Scott Harris: 4 Reasons for Proposition 4
Let's not further erode families and endanger children because of a few terrible incidents.
Proposition 4 is a proposed amendment to the California Constitution that would prohibit abortions for an unemancipated minor until 48 hours after the physician notifies the parents or legal guardian. It is a direct response to the fact that California law allows doctors to perform chemical and surgical abortions on girls of any age without a parent even being notified. No issue in this country — not Iraq, President Bush, capital punishment or even race — is more divisive or generates more anger and passion than abortion. We now add families and children to the equation.
» Child safety. The most common anti-Prop 4 argument is, “In a perfect world, all teenage girls would go to their parents when considering whether or not to have an abortion, but it’s not a perfect world and we need to protect those who are justifiably afraid to turn to their parents.”
This position ignores the safeguards built into the initiative. Prop 4 would allows for circumventing parents in a variety of ways: through alternative notification to other adult relatives, exceptions for medical emergencies and court waivers based on clear and convincing evidence of a minor’s maturity or best interests. What Prop 4 doesn’t do is allow a 13-year-old girl, who is scared to tell her parents that she’s made a mistake, simply to stop by Planned Parenthood, make the second most important decision of her life (the first was to get pregnant) without her parents and get an abortion.
An abusive parent is a terrible thing, but no more of a reason to continue eroding parents’ rights — and, more importantly, responsibilities — than automobile accidents are a reason to ban cars, spousal abuse a justification for ending marriage or alcoholism an argument for another failed Prohibition. There are inherent risks in everything we do, and the dangers of a non-notification policy outweigh the specious “advantages” of allowing teens and pre-teens to make this life-altering decision independent of their parents — at a time when they need them the most.
» Common sense. Twelve-, 13- and 14-year-old girls are not allowed to marry, drink, drive, join the military, watch an R-rated movie, get a tattoo or even use a tanning salon without permission from their parents — and, in some cases, not even then. Why? Because they are children and are not emotionally equipped to make these decisions, or to deal with, or even understand, the consequences.
» Health. Having an abortion may be the most difficult decision a woman ever makes, and is certainly the most difficult decision that a teen — or pre-teen — girl could face. The post-abortion emotional and physiological ramifications will continue for months or even years.
What if there are complications from the surgery? The parents would have no idea and would not be equipped to make proper medical decisions regarding their daughter. The supporters of this initiative refer to it as Sarah’s Law, because of a young lady who died of complications after an abortion. Many observers believe that this death could have been prevented had the parents known about the abortion.
» Family. This is a family matter. The decision to have an abortion is hard enough, and in 99.9 percent of the cases, a young girl should discuss it with her parents and, if all possible, the baby’s father and his parents, too. It probably won’t be an easy discussion, and it is certainly not one that anyone looks forward to having. However, it is still the parents’ responsibility to be involved, and as hard as it is to raise a family today, the last thing that parents need is an easy way to be circumvented at such a critical time.
Having an abortion is a difficult enough decision for a woman, much less a pre-teen child. Raising a family today, under any circumstances, is quite challenging. Let’s not further erode families and endanger children because of a few terrible, and terribly sensationalized, incidents.
A good law speaks to the majority and protects the minority, and Proposition 4 does both. Come Nov. 4, vote yes on Proposition 4 to protect families and, most importantly, our children.
Scott Harris is a political commentator. Read his columns and contact him through his Web site, www.scottharris.biz, or e-mail him at .
» wrote on 10/01/08 @ 09:06 AM
Suggest review of LA Times Editorial ‘Vote No on Proposition 4’ from Sept 25, 2008:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-ed-4prop25-2008sep25,0,5171708.story
» wrote on 10/01/08 @ 09:24 AM
Changing the law to force, by state police power, young women to inform family members—who often include their rapists—about plans to have an abortion does not protect them or protect families; that’s ludicrous and is why health care professionals, social services, civil libertarians, and others with compassion and brains strongly oppose these laws.
» wrote on 10/01/08 @ 10:40 AM
How many young women would consider suicide as a preferred alternative if Prop. 4 passes?
» wrote on 10/01/08 @ 10:58 AM
Anon,
I did read the Times editorial before writing my column and they make some very valid points. This is a tough issue.
» wrote on 10/01/08 @ 12:06 PM
Jay--But what about those safeguards in the bill for that exact situation? I haven’t read the bill yet so I don’t know how strong they are. Perhaps they’re toothless placations for people who are opposed to abortion laws in general, or maybe they are real safeguards to prevent a young girl from having to confront her rapist and ask his permission for the operation. Maybe you’ve already read the bill and can give another perspective on its details. I know I need to read the bill before I decide.
thanks.
