(This piece was written as part of the youth media blog-a--thon, sponsored by WireTap Magazine and Youth Outlook)
By Julianne Hing
When I cast my ballot on November 4, it will be the first time I plan on bringing a camera with me to document my visit to the polls. But while we'll all be excited to make our picks for president at the top of the ticket, we can't forget the bottom of the ballot, where down-ticket races and ballot initiatives will impact our lives closer to home. Californians in particular will be voting on several youth-focused propositions which, if passed, carry serious implications for young people of color.
Proposition 4 is one of those initiatives that we can't afford to overlook. The law seeks to change the California state constitution by mandating that a minor notify her parents 48 hours before being able to obtain an abortion.
In an appearance on Meet the Press, Gov. Arnold Schwartznegger endorsed the proposition. "I would not want to have someone in the school take my daughter to a clinic to get an abortion without telling me or my wife," he said. "I think one or the other should know. If my daughter decides she doesn't want to let me know but she feels more comfortable with my wife, that's perfectly fine with me...But someone, one of us both, should know, and I believe in that 100 percent." The bill sounds harmless when Arnie puts it that way.
But it's not.
Thing is, we've seen versions of Prop 4 before. In 2005 Californians voted down Prop 85, and in 2006 we did it again with Prop 73. The Prop 4 of 2008, like its earlier iterations, bills itself as a "family involvement" initiative but at its core is an assault on women's rights to safe, timely reproductive healthcare. The hope is that forcing minors to notify their parents will help them avoid abortion altogether because parents will convince their children to bring their fetus to term to raise or give up for adoption.
Unrealistic Approach
What voters understood then, and need to make clear now, is that Prop 4 will not accomplish what it says it will. Prop 4 will not make teens safer. It will not bring down abortion rates, nor will it stop a minor from seeking back-alley alternatives when her legal options run out.
The underlying rhetoric of Prop 4 is based on archaic assumptions about families, cultures, and young people. In the idyllic world that Prop 4 supporters, Gov. Schwarzenegger included, seem to live in, it's no problem at all for daughters to discuss their sexual activity with their parents. It's no problem at all, too, to mention that they're pregnant. In this regressive narrative, our daughters are but passive wisps of girls, at risk of being taken advantage of by would-be predators (a.k.a. their partners) and incapable of making their own informed decisions regarding their sexual health.
These people have never met my mother, a wonderfully supportive but also very traditional parent for whom premarital sex is both the ultimate sin and a no-go topic for conversation. If I needed an abortion today, I would be mighty hesitant to let my folks know. And you know what? I'm 23.
Prop 4 pushers don't know that teens will search for other options -- jumping state lines or crossing the border -- to find abortion providers when their state imposes obstacles to timely care. Prop 4 supporters don't know, or won't accept, that in states with parental notification laws, the rates of first trimester abortions go down, not because the laws are effective but often because minors wait until they age out of the state's hold on their reproductive rights, and wait until their second trimester to go for an abortion. Second trimester abortions are both costlier and more dangerous for women.
Effects on Women of Color
Prop 4 advocates don't get what Christine Chavez, an outreach coordinator with Planned Parenthood's political action committee told me. Prop 4 will adversely affect minors, but have particularly dire consequences for young women of color and immigrant women. "In the Latino community, we already face so many barriers to quality medical care. We need more health care, more education, but this will just limit our access even more," Chavez cautioned. "Young women from immigrant families will face additional hurdles. Prop 4 creates an impossible situation for our daughters."
Most insulting of all, Prop 4 pushers don't know the realities of life in immigrant families, in families of color. People of color and immigrants are, across the board, uninsured at higher rates than white families. Immigrant families and families of color already have less access to affordable medical care but Prop 4 would push resources further and further away. The initiative hopes to, by sheer brute force, open up lines of communication in families, but if enacted, it will only close the door to affordable, safe health care for the women who need it most. Don't be fooled by the rhetoric pro-Prop 4'ers couch their arguments in. Californians, vote no on Prop 4.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Anti-Abortion Advocates Won't Stop!.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/10161
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
Great piece!
I also want to publicize, as much as possible, the fact that Prop 4 is not a notification law. Everything you said about parents trying to convince their daughters to carry to term is true, as is the oft-cited fact that a girl's parents might kick out or beat her.
But a parental notification is not a message on the answering machine. It's a form that a parent has to sign to say that they're aware that their daughter is going to have an abortion. Because a parent who has been notified can simply refuse to sign the form if they do not wish their daughter to have an abortion, it's effectively a consent form. It's not just that they can pressure her to carry to term, they can literally force her to bear a child.
