Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.
California Proposition 73, Parental Notification of Abortion Initiative (2005)
| California Proposition 73 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 8, 2005 | |
| Topic Abortion | |
Status Defeated | |
| Type Constitutional amendment | Origin Citizens |
California Proposition 73, the Parental Notification of Abortion Initiative, was on the ballot in California as an initiated constitutional amendment on November 8, 2005. The ballot measure was defeated.
A "yes" vote supported requiring notification of a parent or legal guardian of an unemancipated pregnant minor at least 48 hours before performing an abortion and requiring physicians to report the number of abortions performed on minors. |
A "no" vote opposed requiring notification of a parent or legal guardian of an unemancipated pregnant minor at least 48 hours before performing an abortion and requiring physicians to report the number of abortions performed on minors. |
Election results
|
California Proposition 73 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 3,610,475 | 47.29% | ||
|
|
4,023,840 | 52.71% | ||
Overview
Proposition 73 would have established a required waiting period and parental notification before a minor could obtain an abortion.[1]
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title was as follows:[1]
| “ | Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor's Pregnancy. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.[2] | ” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary was as follows:[1]
| “ |
|
” |
Fiscal impact statement
- See also: Fiscal impact statement
The fiscal impact statement was as follows:[1]
| “ |
|
” |
Constitutional changes
- See also: Article I, California Constitution
The ballot measure would have added a Section 32 to Article I of the California Constitution.[1]
Support
Yes on Proposition 73 led the campaign in support of Proposition 73.
Arguments
In California, the official voter guide features arguments from supporters and opponents. Former California Supreme Court Justice William P. Clark, Dr. Mary Davenport, and Maria Guadalupe, the organizing director for the Parents’ Right to Know and Child Protection, wrote the voter guide argument in support of Proposition 73:[1]
| “ |
In California, a daughter under 18 can’t get an aspirin from the school nurse, get a flu shot, or have a tooth pulled without a parent knowing. However, surgical or chemical abortions can be secretly performed on minor girls—even 13 years old or younger—without parents’ knowledge. Parents are then not prepared to help young daughters with any of the serious physical, emotional, or psychological complications which may result from an abortion or to protect their daughters from further sexual exploitation and pregnancies. A study of over 46,000 pregnancies of school-age girls in California found that over two-thirds were impregnated by adult men whose mean age was 22.6 years. Investigations have shown that secret abortions on minors in California are rarely reported to child protective services although these pregnancies are evidence of statutory rape and sexual abuse. This leaves these girls vulnerable to further sexual abuse, rapes, pregnancies, abortions, and sexually transmitted diseases. That’s why more than one million signatures were submitted to allow Californians to vote on the 'Parents’ Right to Know and Child Protection' Proposition 73. Prop. 73 will require that one parent or guardian be notified at least 48 hours before an abortion is performed on a minor daughter. Parents and daughters in more than 30 other states have benefited for years from laws like Prop. 73. Many times, after such laws pass, there have been substantial reductions in pregnancies and abortions among minors. When parents are involved and minors cannot anticipate secret access to free abortions they more often avoid the reckless behavior which leads to pregnancies. Older men, including Internet predators, are deterred from impregnating minors when secret abortions are not available to conceal their crimes. If she chooses, a minor may petition juvenile court to permit an abortion without notifying a parent. She can request a lawyer to help her. If the evidence shows she is mature enough to decide for herself or that notifying a parent is not in her best interests, the judge will grant her petition. The proceedings must be confidential, prompt, and free. She may also seek help from juvenile court if she is being coerced by anyone to consent to an abortion. Polls show most people support parental notification laws. They know that a minor girl—pregnant, scared, and possibly abandoned or pressured by an older boyfriend— needs the advice and support of a parent. Parents have invested more attention and love in raising their daughter, know her personal and medical history better, and care more about her future than strangers employed by abortion clinics profiting from performing many abortions on minors. A minor still has a right to obtain or refuse an abortion, but a parent can help her understand all options, obtain competent care, and provide medical records and history. An informed parent can also get prompt care for hemorrhage, infections, and other possibly fatal complications. Vote 'Yes' on Prop. 73 to allow parents to care for and protect their minor daugthers![2] |
” |
Opposition
No on Proposition 73 led the campaign in opposition to Proposition 73.
Arguments
In California, the official voter guide features arguments from supporters and opponents. Dr. Robert Black, Dr. Ruth Haskins, and Deborah Burger, president of the California Nurses Association, wrote the voter guide argument in opposition to Proposition 73:[1]
| “ |
Parents rightfully want to be involved in their teenagers’ lives and all parents want what is best for their children. But good family communication can’t be imposed by government. Parents care most about keeping their children safe. That means always safe, even if they feel they can’t come to us and tell us everything. Family communication must begin long before a teen faces an unplanned pregnancy. The best way to protect our daughters is to begin talking about responsible, appropriate sexual behavior from the time they are young and fostering an atmosphere that assures them they can come to us. Even teenagers who have good relationships with their parents might be afraid to talk to them about something as sensitive as pregnancy. And sadly, some teens live in troubled homes. The family might be having serious problems, or parents might be abusive, or a relative may even have caused the pregnancy. This law puts those vulnerable teenagers—those who most need protection—in harm’s way, or forces them to go to court. Think about it: the girl is already terrified, she’s pregnant, her family is abusive or worse. She’s not going to be marching up to a judge in a crowded courthouse. She doesn’t need a judge, she needs a counselor. Mandatory notification laws make scared, pregnant teens who can’t go to their parents do scary things, instead of going to the doctor to get the medical help they need. In other states, when parental notification laws make teenagers choose between talking with parents or having illegal or unsafe abortions, some teens choose the illegal abortion—even though it is dangerous. Sometimes teenagers are just teenagers. And if, in desperation, teenagers turn to illegal, self-induced or back-alley abortions many will suffer serious injuries and some will die. The California Nurses Association, California Academy of Family Physicians, and the California Medical Association all oppose proposition 73. Mandatory notification laws may sound good, but, in the real world, they just put teenagers in real danger. The real answer to teen pregnancy is prevention, and strong, caring families—not new laws that endanger our daughters. California’s teen pregnancy rate dropped significantly over the last decade without constitutional amendments or forced notification laws. That’s because doctors, nurses, parents, teachers, and counselors are teaching teenagers about responsibility, abstinence, and birth control. These programs will help keep our daughters safe and out of trouble. Talking to our daughters when they are young and fostering a place where they can freely communicate is the best solution. But if—for whatever reason—our daughters can’t or they won’t come to us, we must make sure they get safe, professional medical attention and quality counseling from caring doctors and nurses. As parents, we want to know when our daughters face a decision like this so we can be helpful and supportive. But also, as parents, our daughters’ safety is more important than our desire to be informed. Please join us in voting 'No' on Proposition 73.[2] |
” |
Path to the ballot
- See also: California signature requirements
In California, the number of signatures required for an initiated constitutional amendment is equal to 8 percent of the votes cast at the preceding gubernatorial election. For initiated amendments filed in 2005, at least 373,816 valid signatures were required.
See also
External links
Footnotes
 |
State of California Sacramento (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
