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

From Ballotpedia
Revision as of 06:46, 9 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."



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[2]

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.[2]



The official voter guide arguments opposing Proposition 1A were signed by:

  • Jack Lewin, M.D., CEO, California Medical Association
  • Robert L. Black, M.D., American Academy of Pediatrics, California District
  • Kathy Kneer, CEO, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California
  • Donna W. Chipps, Executive Vice President, League of Women Voters of California
  • Bo Greaves, M.D., President, California Academy of Family Physicians
  • Jeanne A. Conry, M.D., vice-chair, The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, District IX California[2]

Arguments against

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

  • While parental involvement is valuable, "in the real world, some California teenagers come from homes where they can’t talk to their parents, where there is violence, or where a family member has sexually abused them."
  • For teens who can't or won't go to their parents, "Proposition 85 forces these teens to delay critical medical care or turn to self-induced or illegal back-alley abortions. Some will go across the border; some will suffer serious injuries or even consider suicide."
  • "The California Supreme Court found 'overwhelming' evidence that similar laws in other states cause real harm to teenagers and families."[2]

External links

Suggest a link