No on 73, and some reasons why

I'm about to surprise myself, disappoint some, and please others.

I've been reflecting on the various ballot propositions facing California voters in the November 8 special election.  Most of the initiatives don't require much thought for me; what Arnold Schwarzenegger calls reform I call an attack on organized labor and the vulnerable whom we serve.  I'll be voting "no" on every one of Arnold's proposals, in keeping with my (often tepid) support for my union.

The only proposition that has caused me some agony is Proposition 73, which would mandate parental notification before a minor undergoes an abortion.  (Read the full text of the initiative here in PDF file).  It's important to note, of course, that the initiative, if passed, would not require parental consent -- only notification.

Here's the No on 73 site.

Here's the Yes on 73 site.

I'm not yet a father.  But I am a volunteer youth worker who has spent half a dozen years mentoring teenagers, so it's not as if I don't have my own strong emotional response to the issue.  And if I go with my initial instinct, I'm inclined to support the initiative.  If I were a Dad, I would want my daughter to come to me.  I would, I imagine, be hurt and bewildered if she felt she couldn't.   And my fear that my daughter might not come to me of her own volition makes me sympathetic to the idea that she ought to be compelled to do so by the state..

As I reflect more, however, I'm filled with sadness.  As someone who still struggles to embrace the consistent-life ethic, I grieve the tragedy of abortion.  I long for a world where underage teenage girls didn't get pregnant, period -- either because they chose not to have sex, or because in conjunction with their partners, they successfully used contraceptives.  I'm sure that almost everyone on both sides of the abortion divide shares that wish!  But we don't live in such a world, not yet.  And in this world where teens are having sex and will continue to have sex, many without contraception, what are we to do?

When I was 17 and a high school senior, I got my girlfriend pregnant.  We were both underage; we were young and scared.  In the desperate days and weeks after we confirmed that she was pregnant, she and I talked of many things.  We briefly fantasized about getting married and having the child, but quickly abandoned that idea.  Both of us were eager for college, eager for independence, and knew enough to know that we were utterly unready for the awesome responsibilities of marriage and children.  More seriously, we reflected on whether or not my girlfriend should carry the pregnancy to term and then give the child up for adoption.  To be completely honest, that was my wish.  But it wasn't my decision to make, nor should it have been.  After all, my body wasn't pregnant.  I wouldn't finish out high school "showing"; I wouldn't have college delayed a year by carrying a baby.  I wouldn't have to go through what must be the unspeakably difficult task of giving a child you've carried for nine months up for adoption.  And so, with many tears and much trembling, we decided on abortion.

I can tell you that we both told our parents.  We told them after we had made the decision, but before the procedure took place.  She and I were both blessed with parents who didn't lecture us!  Neither of us got the "What were you thinking?" speech, nor the "I'm so disappointed in you" lecture.  I'm grateful for that.  My mother knew -- and my ex-girlfriend's mother knew -- that we had already beat ourselves up far more than was necessary.  We didn't need a guilt trip, we needed support, and we got it.

The abortion was done in a doctor's office in Monterey on a spring Saturday morning in 1985.  I sat in the waiting room with my girlfriend's mother, trying to read a magazine.  Afterwards, her mom took her home to sleep the day away.  I went for a walk on the beach, alternating between guilty tears and an extraordinary numbness.  Had things been different, the child that would have been born would be a sophomore in college this year -- the same age as many of my students.

But I know so well that she and I were lucky in our parents!  It would be absurd to assume that every teenager has a mother or father who will respond with reassurance, unconditional love, and support.  I wish that it were so.  Frankly, I think some teens might be surprised by the depths of understanding that their parents might display if they took the risk to tell them! I certainly feared recriminations before telling my parents; I was incredibly relieved that I didn't get them. 

I do wonder what we would have done had we known that the law required us to inform our parents.  (Technically, this would only have applied to my girlfriend, but to my marginal credit, I was in complete solidarity with her in the whole process.)  We might have gone ahead and told them so that we could comply with the order.  Or we might have searched for someone willing to perform an abortion without the notification requirement.   Had we had different parents, had we had more reasonable fears of rage and rejection, we might well have looked for someone who could be convinced to terminate the pregnancy without involving moms and dads.  I am fairly certain that a great many young girls will seek out less-scrupulous abortion providers for exactly this reason.

