EDITOR’S NOTE: Over the next couple of weeks, ValleyVue will endeavor to provide readers with a guide to the upcoming special election in California. As mentioned in a previous article, the proposition overviews will be focused on the Valley’s interests in as much as possible. However, the reader must realize these reviews will reflect the writer’s biased opinions. This is a commentary magazine, after all. Whether you agree or disagree with ValleyVue’s assessments, the most important thing you can do on Tuesday, November 8, 2005 is to vote in the direction you would like California to go. If anything, this blog is meant to encourage its readership to local, regional, state, and national participatory democracy. --Editor-in-Chief Dan Borlik 10/26/05
_____________________________________________________________________
Focus: Proposition 73

Waiting period and parental notification before termination of a minor’s pregnancy. Initiative constitutional amendment.

This initiative has been proposed to ensure physicians inform a child’s parents 48 hours before they may perform an abortion procedure on their child. As usual, an abortion issue brings out the same alliances as always. As is their respective parties traditional strategies, Democrats are generally against, and Republicans are generally for. Looking more at the political organizations appealing to the conscience of voters, women’s groups and Planned Parenthood have come out against the measure, while church groups most often support it.

It would be simple to suggest to voters to simply follow their own convictions and feelings on abortion as to whether or not you should support it. However, Proposition 73 is only about abortion on the surface. The key to this proposal is the right of parents to know the medical services being provided to their children. In schools right now, it is required to let parents know of any injury or illness the child incurs, as well as what treatment is received. This is sound policy, for parents are the guardians of their children in every sense of the word guardian. Why should minors be allowed to have abortions without parental knowledge?

Of course the obvious retort is that some children must have the procedure quickly to avoid a potential health problem. The proposed law states that in cases of medical emergency, the notification can be waived. On the flip side, the potential medical benefits resulting as a side effect of this law would be numerous. It would hold abortion providers more accountable by a child’s parents, and indeed allow parents to ensure a safe place for the child to receive services. The parent would have the chance to support their child with alternatives and guidance. By beginning a legal procedure of notification, it is likely abusive family situations might come to light. It would also result in the increase of the prosecution of adults who have unlawful relations with minors.

Opponents of Proposition 73 suggest minors will be placed in danger by not being able to have abortion procedures secretly. There case has not been made, especially in comparison to the potential benefits of parental notification. Minors are a special legal category because the law recognizes they are still developing into adulthood. As such, they must be protected from having to make the very adult decision about whether or not to have an abortion on their own. Not only can an abortion result in physical damage, the emotional scars of abortion can haunt someone, necessitating psychological assistance. This most certainly will be amplified in a child, who also must deal with the sociological impact of becoming pregnant as a teenager. For the great majority of children, parents must and should be counted to provide the greatest amount of love and support for their child. VOTE YES on 73.