Roosevelt | Prop. 73 Denies Healthcare to California's Daughters

Prop. 73 Denies Healthcare to California's Daughters

by Selena C Simmons-Duffin and Margot Isman, , Roosevelt Institution at Stanford University

Proposition 73, which would require a child seeking an abortion to notify her parents 48 hours prior to operation, is dangerous to California's minors.

More than anything else, Prop. 73 is about healthcare. Advocates of Prop. 73 believe that it will facilitate healthy family communication and reduce pregnancies among minors, thus reducing abortions. Unfortunately, parental involvement laws often cause more harm than good, limiting access to healthcare rather than increasing safety.

While it might seem ideal for parents to be involved in all health decisions made by their underage daughters, the law has consistently made exceptions for the rights of minors concerning reproductive healthcare. The federal Medicaid statute requires family planning services to be provided to all sexually active minors who seek them. And according to Title X of the Public Health Service Act of 1970, everyone, regardless of age, may confidentially seek reproductive healthcare, and providers must encourage minors to notify their parents. In fact, 63 percent of California's teenagers already do.

The law is already concerned with parental involvement. But this does not make mandated parental notification good policy. In fact, every major medical association in California has publicly opposed Prop. 73. According to the American Medical Association, there is a "remarkable degree of consensus that adolescents should have access to confidential health services and that parental involvement, consent, or notification should not be a barrier to care." AMA contends that "minors should ultimately be allowed to decide whether parental involvement is appropriate." When it comes to health care, doesn't it make sense to listen to healthcare professionals?

Medical research overwhelmingly indicates that Prop. 73 will not limit sexual activity among minors. According to a 2005 study by the Journal of the American Medical Association, only one percent of minor adolescents visiting a family planning clinic said that mandated parental involvement would stop them from having sex, and only one in five young women said that she would forgo contraception entirely if her parents had to be notified. Research shows that confidentiality increases access to medical care for teenagers. Undermining confidentiality with laws mandating parental involvement increases unsafe health practices.

Prop. 73 is not likely to reduce abortion rates, either. A study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute showed that in the states where pregnancy rates did drop after the introduction of mandatory notification laws, abortion rates in neighboring states increased proportionally.

There are some aspects of reproductive healthcare that should be legislated for the benefit of Californians. California can provide access to comprehensive sex education, access to affordable and safe contraception, and better access to counseling services. But parental involvement laws do not necessarily create good family relationships. Rather, they serve as a poor substitute for real healthcare for young Californians.

California's teen pregnancy rate has dropped by 40 percent over the last decade under current laws. We can and should do even better, but parental involvement is not the way to do it. Prop. 73 would not help decrease teen pregnancy--it would deny California's daughters the safe, confidential healthcare they deserve.