Do I want to see an end to abortion in this country?  Yes.  Am I willing to advocate for laws to restrict access to abortion to adults or minors? No.    Despite my own history, I've flirted in the past with supporting anti-abortion regulation.  My faith informs me that all life is equally precious, including life in the womb.  But with great heaviness of heart, I've come to agree that it's destructive and pointless to try and end abortion legislatively. When we were teenagers more than twenty years ago, my ex-girlfriend and I "weren't thinking" when she got pregnant.  Frankly, whether or not abortion was legal and available had no impact on what we were doing together.  Hormones and infatuation are far more powerful than fear itself, at least for many teens.

When and if I have children, I want them to feel comfortable telling me anything.  If my daughter were pregnant, I would want to know.  Perhaps I would want her to keep the child, or choose adoption -- though those would not be my decisions to make.  But even greater than my desire to know, I would want her to be safe.  Ultimately, it wouldn't be about me, but about her and her needs.  And if for some reason she felt she couldn't tell me or her mother, I would want her to be able to turn to medical professionals.

In my capacity as a youth leader, I've known of a couple of girls over the years who had abortions; at least one told me but did not tell her parents.  (This was years ago, folks -- if you're associated with All Saints, don't speculate.)  I was not the only adult who was informed, but though I expressed my hope to the young woman involved that she would eventually bring her parents into the process, I respected her decision not to do so.   Until I'm told that that's unacceptable behavior for a volunteer youth minister, I will continue to assume that I am free to offer the same advice should a similar situation arise in the future.

As of now, I'm voting "no" on 73.  But the election is six weeks away, and I'll be praying about this issue between now and then.

Comments

[mythago]

The thing the pro-73 people are gliding by is that 73 will not force any teenager to talk to her parents--she can go to a judge.

I'm a parent of daughters. I'm still voting no on 73. The fact that other people don't trust their children and can't imagine being trusted by them should not be my daughters' problem.

[NYMOM]

That's a sad story Hugo.

Sorry...

[Hugo]

No need to be sorry, NYMOM -- the mistakes of our youth, as painful as they may be for ourselves and others, can ultimately be very useful to us. Experiences like this deepened my compassion, and made me far more helpful to those in similar situations.

[tekanji]

My sympathies for you, Hugo, but I'm glad that you found some good in it. I'm also glad that both you and your ex-girlfriend had such understanding and loving parents.

I just wish more people had parents who were concerned about the safety and well-being of their children above all else. I, myself, have a family (not just immediate but extended) that has fostered a very open relationship. Because of the way they raised me, there is always at least one member of my family that I feel comfortable discussing my personal issues with. Growing up and having friends from many different cultures and backgrounds, however, has shown me just how rare my situation is.

If my state ever introduces a parental notification bill, I will have no hesitation voting against it. While I understand that discussing such an important decision with someone you trust, especially when you're a minor, is important, one's biological family is not always the best case. Yes, the woman in question can go to a judge, but it's a lot easier for us to say that; we're not the ones going through the emotionally trying time. Indeed, no matter what kind of family a person has, I don't think it's right to compel a person to discuss it with them. If the family has an open relationship with their child, chances are the child will come to them on her own. If, however, the family has not earned the child's trust, then who are we to force them to face probable judgement? The woman will likely already have more than enough on her plate to deal with and the government's role should seek to help, not hurt.

mythago said: The fact that other people don't trust their children and can't imagine being trusted by them should not be my daughters' problem.

I agree 100%.

[djw]

Parental notification laws are perhaps most terrifying for those who find themselves pregnant by the very people such laws require be notified. I can't imagine supporting laws that would compound the living hell those people are already in.

[kate]

djw, what really kills me is that there are people who would say, "oh, but how often does that really happen?" like the fact that it's statistically unlikely makes it irrelevant. who was the politician, way back when, that made the crack about a pregnancy resulting from rape being as rare as a snowstorm in miami? i'd like to give that guy a swift kick.

even ONE woman forced to carry a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest to term is one too many.

[cmc]

Hugo notes that Proposition 73 does not require parental consent, only parental notification. This distinction is, however, virtually meaningless in many cases. Parents have an enormous amount of power over their dependent children. While a parent may not have the legal right to stop a child from having an abortion, they have the de facto ability to coerce the child to make the decision the parent prefers.

