November 2008 than when 85 and 73 were voted on.
  • Socially conservative voters will be motivated to come to the polls to vote in favor of the much higher profile Proposition 8. While at the polls, they are likely to also vote in favor of 4.
  • The two previous campaigns were narrow defeats in low budget campaigns.[36]
Year Proposition Votes for Votes against
2006 Proposition 85
3,868,714
4,576,128
2005 Proposition 73
3,610,475
4,023,840

External links

BallotpediaAvatar bigger.png
Suggest a link

Basic information

Supporters

Opponents

References

  1. San Francisco Chronicle, Parental notification measures make Calif. ballot, May 30, 2008
  2. Los Angeles Times, Parental notification: Again!, May 31, 2008
  3. Stateline, "Social issues crowd state ballots", July 24, 2008
  4. Activists File Lawsuit to Strike "Sarah's Law" Language from CA Ballot Initiative, August 5, 2008
  5. Committee registration
  6. Schwarzenegger on Jim Holman's ballot measure
  7. Secretary of State voter guide
  8. Secretary of State voter guide
  9. Secretary of State voter guide
  10. Secretary of State voter guide
  11. Secretary of State voter guide
  12. Secretary of State voter guide
  13. Yes on 4 Endorsements
  14. Yes on 4 Endorsements
  15. Yes on 4 Endorsements
  16. Yes on 4 Endorsements
  17. Los Angeles Times, Op-ed by Margaret Pearson, "Proposition 4 protects girls", October 3, 2008
  18. 18.0 18.1 Follow the Money, "Donors to Yes on Proposition 4"
  19. Look out for Prop 4 and Prop 8
  20. Arguments against Proposition 4 from the official California voter's guide
  21. Dewey Square Group
  22. No on 4 expenditures
  23. July 22 Field Poll results on Proposition 4
  24. California Poll Shows Small Lead for Measure for Parental Notification on Abortion, August 28, 2008
  25. Field Poll: Voters narrowly favoring Proposition 4, the September poll
  26. San Diego Union-Tribune, "Third abortion initiative given chance of passing"
  27. PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and their government, released October 22, 2008
  28. Sacramento Bee's Capitol Alert, "Survey says: New polling on Props. 4, 8, 11 and Obama-McCain", November 3, 2008
  29. California Proposition 4 Editorial: Parents have a right to know about daughter's abortion, Proposition 4 is not a parental-consent law, and it's replete with exceptions, September 26, 2008
  30. Notify parents, Proposition 4 responds to critics' objection, September 23, 2008
  31. 31.0 31.1 31.2 31.3 31.4 31.5 Institute for Governmental Studies, "November 2008 endorsements"
  32. Los Angeles Times, "No on Proposition 4", September 25, 2008
  33. San Francisco Chronicle, "California Proposition 4 would undermine abortion rights", September 18, 2008
  34. San Francisco Bay Guardian
  35. Campaign expenditure details
  36. Hollister Free Lance News, "Parental notice for abortion back on Calif. ballot", October 3, 2008

Additional reading