2005 California Proposition 73

Last updated
Proposition 73
Waiting Period/Parental Notification
Results
ResponseVotes %
Yes check.svg Yes3,676,59247.22%
X mark.svg No4,109,43052.78%
Valid votes7,786,02297.71%
Invalid or blank votes182,7352.29%
Total votes7,968,757100.00%
Registered voters/turnout15,891,48250.14%

2005 California Proposition 73 results map by county.svg

Proposition 73, the Parental Notification Initiative, would have amended the California Constitution to bar abortion on an unemancipated minor until 48 hours after physician notifies minor's parent/legal guardian, except in medical emergency or with parental waiver. The amendment permitted a judicial waiver of notice based on clear and convincing evidence of the minor's maturity or best interests. The minor's physician must report abortions performed on minors and State shall compile statistics. The amendment authorized monetary damages for violation. The minor must consent to abortion unless mentally incapable or in medical emergency. Permits judicial relief if minor's consent to abortion is coerced.

Contents

State official summary

Proposition 73: Termination of Minor's Pregnancy. Waiting Period and Parental Notification. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

Ballot Summary

Amends California Constitution to bar abortion on unemancipated minor until 48 hours after physician notifies minor's parent/legal guardian, except in medical emergency or with parental waiver. However, the abortion can still be enacted by the minor with or without the parent's approval after the parents have been notified. Permits judicial waiver of notice based on clear and convincing evidence of minor's maturity or minor's best interests. Physician must report abortions performed on minors and State shall compile statistics. Authorizes monetary damages for violation. Minor must consent to abortion unless mentally incapable or in medical emergency. Permits judicial relief if minor's consent to abortion is coerced. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: The net costs of this measure to Medi-Cal and other programs are unknown, but are probably not significant in the context of the total expenditures for these programs.

Results

Did not pass [1]

Endorsements

Video endorsements

Radio spots

Newspapers

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Informed consent</span> Process for obtaining subject approval prior to treatment or research

Informed consent is a principle in medical ethics and medical law, that a patient must have sufficient information and understanding before making decisions about their medical care. Pertinent information may include risks and benefits of treatments, alternative treatments, the patient's role in treatment, and their right to refuse treatment. In most systems, healthcare providers have a legal and ethical responsibility to ensure that a patient's consent is informed. This principle applies more broadly than healthcare intervention, for example to conduct research and to disclosing a person's medical information.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), was a landmark case of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court upheld the right to have an abortion as established by the "essential holding" of Roe v. Wade (1973) and issued as its "key judgment" the imposition of the undue burden standard when evaluating state-imposed restrictions on that right. Both the essential holding of Roe and the key judgment of Casey were overturned by the Supreme Court in 2022, with its landmark decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.

2005 California special election

The California special election of 2005 was held on November 8, 2005 after being called by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on June 13, 2005.

Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, 546 U.S. 320 (2006), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving a facial challenge to New Hampshire's parental notification abortion law. The First Circuit had ruled that the law was unconstitutional and an injunction against its enforcement was proper. The Supreme Court vacated this judgment and remanded the case, but avoided a substantive ruling on the challenged law or a reconsideration of prior Supreme Court abortion precedent. Instead, the Court only addressed the issue of remedy, holding that invalidating a statute in its entirety "is not always necessary or justified, for lower courts may be able to render narrower declaratory and injunctive relief."

City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. 416 (1983), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court affirmed its abortion rights jurisprudence. In an opinion by Justice Powell, the Court struck down several provisions of an Ohio abortion law, including portions found to be unconstitutionally vague.

H. L. v. Matheson, 450 U.S. 398 (1981), was a United States Supreme Court abortion rights case, according to which a state may require a doctor to inform a teenaged girl's parents before performing an abortion or face criminal penalty.

Many jurisdictions have laws applying to minors and abortion. These parental involvement laws require that one or more parents consent or be informed before their minor daughter may legally have an abortion.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2006 California Proposition 85</span> 2006 California ballot proposition

California Proposition 85, the Parental Notification Initiative, was a proposition on the ballot for California voters in the general election of November 7, 2006. It was similar to the previous year's Proposition 73. It failed by a vote of 46%-54%.

Parental consent laws in some countries require that one or more parents consent to or be notified before their minor child can legally engage in certain activities.

