For the third election cycle in a row, a proposition requiring doctors to provide parental notification prior to offering abortions services to adolescents has made it onto the California ballot, most recently in the form of Proposition 4. Twice the measure has been defeated and I urge California voters to defeat it once again. This will have the effect of preventing some teens from obtaining abortions, forcing them to go out of state or causing them to have later term abortions after waiting until their eighteenth birthday when parental notification is no longer required (NEJM 2006; 354 1031-8). It will not have the effect of involving parents in the decision making process. Why? Adolescents already involve their parents in the decision making process. According to a Family Planning Perspectives report, 90% of 14 year olds and 76% of 15 year olds involve their parents in the decision in states where there are no parental notification laws. 2nd trimester abortions increased by 10-20% in Mississippi once parental notification requirements took effect. The privelage of being able to maintain a patient's confidentiality is nowhere more important than in the care of the adolescent patient. For these reasons, and others, I urge all California residents to vote 'NO' on proposition 4.
-
Search
-
Recently Published
-
Recent Comments
- DodsonEbony27 commented on Vote 'NO' on California Proposition 4!
- James commented on Underground lair (part 2)
- Luseea commented on Underground lair (part 2)
- James commented on Lance Armstrong and doping in competitive sports
- Rider commented on Lance Armstrong and doping in competitive sports
- tracy commented on First do no harm
- James commented on Domestic violence screening
- James commented on One question depression screen
- tracy commented on One question depression screen
- Luseea commented on Underground lair
3 Comments
My name is Paula and I’m an intern for Ms. magazine. I just came across your wonderful blog post about California Proposition 4 and wanted to let you know about a new video that has just been released from the Feminist Majority Foundation, the publisher of Ms.
This November, South Dakotans will vote on a draconian abortion ban – Initiated Measure 11. I’m sure you are very aware how dangerous Measure 11 is to women’s reproductive health and rights, as it aims to make it nearly impossible for a woman to obtain an abortion in South Dakota. With help from some celebrities like Camryn Manheim, Amy Brenneman and Sara Ramirez, this video urges people to vote NO on 11 this November on the South Dakota ballot. Check it out/spread it around:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkRYqZnU0Zc
http://www.feministcampus.org/vote/StateInitiativeSD.asp
And of course, please check out our Vote No on 4 video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUVi1l-6M84
Please consider posting these videos onto your website so it is made available to your visitors. We must do all that we can to preserve women’s reproductive rights and let women know what’s at risk this election!
Thanks for your consideration,
Paula Silinger
Ms. magazine
psilinger [at] msmagazine [dot] com
hmmm.
if you say no, because they are already involving parents what, 70-90% of the time, will the enforced consent change that number?
i mean, those already notified would presumably still be notified?
so for the remainder, would it increase notifications?
now really, is womens reproductive rights / health at issue? or is it really an effort by the state to enforce its will over parental rights? isn't this a matter of the state saying skip parents rights in regard to their CHILDREN? the state knows better?
aren't parents more suited to help their children make intelligent and wise decisions than the girl on her own? or are you saying that a social worker knows more than the parents? case in point.
What a 14, 15, or 16 year old girl wants when it comes to her sex life does not trump what we know about her capacity to consent in all other areas. These girls aren't allowed to get a job, drive a car without special training, smoke a cigarette, drink alcohol, or enter into any other sort of elective medical agreement for very good reasons.
Joyce found a definite change in behavior after Texas' law changed. Unfortunately, the data only compared outcome of 15-17 year olds with only 18 years olds.
STI's go down in states that pass parental notification laws.http://jleo.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/ewm041v1
Illegal abortions and late abortions do not increase in States that increase limits on elective abortion for minors.
Even though most statistics are given for girls 15-19 rather than the more logical 15 through 17 year olds that we are talking about, most fathers of the babies of teen girls are not teens.
The younger the girl, the higher the risk that she was forced and the more likely the partner is to be much older. 50 to 75% of girls under 17 who carry the baby to term are pregnant by men 5 or more years older than they. (Alan Guttmacher http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2903097.html )
No one knows the age difference/risk for girls who have abortions, because there are no records.
We have too much evidence that (possibly well-meaning) abortion clinic employees will coach girls and those who call for them how to (mis)represent their ages and the age of their partners in order to get the abortion.
In the vast majority of cases the best policy is to involve the most natural advocates for her life, health and future - her mom or dad.