California Proposition 85, Parental Notification of Abortion Initiative (2006)
| California Proposition 85 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 7, 2006 | |
| Topic Abortion | |
Status Defeated | |
| Type Constitutional amendment | Origin Citizens |
California Proposition 85, the Parental Notification of Abortion Initiative, was on the ballot in California as an initiated constitutional amendment on November 7, 2006. 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 85 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 3,868,714 | 45.81% | ||
|
|
4,576,128 | 54.19% | ||
Overview
Proposition 85 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]
| “ | Potential unknown net state costs of several million dollars annually for health and social services programs, court administration, and state health agency administration combined.[2] | ” |
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 85 led the campaign in support of Proposition 85.
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 Joseph R. Zanga, a former president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, wrote the voter guide argument in support of Proposition 85:[1]
| “ |
IN CALIFORNIA, a daughter under 18 can’t get aspirin from the school nurse, get a flu shot, or have a tooth pulled without a parent knowing. BUT, UNBELIEVABLY, surgical or chemical abortions can be secretly performed on minor girls—even 12-year olds—without parents’ knowledge. PARENTS are then not prepared to help young daughters with the serious physical, emotional, or psychological complications which may result from an abortion or to protect their daughters from further sexual abuse, 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 85. PROP. 85 will require that doctors notify a parent or guardian at least 48 hours before performing abortions on minor daughters. 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. 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 legal 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 PROPOSITION 85 TO ALLOW PARENTS TO CARE FOR AND PROTECT THEIR MINOR DAUGHTERS’ WELL-BEING, HEALTH, and SAFETY![2] |
” |
Opposition
No on 85 led the campaign in opposition to Proposition 85.
Arguments
In California, the official voter guide features arguments from supporters and opponents. CEO of the California Medical Association Dr. Jack Lewin, Dr. Robert Black, and Kathy Kneer, CEO of the Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, wrote the voter guide argument in opposition to Proposition 85:[1]
| “ |
DOCTORS AND NURSES, including the California Medical Association, the California Nurses Association, American Academy of Pediatrics-California District, California Academy of Family Physicians, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists-District IX California, STRONGLY OPPOSE PROPOSITION 85. They understand that while PARENTS RIGHTFULLY WANT TO BE INVOLVED IN THEIR TEENAGERS’ LIVES, 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. THESE TEENS CAN’T GO TO THEIR PARENTS. They fear being kicked out of their homes, beaten, or worse. 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. PROPOSITION 85 PUTS THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF TEENAGERS AT RISK. No law can mandate good family communication. The real answer to teen pregnancy and abortion is strong, caring families and comprehensive sex education, including abstinence. But sadly, not all California teens live in homes with strong, caring families. For OUR MOST VULNERABLE TEENAGERS—those who most need protection—PROPOSITION 85 PUTS THEM IN HARM’S WAY OR FORCES THEM TO GO TO COURT. FORCING A SCARED, PREGNANT TEENAGER who can’t go to her parents INTO CALIFORNIA’S OVERCROWDED COURT SYSTEM WON’T WORK— AND COULD CAUSE TEENS MORE HARM. Courts are already backlogged, there’s a lot of red tape, and they are hard to navigate, even for adults. Think about it. The teen is scared, pregnant, her family might be abusive. SHE DOESN’T NEED A JUDGE. SHE NEEDS A COUNSELOR AND GOOD MEDICAL CARE—WITHOUT DELAY. Proposition 85’s new bureaucratic rules WON’T GUARANTEE that parents are notified. Who will sign for the mail? What happens when the mail is delayed, or the parents aren’t home, or the teen intercepts the letter? The real answer to teen pregnancy is prevention and caring families—NOT NEW LAWS THAT ENDANGER OUR DAUGHTERS. AND PROPOSITION 85 IS NOT ABOUT PROTECTING TEENS FROM OLDER MEN AND SEXUAL PREDATORS. Clinics already provide counseling about responsible behavior and report illegal activities. Proposition 85 won’t reduce teen pregnancy rates, can’t force families to communicate, is complicated and unworkable . . . and is not about predators—BUT IT WILL PUT GENERATIONS OF CALIFORNIA’S TEENAGERS AT RISK. WE ALL MUST CARE enough about Proposition 85 to VOTE NO because DEFEATING Prop. 85 is about KEEPING OUR DAUGHTERS SAFE and PROTECTING THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE. SUPPORTERS of Proposition 85—including the Traditional Values Coalition, Evangelicals for Social Action, and Right to Life of Central California—ARE THE SAME PEOPLE WHO WANT TO OVERTURN ROE v. WADE and BAN ALL ABORTIONS. Despite what they say, Proposition 85 ISN’T ABOUT PARENTAL RIGHTS; IT’S ABOUT THEIR POLITICAL AGENDA. Join PARENTS, DOCTORS, NURSES, PLANNED PARENTHOOD, and THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA and VOTE NO on 85.[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 2006, at least 598,105 valid signatures were required.
Proponents hired Bader & Associates, Inc., a petition management firm, to collect signatures. The campaign spent $2,590,519.81 on the signature drive.[3]
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 |