Rebecca Suzanne "Becky" Bell was an American teenage girl who died of complications from a septic abortion. After becoming pregnant, Bell inquired about a legal abortion but was hindered by Indiana state laws which required either her parents' consent or a waiver from a judge. Instead, Bell either obtained an illegal abortion or attempted to self-abort, leading to a fatal infection. The coroner found that Bell died of sepsis as a consequence of an unsterile abortion, a finding that was disputed by the anti-abortion movement. Following Bell's death, her parents became advocates for the repeal of parental consent laws.

Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622 (1979), is a United States Supreme Court case that ruled 8-1 that teenagers do not have to secure parental consent to obtain an abortion.

Bellotti v. Baird, 428 U.S. 132 (1976), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld a Massachusetts law requiring parental consent to a minor's abortion, under the provision that "if one or both of the [minor]'s parents refuse... consent, consent may be obtained by order of a judge... for good cause shown." The decision was unanimous, and the opinion of the Court was written by Harry Blackmun. The law in question "permits a minor capable of giving informed consent to obtain a court order allowing abortion without parental consultation, and further permits even a minor incapable of giving informed consent to obtain an abortion order without parental consultation where it is shown that abortion would be in her best interests."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 California Proposition 4</span>

Proposition 4, or the Abortion Waiting Period and Parental Notification Initiative, also known to its supporters as Sarah's Law, was an initiative state constitutional amendment on the 2008 California General Election ballot

2006 Oregon Ballot Measure 43

Oregon Ballot Measure 43 was an initiated state statute ballot measure on the November 7, 2006 general election ballot. The measure would have required that when an unemancipated minor 15 years and older sought an abortion, the medical provider must first give written notice to a parent of the minor, by certified mail, at least 48 hours prior to providing the abortion. It was rejected by voters, with only 45 percent favoring it.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Abortion law in the United States by state</span> Termination of pregnancy in states of the United States

The legality of abortion in the United States and the various restrictions imposed on the procedure vary significantly depending on the laws of each state or other jurisdiction. Some states prohibit abortion at all stages of pregnancy with few exceptions, others permit it up to a certain point in a woman's pregnancy, while others allow abortion throughout a woman's pregnancy. In states where abortion is legal, several classes of restrictions on the procedure may exist, such as parental consent or notification laws, requirements that patients be shown an ultrasound before obtaining an abortion, mandatory waiting periods, and counseling requirements. Abortion laws tend to be the most strict in the Southern United States and the most lenient in the Northeastern and Western United States.

The mature minor doctrine is a rule of law found in the United States and Canada accepting that an unemancipated minor patient may possess the maturity to choose or reject a particular health care treatment, sometimes without the knowledge or agreement of parents, and should be permitted to do so. It is now generally considered a form of patients rights; formerly, the mature minor rule was largely seen as protecting health care providers from criminal and civil claims by parents of minors at least 15.

Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54 (1986), was a United States Supreme Court case that determined that citizens do not have Article III standing to challenge the constitutionality of a state statute in federal court unless they possess a "direct stake" in the outcome.

Sterilization law is the area of law, within reproductive rights, that gives a person the right to choose or refuse reproductive sterilization and governs when the government may limit this fundamental right. Sterilization law includes federal and state constitutional law, statutory law, administrative law, and common law. This article primarily focuses on laws concerning compulsory sterilization that have not been repealed or abrogated and are still good laws, in whole or in part, in each jurisdiction.

Abortion in New Hampshire is legal up to the 24th week of pregnancy as of January 1, 2022, when a new law went into effect. Abortion was criminalized in the state by 1900. In June 2003, the state passed a parental notification law, repealing it four years later before passing a new one in 2011. New Hampshire's abortion laws have been heard before the US Supreme Court, including the case Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England in 2006. The number of abortion clinics in New Hampshire has declined over the years, with eighteen in 1982, sixteen in 1992 and four in 2014. In 2010, there were three publicly funded abortions in the state; all three were federally funded. There are active abortion rights and anti-abortion rights activists in the state.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2022 California Proposition 1</span> Abortion and contraception proposition

Proposition 1, titled Constitutional Right to Reproductive Freedom and initially known as Senate Constitutional Amendment 10 (SCA 10), is a California ballot proposition and state constitutional amendment that will appear in the general election on November 8, 2022. If passed, the proposition will amend the Constitution of California to explicitly grant the right to an abortion and contraceptives. The decision to codify abortion rights in the state constitution was precipitated by Politico's publishing of a leaked draft opinion showing the United States Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, reversing judicial precedent that held that the US constitution protected the right to an abortion.

References

  1. "State Ballot Measures". Archived from the original on 2007-07-09. Retrieved 2007-07-26.