Many girls do not report rape by a family member or family friend, or incest, for fear of abuse from their family. Prop 4 requires that a girl report such a crime if she wants to avoid having to notify her parents. This gives girls in such a situation two choices: Tell their parents the truth and risk being abused, lie to them and say it was another boy and risk being abused, or tell the judge the truth and have their family find out anyway, because they then will have to take the family member to court.
This is fascinating. Do I understand correctly, then, that it should be ok for children to decided on their own which medical procedures they should undergo?
Sam, if the girl decides to carry to term, she will be the one to decide on prenatal and natal care and other medical care relating to the pregnancy. Why should she not have the same choice about whether to remain pregnant in the first place?
I think it's fascinating how people think this proposition is really about fostering closer family relations, or making abortion law consistent with regular medical law, when it's so obviously a ploy to stop women having abortions.
Although I strongly disagree with Proposition 8, Proposition 4 is actually a good measure for the health of teens. We do not allow teenagers to legally purchase cigarettes or alcohol at this age, and that's because we know that a teen's prefrontal cortex has not fully developed when they are still a minor (and not even by the time that they are 18, but it is a reasonable limit). Regardless of the effects of the abortion itself on the teen, it is important that they talk to their parent, who is purportedly someone who has the teen's best interests in mind.
In response to Brianna's comment, this is not a problem with Proposition 4 itself, but a problem with the situation with abused teens in general. These are separate issues that the government of California must face after implementing this proposition, and if this is the only way that a child's abuser can be accused, then it is a step in the right direction.
sunshine007, even if a parent does not beat or evict their daughter, they may still force her to give birth because they feel that abortion is wrong. It probably wouldn't hold up as abusive in a court, but they're preventing her from seeking medical help for a legitimate medical condition. When you'd force your daughter to bear her rapist's child, or a baby with severe birth defects, you're putting your idealogy above your child's best interests.
If a girl's prefrontal cortex isn't developed enough to choose an abortion, how on earth is it developed enough for her to be a mother?
She doesn't have to be a mother. In that case she can give her child up for adoption. Why is the only choice abortion or becoming a mother?
Rape should have also been reported to the courts. Again, proposition 4 cannot solve the problems created by other issues such as rape. In the case of severe birth defects, this is obviously very sad, but we generally try to avoid a eugenics centered society. In some cultures, being born a girl may be considered a severe birth defect in itself. Either way, both of these cases are much rarer than the general gist of this proposition.
In the end, if the girl is not able to use birth control or condoms (both of which are widely available in California), then it is probably even more necessary that she consult her parents about making another important decision.
And you think that the choice to give up a child you carried for nine months is somehow less hard on that prefrontal cortex than the choice to abort? Please address my comment about pre- and natal care, too.
Reporting rape to the police won't make the pregnancy go away, dahling. Nor is forcing a girl to give birth to a baby without a brain preventing a society of eugenics. But does it matter? Denying your own child medical care is still horrible.
Accidents happen. Condoms break, people are careless with birth control. Unprotected sex is not a crime. It does not deserve punishment.
I've never said that unprotected sex is a crime -- I was merely stating that if someone is careless with birth control, then it is important that they are not careless with the results of their actions. I'm also not really sure how giving birth is now considered a punishment. Also, not allowing an abortion is not the same as denying medical care. Finally, I agree that these ARE hard decisions, and that is why the child needs to talk to her parents -- I am not sure what the adoption policy is in California, but it should certainly have parental input.
In any case, it is obvious that we disagree, and I'm sure that this thread will not change our minds.
I'm also not really sure how giving birth is now considered a punishment.
You don't think? Having to carry about an increasing weight on your body for nine months and then pushing it out through a rather small hole, when you don't want to do so, isn't punishment?
And, yeah, an abortion is medical care for a medical condition.
Finally, I agree that these ARE hard decisions, and that is why the child needs to talk to her parents -- I am not sure what the adoption policy is in California, but it should certainly have parental input.
I very much doubt a girl could hide a decision to carry to term from her parents (there are certain physical changes involved, you know) but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about a policy that makes girls get consent for an abortion, not for an adoption.
Abortion is a highly controversial issue. Parents aren't likely to deny their child aspirin or an inhaler over some idealogy (though there's controversy, let me tell you, over whether or not JW parents can let their kids die because their religion doesn't allow blood transfusions) but the same is not true for abortion.
Would you like to address my point about pre- and natal care?