[Hugo]

Of course, some parents might prefer their minor children have abortions while their daughters might prefer to carry the baby to term. Another complication that isn't aided by this initiative.

[NYMOM]

"Of course, some parents might prefer their minor children have abortions while their daughters might prefer to carry the baby to term. Another complication that isn't aided by this initiative."

Exactly my thoughts...

When I was growing up many girls were coerced and threatened by their parents if they got pregnant, to give their child up for adoption, for instance. They would be sent to Unwed Mother's Homes (which still existed through the 70s) or a relative in another city and made to live there until they delivered their child. Then they were not even allowed to see the child for even a second, as the nurse wisked the infants away immediately after birth.

Sometimes they left the home and didn't even know if their child was a boy or a girl. They were allowed no information.

If they didn't agree to this, they could be sent to Youth Homes for juvenile delinguents or even mental hospitals. Girls at that time were allowed to be committed for being promiscious...

So you never can tell what will happen in these situations, not always what you think.

[Xrlq]

Hate to say it, Hugo, but as far as I'm concerned your allegedly pro-life position has officially jumped the shark. To argue on the one hand that adults should not be allowed to have abortions, is a respectable position, albeit one I do not share. To argue, on the other, that abortion rights are so sacred that minors should be allowed to have them - and no other medical procedure - without so much as notice to their parents is a more strained one, but again, defensible. But to advance both positions at once is untenable. To anyone serious about preventing abortions, the fact that not all parents are "good" enough to allow their kids to go through with them without objection is a feature, not a bug.

Meanwhile, perhaps you'd care to explain why had no problem at all supporting automatic, near-instant tenure for bad teachers, extreme district gerrymandering, and unbalanced budgets. After all, you did say you were voting against all of Arnold's reforms, not just the one that would require your union to obtain your fellow workers' consent prior to spending their money on political campaigns you yourself happen to support but they don't.

[djw]

To argue on the one hand that adults should not be allowed to have abortions, is a respectable position, albeit one I do not share.

I think if you read between the lines here, he's backed off on this position, XLRQ.

[John]

What about those (good) parents who are saddled with the care of a traumatised teen who has had an abortion without their knowledge? During our debate on parental notification, we heard horror stories of teenage girls who started bleeding and got very sick, while their frantic parents tried to figure out what was wrong.

[Amanda]

You know it pains me and others like me to know that you've held an anti-choice position in the past while having availed yourself of that particular choice. But that aside, I think you have a very reasoned position here. It's simply not a black and white moral issue like murder, as your experience demonstrates. Surely you don't think you and your high school girlfriend should be receiving life sentences.

I know a large number of people who feel that you should simply accept that you're going to have children if you become pregnant, many for religious reasons. But they would never force their personal morality on others. Of course, they aren't particularly self-deceiving on the idea that a clump of cells is a baby. It's hazier than that and tied into the idea that sexuality is for the glory of god. I find that to be a more honest opinion, as you know. The anti-choice folks I've known in my time who want their supposed personal morality to be the law are often the first to blurt out, "Why doesn't she 'take care of it'?" when a woman they know becomes inconvienently pregnant.

[Hugo]

XRLQ, you may be right that I've "jumped the shark" as a pro-lifer. I am in the difficult and painful position of accepting the premise that pro-lifers have about the personhood of the fetus, while accepting the premise of the pro-choice community that ultimately, using the power of the state to regulate abortion will do little to save the lives of either the unborn or their mothers.

I don't hold myself up as a role model on this issue. Frankly, I've held every position on the spectrum, so I don't expect others to give me much credibility. I'm simply explaining "where I am" on this particular issue at this particular time. By all means, stay tuned. Who knows what particular twist I'll take by November 8.

XRLQ, by the way, I forgot about redistricting. I'm leaning towards a yes on that one.

[yamb]

Hugo writes:
I long for a world where underage teenage girls didn't get pregnant, period -- either because they chose not to have sex, or because in conjunction with their partners, they successfully used contraceptives. I'm sure that almost everyone on both sides of the abortion divide shares that wish!

