Waiting Period & Parental Notification: Facts & Analysis

Prop. 4 proposes to add an amendment to the California Constitution titled the “Child and Teen Safety and Stop Predators Act: Sarah’s Law,” labeled on the ballot as “Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy.” The measure would forbid physicians from performing an abortion on anyone under the age of 18 until written notice has been delivered to her parent, adult family member, or legal guardian personally or by certified mail and a subsequent waiting period of at least 48 hours has elapsed. The measure would not apply in a certified medical emergency, to individuals who are married or serving on active duty in the armed forces, or to those whom a court has declared emancipated.

Prop. 4 is a revised version of Prop. 85, which voters rejected in November 2006 by a vote of 54% to 46%. Prop. 85 was a revised version of Prop. 73, which voters rejected in 2005.

The key difference is that the new amendment would permit a minor to have a family member other than a parent be notified of her intent to undergo an abortion at least 48 hours before the procedure. The request would have to be based on a history of past parental abuse of the minor that is detailed in a written statement and reported by the abortion provider to authorities and to the family member selected for notification.

“Friends of Sarah’s Law, the Parental or Alternative Family Member Notification Law,” the fundraising arm for parental notification proponents, at this point claims no other formal organizational support. Props. 85 and 73 were endorsed by the California Catholic Conference, representing 11,000 Roman Catholic parishes in the state. Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger endorsed both Prop. 85 and Prop. 73. Author, actor, and film producer Ben Stein has appeared in support of Prop. 4.

Committees registered to oppose Prop. 4 are the “Campaign for Teen Safety -- No on 4 -- a Project of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California” and “No on Proposition 4 -- Campaign for Teen Health and Safety, a Project of American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California.” District, state, and local chapters of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the California Medical Association, the National Organization for Women, the California Nurses Association, Catholics for a Free Choice, the League of Women Voters, NARAL Pro-Choice, the National Association of Social Workers, and the AFL-CIO Executive Council formally opposed Props. 85 and 73.

According to the California Secretary of State, major early contributors to the “Friends of Sarah” campaign were San Diego Reader publisher James Holman ($1.4 million); Sonoma winery owner and former California Assemblymember Don Sebastiani ($530,000); the Lenawee Trust, of Irvine ($100,000); the Caster Family Trust, of San Diego ($100,000); and Thomas Sudberry, Jr., a San Diego real estate developer ($35,000).

Authors of the arguments in favor of the initiative are former California Assemblymember Barbara Alby, Republican representative of the Fifth District (Sacramento area) from 1993 to 1998 and an author of the Sex Offender Registration Act known as “Megan’s Law”; Joseph R. Zanga, M.D., past president of the American Academy of Pediatrics and a professor and assistant dean at the Brody School of Medicine at East Carolina University in Greenville, N.C.; and Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas.

Authors of the arguments against the initiative include Myles B. Abbott, M.D., a pediatrician in Orinda and Berkeley and chair of the California District of the American Academy of Pediatrics; Donna Gerber, R.N., Ph.D., legislative director of the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee; and Nancy Schubb, M.S., a school counselor at Los Cerros Middle School in Danville and president of the California Association of School Counselors.

The rebuttal to the arguments for the initiative were written by Kathy Kneer, president of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California; Raquel Arias, M.D., associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology, clinical associate professor of gerontology, and associate dean for women at the University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine; and Jeanne Conry, M.D., an obstetrician/gynecologist at Kaiser Permanente Medical Group’s Roseville Medical Center and District IX chair of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).

The rebuttal to the arguments against the initiative were written by Mary L. Davenport, M.D., of El Sobrante, a fellow of ACOG; Thomas Murphy Goodwin, M.D., professor of obstetrics/gynecology and pediatrics at the USC Keck School of Medicine; and Riverside County District Attorney Rod Pacheco.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that passage of Prop. 4 could result in net costs to the state that would “probably not exceed... a few million dollars annually.” Expenditures would primarily be for program administration, court hearings, and health and social services if the measure causes a rise in the birth rate among low-income girls. The total sum is insignificant as compared to the overall state budget in 2008 of $14 billion for Medi-Cal, $2.2 billion for the courts, and $5.3 billion for services to needy families.