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

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Arguments for the initiative petition)
Line 46: Line 46:
 
* "Potential unknown net state costs of several million dollars annually for health and social services programs, court administration, and state health agency administration combined."
 
* "Potential unknown net state costs of several million dollars annually for health and social services programs, court administration, and state health agency administration combined."
  
==Arguments for the initiative petition==
+
==Support==
  
* Will lower number of abortions
+
===Supporters===
  
* Will protect sexually abused teenage girls from future abuse
+
The [[California Voter Guide (official)|official voter guide]] arguments in favor of Proposition 85 were signed by:
  
* Similar laws in other states have enjoyed much success
+
* William P. Clark, a retired justice of the [[California Supreme Court]]
 +
* Mary L. Davenport, M.D., a Fellow of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
 +
* Professor Joseph R. Zanga, M.D., FAAP, a past president of the American Academy of Pediatrics
 +
* Professor Teresa Stanton Collett, J.D.
 +
* Jane E. Anderson, M.D., FAAP, a clinical professor of pediatrics
  
Main proponents: William P. Clark California Supreme Court Justice (Ret.), Mary L. Davenport MD. Fellow American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Jim Holman, Don Sebastiani, Tom Monaghan
+
===Arguments in favor===
 +
 
 +
The arguments presented in the [[California Voter Guide (official)|official voter guide]] in favor of Proposition 85 were:
 +
 
 +
* Puts parents in a position to "help young daughters with the serious physical, emotional, or psychological complications which may result from an abortion".
 +
* Puts parents in a position to "protect their daughters from further sexual abuse, exploitation, and pregnancies."
 +
* "Parents and daughters in more than 30 other states have benefited for years from laws like Prop. 85. Many times, after such laws pass, there have been substantial reductions in pregnancies and abortions among minors."
 +
* Under the terms of Proposition 85, minors can petition the court to bypass its parental notification requirements.
  
 
==Arguments against the initiative petition==
 
==Arguments against the initiative petition==

Revision as of 06:38, 9 July 2011

California Proposition 85, the Parental Notification Initiative Petition, 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]

The signature-gathering drive to qualify the 2006 Parental Notification petition for the ballot was conducted by Bader & Associates, Inc., a petition management company owned by Tom Bader and Joy Bader. Signature-gathering for the petition was completed in the Spring of 2006.

Election results

Proposition 85
Result Votes Percentage
Defeatedd No 4,576,128 54.2%
Yes 3,868,714 45.8%


Ballot language

Title

The ballot title was:

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

Question

Proposition 85 2006.PNG

The question on the ballot was:

"Should the California Constitution be amended to require notification of a parent or legal guardian of an unemancipated pregnant minor at least 48 hours prior to performing an abortion?"

Summary

The official summary provided to describe Proposition 85 said:

  • 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.

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."

Support

Supporters

The official voter guide arguments in favor of Proposition 85 were signed by:

  • William P. Clark, a retired justice of the California Supreme Court
  • Mary L. Davenport, M.D., a Fellow of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
  • Professor Joseph R. Zanga, M.D., FAAP, a past president of the American Academy of Pediatrics
  • Professor Teresa Stanton Collett, J.D.
  • Jane E. Anderson, M.D., FAAP, a clinical professor of pediatrics

Arguments in favor

The arguments presented in the official voter guide in favor of Proposition 85 were:

  • Puts parents in a position to "help young daughters with the serious physical, emotional, or psychological complications which may result from an abortion".
  • Puts parents in a position to "protect their daughters from further sexual abuse, exploitation, and pregnancies."
  • "Parents and daughters in more than 30 other states have benefited for years from laws like Prop. 85. Many times, after such laws pass, there have been substantial reductions in pregnancies and abortions among minors."
  • Under the terms of Proposition 85, minors can petition the court to bypass its parental notification requirements.

Arguments against the initiative petition

  • 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:[2]

  • 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

BP-Initials-UPDATED.png
Suggest a link

References