KELLY DAVIES
Staff Writer
A lot of things could be said about the rejection of all four of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s propositions during the Nov. 8 special election.
Success in the election theoretically would have given the governor the tools he should have been using when he began his term in office, the tools necessary to fulfill the promises that made Californians vote for him in the first place. But Arnold didn’t seem to have what it takes to support his mighty efforts, and his proposals were swept into the whirwind of political spin. So it became harder to see what the ballot measures really meant, with both sides screaming victory.
But there was one proposition that perhaps took the most political spin, one part of the election that has more far-reaching consequences than any of the other measures that failed: Proposition 73.
Prop. 73 would have required parental notification for a female 17 or younger to have an abortion.
It failed by a 53 to 47 percent margin.
I can understand where this debate was going — and it’s a hotly contested debate that’s gone all the way to the Supreme Court. Pro-choice activists were saying that Prop. 73 wasn’t just about giving parents legal control over their children, it was about changing the definition of abortion. The proposition defined abortion as causing “death of the unborn child, a child conceived but not yet born.” This is the part of the proposition that asks you to decide where life begins. For people who believe life does not begin at conception, this might have been an immediate no. Those who opposed the proposition said this was simply the Bush Administration’s clever ploy to make California a red state again, to gain support for the overturning of Roe v. Wade in the Supreme Court, and to make America a playground for the religious right.
So the proposition was defeated, for these reasons and probably others. I’m not going to try to debate when life begins with people who just don’t see an unborn child as a life. But there’s one thing that astounds me, one thing that makes me think California is going crazy — a minor does not need parental notification for an abortion, but still needs it for … dental work.
That’s right, as far as I remember, when I was 12 with awkward teeth and I wanted braces, I couldn’t march into a dentist’s office and sign any papers without parental notification or written consent. This is true for a lot of things regarding minors. So why do you need parental notification to pull teeth but not to abort a child? When you put it in this context, it just seems crazy to me that California would not pass this one.
The opposition says that forcing a child to seek parental notification might put the child at risk for violence, forcing her to suffer at the hands of abusive parents or seek an unsafe means of terminating the pregnancy. Politicos are saying the rejection of the proposition isn’t about abortion but voters’ basic concern for their children. So let me get this straight: you care so much for your children that you’re willing to abdicate your parental responsibilities to the state?
But when it comes down to it, shouldn’t a parent be involved in such a big decision? A parent shouldn’t lose his or her right to be a parent just because his or her child gets pregnant. Wherever you stand on abortion, it’s ridiculous that a child is able to ask for an abortion before asking for braces.
11-17-2005