On the ballot: Proposition 4

There you go again. Proposition 4, on the ballot this November in California, would require doctors to notify the parents of teenagers looking to get abortions. It’s basically the same as propositions voted down in 2005 and 2006 (Prop 73 and Prop 85, respectively). This time around, the law’s branded as “Sarah’s Law.” According to backers of the initiative, “Sarah” was a 15 year old girl whose abortion resulted in a tear in her cervix, an infection, and death. They say “Sarah’s Law” would have saved her life. And this story also appears in the ballot argument that voters are set to receive with their state-issued voters’ guide. Never voted in California? It’s a treat, by any measure. All voters receive a state mailed Voter Information Guide, and depending on the number of initiatives on the ballot, this thing can approach the size of the phone book.

Here’s a sample section on an old initiative. If you look at the links at the top, you’ll see that each initiative has an official text, analysis (by an independent legislative analyst) including an estimate of state and local government fiscal impact, arguments in favor and against the initiative (submitted by backers and opponents of the initiative), rebuttals to each of those arguments, and the text of the proposed law. Every registered voter in the state gets this information on everything on the ballot. That’s some good democracy for you. For years, we’ve used these guides to teach young students how to debate and understand civic issues. They’re amazing. And make the voter outreach in other states seem pretty darn inadequate.

So, as the Voter Guides for November are being prepared, Planned Parenthood has busted the Prop 4 people for misrepresenting “Sarah” and her case in the ballot argument. The Los Angeles Times has the full story here. Turns out that “Sarah” was a 15-year-old in a common-law marriage in Texas, and the state of Texas does not recognize married 15-year-olds as minors. So her parents would never have been notified per the text of Prop 4. Planned Parenthood filed suit trying to get Sarah’s name taken out of the ballot argument. But it’ll remain, per a Sacramento Superior Court ruling.

The debate over the proposition’s just not very good. Maybe it’s because it’s unlikely to pass, even if the gay marriage ban folks turn out to vote – 85 lost by an even bigger margin than 73. Laist’s got a cursory treatment of the problems with parental notification laws, and the No on 4 folks have a flashy, content-light website here with lots of things in ALL CAPS. It doesn’t look homemade like the “Friends of Sarah”, but it’s remarkably information-light, especially when it comes to detailing the arguments made against similar policies by the American Academy of Pediatrics (read it here - it’s a PDF). Credible research on parental notification is unequivocal – it does not improve family communication and does not increase family involvement in the abortion decision. Instead of notifying parents or family members, adolescents leave the state, get “clandestine care” (read: illegal abortions), or delay care. But the heavy empirical support for these results is given a gloss by the anti-Prop 4 people.

Meanwhile, the initiative supporters seem to have decided that a YouTube campaign is the best way to get their message across. And the media’s asleep at the wheel on this one. A LexisNexis search for articles on Prop 4 this year returns 25 articles. Only 6 are actually about Prop 4, and of those 5 are about the Planned Parenthood lawsuit and its outcome. Too bad. The vote’s still close – polling at 47% against, 44% for – and it seems like everyone could be doing a better job of analyzing the arguments for and against this important proposition.