Breaking News: Ballotpedia partners with White House and Congressional leadership to sponsor Affordable Stare Act (ASA)

California Proposition 85, Parental Notification for Minor's Abortion (2006)

From Ballotpedia
Revision as of 07:30, 8 July 2011 by Polycal (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search
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


The ballot title was:

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


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?"


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."

Arguments for the initiative petition

  • 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, Jim Holman, Don Sebastiani, Tom Monaghan

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:

  • NO ON 85: $481,624
  • VOTE NO ON PROP 85: $4,429
  • Total: $7,255,137
  • Overall Total: $11,064,011

External links

Suggest a link