» wrote on 10/01/08 @ 12:31 PM
The author is wrong on each point because he misses what will happen if Proposition 4 passes: some pregnant minors who cannot tell their parents and who cannot navigate the complicated judicial procedure will resort to illegal, back alley abortions, and will be seriously injured or die. No amount of wishful thinking will erase these likely consequences.
We know that the overwhelming majority of pregnant teens do tell their parents. We also know that there are young girls who are abused sexually and/or psychologically by a parent, step-parent, or other significant adult in the home. If a girl in such a situation become pregnant and she knows she will face more trauma if she tell her parents, it is arrogant and cruel to expect her to find the right clerk in the courthouse, fill out the required papers, appear before a judge, and say the right words to get the parental notification requirement waived.
Research from other states which require similar notification tells us that pregnant girls simply do not use the judicial bypass procedure.
So, bottom line: this requirement, if passed, will put pregnant teens at risk. We don’t know how many, but we know the risks are real. The “moralists” will argue that having the child is the only acceptable consequence of teenage sexual activity. But, in the real world, the messy world, the policy decision is between safe, legal abortion or back alley, unsafe ones.
» wrote on 10/01/08 @ 03:10 PM
Vote No on Prop 4. If a teen does get pregnant and Prop 4 passes she cannot go to a relative unless she first states in writing that she is and has been abused. Think for a minute about the girls who don’t want to disappoint their parents by telling them they are pregnant. They are not going to put in writing that they are abused, they are going to 1) hope the problem goes away and hide it without getting proper prenatal care or 2) go on the internet or ask a friend how to handle the situtation herself. Have you researched on the internet how to perform a home abortion? You should it is there, and it is also filled with advice from people who no doubt are not medical practitioners.
Be realistic, this isn’t about protecting teens, it is about removing choice from women and it will endanger our teens.
Vote no on Prop 4.
» wrote on 10/01/08 @ 07:05 PM
Another sneaky attack on a women’s right to choose. Everybody is pro-life, what we are disputing is the right to choose. even Sarah Palin uses those words when she talks about having babies, either hers or anyone elses.Frankly it is none of anybodies business what an individual decides to with their body--see the number of tattoos around and its gaining popularity.
If the female is old enough to be compelled or chooses to be impregnated, she should be old enough to decide whether she wishes to have a baby, which incidentally the courts have decided she is old enough to make that choice.
Further when a male is impregnated then and no sooner does he have the right to discuss a women’s right to choose.
» wrote on 10/01/08 @ 07:24 PM
Does pro choice work for men? Shouldn’t Roger Clemens and be allowed to choose what he wants to inject into his body?
» wrote on 10/04/08 @ 11:21 AM
I totally agree with the author that the issue of abortion is a divisive issue, Misleading and deceptive propositions like Prop 4 can shoulder the blame for this.
Mr. Harris uses the same tired arguments that make this Proposition seem like a reasonable option, but none of these arguments hold water.
First, Proposition 4 is about mandating communication between parents and children. For anyone who has a child, or anyone who has been a child, this surely is a foolish notion. The government can not mandate communication between family members. As an opponent of Prop 4, it is my sincere desire that families have good communication, but to legislate this?
Mr. Harris even sites examples that support this absurdity. He says that 13 year old girls “are not allowed to drink, drive, or watch an R-rated movie,” without the consent of their parents. And yet, we know many of them do these things anyway. So if we mandate parental consent for health care, they will certainly seek it out in other ways. In my book, “child safety” does not include making legal, safe health care services unavailable for our teens so that they have to seek out back-alley services, or cross the border to find unsafe and unsanitary clinic options.
Mr. Harris sites “safeguards” that he feels guard children from abusive parents. In reality, if a teen does choose to go to another adult relative, or to try to navigate a crowded court system and appear before a judge to plea her case, her parents would automatically be reported to authorities as abusers, and an investigation would ensue.
The “Sarah” that Mr. Harris speaks about is actually a Texas woman named Jammie Garcia Yanez-Villegas. She was a MARRIED mother, and NOTHING in Proposition 4 would have prevented her death. This is pure and simple deception.
There is a reason that the CA Nurses Assoc, the CA Medical Assoc, the CA Assoc of School Counselors, and The CA Teachers Assoc ALL say NO on Prop 4. This is not about teen safety, and on the contrary this law would endanger the health and safety of our teens.
» wrote on 10/05/08 @ 10:14 PM
You said it all, except that there are many instances where men take young girls in to Planned Parenthood to get an abortion, so that they can still have sex with the underage girls. Parents were clueless that their daughters were being abused as such and Planned Parenthood didn’t inform the authorities of the abuse to underage girls. Hence, they were perpetuating the rape and abuse of these underage girls.
http://www.yeson4.net will give the stories in greater detail.
I don’t think anyone wants to perpetuate rape and abuse. We have to protect these kids and by doing that, we need parents involved! That’s way it’s suppose to be.