is a repeat of a law passed here in 1987 but not inacted. The California Superior Court has already ruled that this violates the right to privacy of a minor. Here is a link to the article.
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:KQmrept64qIJ:www.feminist.org/research/chronicles/fc1992.html+Judge+Maxine+M.+Chesney+civil+rights&hl=en&client=firefox-aCalifornia Superior Court Judge Maxine M. Chesney ruled unconstitutional a state law requiring unmarried minors to obtain parental or judicial consent for an abortion. Judge Chesney held that the law, passed in 1987 but not enforced while it was being challenged in court, violated a minor's right to privacy under the California Constitution. Anti-abortion forces were certain to appeal her decision to the State Supreme Court. (05/27/92)
She is a Clinton appointee.
So here we go again. Arnold is such a stoog for the Repugs.
edit:This proposition is not what you think it is. It is a trojan horse. Parental permission is the cloaking of anti abortion language buried in the bill. the intent is to make you think its about parent notice, when it is really about slipping in language meant to undermine/overturn Roe V Wade in Calif.
One more edit for further info on prop 73: from an email I got
Why does Prop 73 require doctors to submit reports to the government with the details of abortions?
Answer: Prop 73 is not about parental rights; it’s about limiting access to reproductive health services and forcing doctors who serve adolescents to take on new burdens and potential threats.
Why does Prop 73 require judges to report results of all petitions to waive parental notification to the Judicial Council—making them public record?
Answer: It’s about overburdening the judicial system, enabling anti-choice judges to take themselves off ‘judicial bypass’ cases that are supposed to protect vulnerable teens and threatening those judges who do permit vulnerable teens to obtain health care with political retribution from anti-choice supporters.
What do these types of reporting have to do with parental notification?
Research shows that parental notification laws endanger the health and safety of our teens.
A recent study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that 47% of minors seeking reproductive healthcare services would completely stop seeking these services if parental notification was mandatory – while only 1% said they would stop having sex.
That is why the California Medical Association opposes the initiative, stating that, “Prop 73 would result in irreparable damage to the physician-patient relationship and endanger the safety of our teens. Any law that would force physicians to police and report teens under 18 who want to end a pregnancy would have a substantial chilling effect on a teen’s willingness to seek pregnancy counseling and safe medical help. Physicians routinely work to open communication channels between family members, a role they cannot play effectively if they must assume an adversarial enforcement role.”
The Juvenile Court Judges of California have also taken a stand against Prop 73, stating that it “would impose substantial burdens” on an “already overburdened court system”.
A recent report in the The New York Times also found that in states with parental notification laws, some judges are already "opting-out" -- refusing to hear teenage abortion petitions. Judges who hear these cases are faced with larger workloads, fears about polittical retribution and intimidation from anti-choice advocates.
Help spread the word about the real-world implications of this dangerous measure.
This is noted as a planned parenthood project at the end of the email.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
