[Originally posted at NorCal Politics on February 9, 2006]

The Proposition 73 people are back:

Backers of a failed special election measure that would have forced doctors to notify parents or guardians before performing abortions on underage girls are circulating petitions to have Californians vote on nearly the same measure next November.

Like Proposition 73, the initiative would require a girl younger than 18 to wait 48 hours after a parent or legal guardian is notified of her intention to get an abortion. Secretary of State Bruce McPherson on Monday cleared supporters to begin gathering signatures.

The text of the initiative is not yet up at the Attorney General’s office.  We’ll watch for it and report back when we find it.  Money says it’s pretty much exactly the same as Proposition 73, probably even including the stealth language turning an embryo into a person in the California Constitution.

What is interesting is the “rationale” the anti-choice crowd is using to explain the failure of Proposition 73:

Albin Rhomberg, a spokesman for the Parents Right to Know and Child Protection initiative, said the special election wasn’t representative of the California electorate because unions and Democrats mobilized supporters to turn out against the four measures promoted by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
“The turnout was very high in the liberal areas of the state and surprisingly low in some of the more conservative areas,” Rhomberg said. “It would be foolish to not put it before the voters in a larger general election.”

Statewide turnout for the special election was 50 percent of California’s registered voters, higher than expectations.

I don’t buy this.  I think it was a deliberate strategy to put Prop. 73 on the ballot in an off year when the anti-choice crowd could get motivated and turn out.  It’s a real shame that the turnout was so high, and Proposition 73 was shot down.  Turns out the hope that Schwarzenegger and the anti-choice people had of piggybacking on each other’s issues backfired.  Too many people of the wrong sort voted on issues that affected them directly.  What a shame.

Progressives would do well to note the remarkable stubbornness of the anti-choice crowd though.  They just keep bashing away at the same wall, no matter how badly they lose, and every defeat is spun away, because it’s not possible that they’re actually wrong.

[Originally posted October 11, 2005 at NorCal Politics]

Bottom Line: A young woman in a good family situation who finds herself pregnant will tell her parents anyway. A young woman in a bad family situation who finds herself pregnant should not be forced to tell her parents. Even Dear Abby knows this (reprinted because it will disappear): Continue reading [From NCP] No on Proposition 73 →

[Originally posted 11/05/2005 on NorCal Politics by LSchwark.]

Beyond the criticisms of the proposition as being detrimental to the health and safety of California teens, Proposition 73 is also a stealth initiative to criminalize abortion, amending the state constitution to define abortion as infanticide.

From the text of the initiative (emphasis mine):

This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8 of the California Constitution. This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by adding a section thereto

…

(1) “Abortion” means the use of any means to terminate the pregnancy of an unemancipated minor female known to be pregnant with knowledge that the termination with those means will, with reasonable likelihood, cause the death of the unborn child, a child conceived but not yet born.

I would have thought this was obvious to Californians by now. Unfortunately, the LA Times conducted a poll this week that indicates Prop 73 is running at 51% approval by likely voters.

This is not the first go around with notification laws. In 1953, the constitution was amended to allow minors to have the same access to medical care as adults, without notification. In 1987, the legislature added a parental notification amendment in the case of abortions for minors. The state supreme court struck it down as being unconstitutional. So, now they anti-choice forces are trying to amend the constituion.

As they always do, the anti-choice agenda is acting by stealth because people in the US, and even more so in California, are pro-choice. Therefore, they’re trying to nibble away piecemeal the underpinnings of abortion access and availability. Much like the Intelligent Design advocates argue they just want to allow their side to be heard alongside evolution to get their foot in the door, the same is the case with parental notification. Conservatives understand the game, moderates are often fooled into supporting the idea as if that were the only issue involved. But it’s not the only issue, it’s just part of an ongoing campaign. The graphic snipped from the LA Times poll shows why this tactic can work. While pro-choice voters outnumber anti-choice voters 58% to 39%, there’s a swing 19% that is open to some limitations on abortion. If they can be convinced that one measure or another is reasonable, the anti-choice forces can sneak through a trojan horse.

There are plenty of conscientious and well-meaning people who take a principled stand against abortion. Many of them are also against the death penalty and concerned with the general social welfare. But the anti-choice activists who put things like Proposition 73 forward are the people who also oppose birth control, sex education. These anti-abortion activists are now debating whether they should oppose the addition of the HPV vaccine that prevents most cervical cancer to the routine child vaccination schedule. Their argument, predictably, is that immunizing girls aginst HPV will encourage sexual activity. You see, HPV is communicable much more easily than most STD’s and thus condoms aren’t effective. So the fear of cancer is their ally in promoting abstinence only education.

There are plenty of other arguments against Prop 73.

• It most affects the vulnerable teens who live in abusive or unstable home environments.
• It institutes a government bureaucracy that receives notifications of teens seeking abortions. Think about that one for a minute.
• The measure criminalizes doctors and health care providers who provide abortions to teens unless they participate in the notification bureaucracy.
• Expecting vulnerable teens to go to court to get a waiver is ridiculous. Imagine yourself as a poor 16 year old with an unstable home environment. Are you going to be going to court to get a waiver? Again, the idea is ridiculous on its face.
• Most teens seeking abortions do, in fact, already discuss it with their parents.
• The state Supreme Court, in rejecting the last attempt at notification laws, included the opinion that such laws do, in fact, put teens in danger.

Vote NO on PROPOSITION 73.