Actually, most pro-lifers (all Catholics, most evangelicals) are emphatically NOT in favor of successful or any other kind of contraception usage. This is a huge problem, and progressives who sorrowfully decry abortion are unwise to "make nice" with those who appose both abortion and contraception.

[Xrlq]

Hugo, I don't think it's reasonable to claim that state regulation of abortion - particularly such mild regulation as parental notification - will do little to save the lives of the unborn. Obviously, laws against murder don't protect every potential murder victim, but I have yet to hear anyone seriously argue that they don't protect any of them. And if they don't, why bother having a state at all? Also, if you're serious about the personhood of fetuses, I'm not sure why the mother's safety (which in any event tends to be largely overblown) ought to be a major consideration. If legal abortion is really equivalent to legalized murder, then hiring someone to perform an illegal abortion is murder outright. Few of us, if any, would lose too much sleep over the safety risks posed to a mother who hired a hit man to perform a "fourth trimester abortion" on her child after he was born.

Yamb, while opposition to contraception is indeed the official position of the Catholic Church, I think it is a gross overgeneralization to claim that "all" individual Catholics oppose it, when in fact, not all Catholics even oppose abortion. I don't know where you get your information about evangelical Protestants opposing contraception. Did you simply make that up?

[Lynn Gazis-Sax]

Yamb, while opposition to contraception is indeed the official position of the Catholic Church, I think it is a gross overgeneralization to claim that "all" individual Catholics oppose it, when in fact, not all Catholics even oppose abortion. I don't know where you get your information about evangelical Protestants opposing contraception. Did you simply make that up?

Actually, most individual Catholics support and use contraceptives (in the US anyway - the Vatican hasn't been really successful at selling the official Church position). And nearly all evangelical Protestants are OK with contraception.

However, there are a couple of caveats here: a) Lots of people who are fine with contraception for married couples aren't fine with contraception for teenagers and young single adults, which means that they aren't fine with providing much information about contraceptives, or making them all that freely available, and b) Support for contraception is rather lower among Catholics and evangelical Protestants who are really actively involved in pro-life groups than it is for those who either are pro-choice or who would call themselves pro-life but not to the extent that they'd actually actively try to make abortion illegal. So that there are a lot of people out there who really don't like abortion much, but are more or less OK with contraception, but not a lot of pro-life organizations that take such a position.

[Russell Arben Fox]

Well Hugo, as has been the case more than a few times in the past, your comments have inspired me to write an essay of my own. It started out as a comment here, but grew much too large. Here's a link to the whole thing, but here's the gist of it:

The question of a parental notification law reveals the real heart of the matter--namely, whether or not an opponent of abortion is prepared or capable of seeing abortion as anything other than a private harm. If you can't, then of course the safety and security of those who might privately choose to have an abortion is paramount; anything else would be oppression. But if you can see abortion otherwise, then the simple consensus that, if nothing else, the act of choosing an abortion ought not be free from acknowldging and having to account for the moral entanglements posed by parents and other loved ones is a no-brainer. In this case, I know nothing about Proposition 73. Maybe its specifics are terrible. But in principle, it sounds pretty basic to me. Of course there is the possibility (or even, I grant for the sake of argument, the likelihood), that even just trying at a minimum to make certain parents are incorporated into the decision of their legal child to have an abortion will, nonetheless, result in some people suffering even more than they already are--young women with abusive parents (or worse) who can't or won't make use of the exceptions included in the law, etc. Is that fact alone enough to make the whole project of communicating certain social fears about abortion among minors a dangerous waste of time? If so, then certainly one can still urge people to choose otherwise, and advocate alternatives; still, I would have to wonder if one's dislike of abortion isn't, in that case, more just a personal hang-up than a true moral concern.

[yamb]

XLRG--Lynn pretty much covered what I meant to say: those who are strongly apposed to abortion are also strongly against contraceptive use (and sex!) for teens--the ones driving the abstinence-only movement, for example. Didn't "make it up," just didn't express my complete thought clearly.

[IT]

I think the issue for many of us is who should make these decisions--the State, or individual women? I go for the latter. But then, I don't think that a blastocyst is a baby. And, like many pro-choicers, I have no problem with unfettered access to abortion in the first trimester, but consider that there should be reasonable considerations of when later (particularly 3rd term) terminations should occur. Though I think a doctor's opinion should always trump The State's.

