Thursday, October 06, 2005

 

Election Woes: NO on 73

We Californians are facing an election next month that most of us don’t want and many of us plan to ignore. The election contains only propositions, eight of them, that most of us think could have been postponed until the next regularly scheduled election. Our Governor, The Arnold, The Governator, has decreed that the issues covered by these propositions must be settled now, immediately.

As a favor to my readers – yes, there are a few people who read this blog fairly regularly – I shall present my own views on each of the eight propositions in the next few days. I begin with Proposition 73. It’s called “Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.”

I am opposed to this proposition and will vote against it in the November special election.

The proposition requires that a physician notify the parents or guardian of a minor 48 hours before performing an abortion. The proposition does not require that the physician obtain the permission of the parents or guardian. The notification requirement applies to an “unemancipated” minor – one who is not married, not a member of the armed services, or under the age of 18 and not legally free of the influence of a parent or guardian. A previous law enacted by the Legislature required permission of the parent or guardian before a physician could terminate the pregnancy. That provision of law was never enforced and was struck down by the California Supreme Court in 1997.

The backers of the proposition hope that by making the law a part of the State Constitution the court will not be able to invalidate it. Previously, the law could be held to be inconsistent with the California Constitution requirement that laws apply equally and fairly to all. Since the previous law applied only to a class of women and not to all women, it could be held to be discriminatory. If a parental notification requirement is written into the State Constitution, only a federal court could invalidate it.

That’s a brief summary of my understanding of the legal strategy behind making this measure a constitutional amendment rather than a simple statute. There is also a political strategy behind including this proposition in the coming election. Since most of the public disapproves of the election, turn-out is likely to be unusually low, even for an off-year special election. Proposition 73 will attract Christian Conservatives, Angry White Men, and other elements of the hard-core right-wing supporters of the Republican Party. They will vote “yes” on Proposition 73 and on The Arnold’s favorite four, Propositions 74 – 77. They will vote “yes” on 78 and “no” on 79. I make no predictions on Proposition 80.

Finally, why do I oppose this proposition? Why do I even care whether it passes? I am past the age of 18 (long past!) and never have had any need of abortion services. Actually, who are the individuals affected by such a legal requirement? Daughters of functional families, with loving parents, will certainly go to their parents for help and advice regarding an unwanted pregnancy. A notification requirement won’t affect them. Women of age 18 or older won’t be affected. Married women won’t be affected. Women in the armed services won’t be affected. The individuals affected will be girls under the age of 18 from dysfunctional families: girls who fear their parents' wrath. The law would apply only to these unfortunate individuals. They live under a heavy burden as it is, and we as a society have no business making it even heavier.
Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?