>California voters have voted against a State Constitutional amendment to require doctors to notify parents when minor girls obtain an abortion.
From the San Francisco Gate:
Proposition 4 would alter the state constitution to prohibit a minor from obtaining an abortion until 48 hours after her doctor notified her parent, legal guardian or, in certain cases, a substitute adult. An exception would be made for medical emergencies and also the minor would be permitted to seek an order in court waiving notification.
It appears that the vote was 52% against and 47% to 48% in favor.
More on the vote from KTLA TV news:
Proposition 4, known officially as the Waiting Period and Parental Notification before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy Amendment and unofficially as Sarah’s Law.
The proposition would add a section to Article 1 of the California Constitution to require doctors to inform the parent of guardian of a minor 48 hours before providing an abortion.
This proposition is similar to California’s Proposition 73 92005) and California Proposition 86 (2006) both of which were rejected by the majority of voters; however it introduces significant changes to allowed exceptions.
The way it is now:
A pregnant minor (an unmarried girl under 18 years old) can get an abortion in California without telling her parents.
>You can blame polarisation for this.Pro-choicers oppose parential notification laws. It's not that they oppose parential notification itsself, but that they are highly distrustful of pro-lifers. The choice faction knows that if they give an inch, a mile will be taken. They worry that what seems like a simple parential notification law may be abused into an obstical for all abortion – a deliberate delay, expensive paperwork, an excuse to harass with more doomed-to-fail but expensive legal action, a means of intimidation.The leaders of the pro-life campaigns have made it clear that their objective is to prevent every last abortion without exception, and that they will resort to any means to achieve this – legal tricks, harassment, intimidation, obstruction. Of course pro-choicers will oppose everything they try to do.The middle ground has been forced out of this debate. All that remains are 'no abortion, no exceptions' pro-lifers and pro-choicers who are forced by the political situation to defend abortion on demand for all even if they personally do not support it. Those who call for limitations without a complete prohibition, though they form the majority of the population, have little representation.
>SR, I believe that you are demonstrating that very polarization. It appears that abortion on demand without limits trumps even the most common-sense protection for minor girls such as parental notification.These restrictions are not to prevent people from having sex or to prevent consenting minors or adults from having abortions. They serve to protect girls with basic parental support. Parental notification laws are necessary to protect girls who are really too young to go through an abortion alone. In most cases, parents are the best advocate for their daughters' health, safety and well being. The judicial bypass is there for the rest.They also serve to limit adult predators — historically, the younger the girl, the more likely the father is more than 5 years older than she is.The California law had protections for emergencies and the judicial bypass. In Texas, this law has been interpreted to mean that any girl who asks for the bypass is eligible. The privacy laws protect the girl so that no one can monitor the money spent for court costs, guardian ad litums, the lawyers for the girls, or judges who give them. One of our women has been fighting for 7 or 8 years to obtain her own sealed court records, to no avail.