Opposing Sides Claim to Defend Teen Safety
By Carlos Saucedo
October 09, 2008
Lately, there has been a lot of talk about teenage pregnancies on the national scene – especially after the revelation of Gov. Sarah Palin’s daughter being an unwed pregnant teenager. Supporters of Palin have embraced the governor’s conservative stance on the issue of abortion, lauding Palin and her daughter’s decision to keep the unborn baby and not have an abortion.
The governor is also praised for her decision to give birth to her now 5-month-old son, Trig, who was diagnosed with Downs syndrome while in his mother’s womb – making Palin the poster child for the Pro-Life movement in the heavily contested U.S. Presidential Election.
Yet, Californians have a much vested interest on the topic of teenage abortions as the issue has reintroduced itself into this year’s California General Election through Proposition 4.
Voters will have an opportunity to voice their opinion on the matter when casting their vote on Proposition 4, a ballot initiative attempting to change the state constitution to prohibit abortions to minors until 48 hours after parental notification by a physician. No parental consent is required for the abortion to proceed thereafter.
A similar measure was placed in the state ballot in 2006 with strong support from the California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. However, Proposition 85, as it was titled, was rejected with 54% of the state electorate voting against the measure.
This Nov. 4, voters will be able to decide on the issue again. The only difference between this measure and the one from two years ago is that an adult relative of the minor attempting to have an abortion may be notified if the child fears violent reaction from her parents or legal guardian.
As it stands now, the law permits minors to receive abortion services just like any adult woman has the right to. Doctors performing abortions for minors are not required to notify the child’s parents before the termination of a pregnancy. But if this measure passes, doctors will soon be required to notify at least one adult family member before performing an abortion on a girl under the age of 18.
Proponents of the measure argue child and teen safety as the purpose for the constitutional amendment.
Coincidentally enough, those against the measure make the same case.
The slogan “teen safety” is being thrown around by both campaigns to get their message across. So which side is right?
Supporters of Prop 4 claim they are trying to protect young girls from child predators. There have been cases where men have sex with underage teenagers and then coerce them into having an abortion without informing any of her adult relatives.
Critics argue that the laws in place today already protect minors – especially those who fear their lives might be at risk if relatives were to be notified. If the measure passes, opponents fear that teenage girls unwilling to notify any family relatives of a potential abortion might seek unsafe alternatives from uncertified physicians.
Opponents also argue that the initiative is being used as a political ploy by religious conservatives to impede on Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court case that legalized abortions in the United States through its 1973 ruling.
With such a sensitive issue in the hands of the electorate, voters should look at both sides of this debate closely and make an informed decision come Nov. 4th. Realize there is a lot at stake here because if the proposition passes, thousands of young girls will be affected as California has the second highest teen pregnancy rate in the country.
|
