SLP Badge Transparent.png
Read the
State Legislative Tracker
New edition available now!




Difference between revisions of "California Proposition 85, Parental Notification for Minor's Abortion (2006)"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Arguments against the initiative)
(Campaign finance)
Line 43: Line 43:
 
==Campaign finance==
 
==Campaign finance==
  
Donors for the campaign '''for''' the measure:
+
Donors for the campaign '''for''' the measure:<ref> [http://www.followthemoney.org/database/StateGlance/ballot.phtml?m=28 ''Follow the Money'', "Donors"]</ref>
  
 
* YES ON 85: $3,800,412  
 
* YES ON 85: $3,800,412  

Revision as of 16:20, 24 September 2009

California Constitution
Flag of California.png
Preamble
Articles
IIIIIIIVVVI
VIIVIIIIXXXA
XBXIXIIXIIIXIII A
XIII BXIII CXIII DXIVXVXVIXVIIIXIXXIX AXIX BXIX C
XXXXIXXII
XXXIVXXXV
California Proposition 85 was on the November 7, 2006 ballot in California as an initiated constitutional amendment where it was defeated. The measure was designed to allow parental notification before termination of a minor's pregnancy. The measure failed with 54% of the electorate voting against the measure. The largest contributor to the cause was the "Campaign for teen safety no on 85" committee which raised $6,709,585 [1]

Objective of the initiative

Proposition 85 had several objectives:

  • Amends California Constitution to prohibit abortion for unemancipated minor until 48 hours after physician notifies minor’s parent or legal guardian, except in medical emergency or with parental waiver.
  • Permits minor to obtain court order waiving notice based on clear and convincing evidence of minor’s maturity or best interests.
  • Mandates various reporting requirements, including reports from physicians regarding abortions performed on minors.
  • Authorizes monetary damages against physicians for violation.
  • Requires minor’s consent to abortion, with certain exceptions.
  • Permits judicial relief if minor’s consent coerced. [2]

Text of the proposition

The text of the proposed law can be found here [3]

Arguments for the initiative

  • Will lower number of abortions
  • Will protect sexually abused teenage girls from future abuse
  • Similar laws in other states have enjoyed much success

Main proponents: William P. Clark California Supreme Court Justice (Ret.), Mary L. Davenport MD. Fellow American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

Arguments against the initiative

  • Won't reduce teen pregnancy;
  • Won't stop child predators;
  • Will delay urgent medical care;
  • California Supreme Court found similar laws have not worked.

Main Opponents: Donna W. Chipps, Executive Vice President, League of Women Voters of California; Bo Greaves, President, California Academy of Family Physicians.

Campaign finance

Donors for the campaign for the measure:[4]

  • YES ON 85: $3,800,412
  • CATHOLICS FOR 85: $8,461
  • Total: $3,808,873

Donors for the campaign against the measure:

  • CAMPAIGN FOR TEEN SAFETY-NO ON 85: $6,709,585
  • NO ON 85: $481,624
  • CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ELECTIONS: $30,000
  • CMTE FOR CALIFORNIAS FUTURE: $29,500
  • VOTE NO ON PROP 85: $4,429
  • Total: $7,255,137
  • Overall Total: $11,064,011

External links

References

  1. http://www.followthemoney.org/database/StateGlance/ballot.phtml?si=20065&m=28
  2. http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/props/prop85/prop85.html
  3. http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/pdf/prop85_text.pdf
  4. Follow the Money, "Donors"