The problems that people have with contraception vary. For those with a strong pro-life viewpoint, in which a fertilized egg=person, many forms of contraception that prevent implantation are to them, an abortion. That is, fertilization has occurred so a fetus is underway. These people are generally okay with barrier methods that prevent fertilization, vasectomies, and the pill which prevents ovulation. That is logically consistent.

For others, ANY contraception is wrong. This can be from a rigid Catholic viewpoint (that any interference with the possibility of conception is wrong) or from what I think of as the right-wing loony view (that any SEX is wrong). The lunacy of this can be seen in the LIES that some abstinence groups feel forced to tell.

One notes however that as far as the Catholics go, you seldom see those big Catholic families with 7 or 8 kids and a haggard mother at Mass any more. Most of them are "cafeteria catholics" on the birth control issues. I'm amused by people who think that the Catholics are monolithic on this or any issue. There is a strong tradition of social justice in the Catholic Church that has nothing to do with the old men wearing dresses in Rome!

The fact is, teenagers will have sex. We who are older, would like them not to, but as Hugo points out hormones and youth don't always listen. I agree with the poster who said that the problem OTHER people have with their communicating with their children is not our, or the State's fault. And what about cases of abusive parents, or even child abuse by one of them? I agree with the "no".

[mythago]

In this case, I know nothing about Proposition 73.

If you know nothing about it, why go on to opine about it?

I am in the difficult and painful position of accepting the premise that pro-lifers have about the personhood of the fetus

Rather, the claimed opinion they have about the personhood of the fetus, Hugo. It's a gross overgeneralization to say that pro-lifers universally put the personhood of the fetus at the center of their moral stance--if they did, you wouldn't hear so much about "well, except if it's rape or incest." Some do, and some, bluntly, use "it's a person" as a smokescreen for a snakepit of opinions about women and sexuality in general.

minors should be allowed to have them - and no other medical procedure - without so much as notice to their parents

You know that this is incorrect. A doctor is not going to let your child bleed to death because you couldn't be located to consent to emergency life-saving surgery. And Proposition 73 still permits minors to have an abortion without so much as notice to their parents.

My own two cents is that the reason anti-abortion groups are supporting 73 is not that they really, truly approve of teenagers having abortions with their parents' blessing; they're figuring that most teenagers will put off telling their parents about the pregnancy until it's too late to have an abortion.

[NYMOM]

"My own two cents is that the reason anti-abortion groups are supporting 73 is not that they really, truly approve of teenagers having abortions with their parents' blessing; they're figuring that most teenagers will put off telling their parents about the pregnancy until it's too late to have an abortion."

NYMOM said; However it could wind up ultimately having the opposite impact. As families (especially in Christian communities) not wanting to be embarrassed might force the girls into HAVING ABORTIONS so their neighbors won't know their daughters got pregnant. Just as many families when I was growing up, FORCED girls into these homes and to live with relatives out of state, then to give their babies up for adoption...

I think a LOT of them would have sent their daughters for abortions instead if that was an options. As generally even if the girls left, everybody suspected why when she'd disappear for six months or so and then turn up a very different person then before she left...

So everyone knew anyway...

[Anne]

"Just as many families when I was growing up, FORCED girls into these homes and to live with relatives out of state, then to give their babies up for adoption..."

Oh, yeah. After my mom was grown she found out that this had been her parents' exact contingency plan in the event that she had become pregnant as a teen. She would have been sent to relatives in Houston to have the baby, then her parents would have adopted it and raised it as her baby sibling. No one would have been fooled, of course, but I guess back then people tended to look the other way if at all possible. It preserved everyone's sense of order and security.

[djw]

NYMOM, it's hard to see how this law could have the effect you describe. It's about parental notification when the minor is already seeking an abortion, not parental notification when a minor is pregnant. I have no doubt the phenomenon you describe is both real and unfortunate, but it's hard to see how it would have anything to do with this law one way or the other.

[NYMOM]

Well I threw that out there since someone had mentioned that a lot of prolifers appeared to support this law; so I assumed they were implying that a parent would always intercede on the side of not having an abortion.

I was just pointing out that's not always the case.

Oftentimes people intercede on the part of keeping up a respectable appearance in their community...

That was my point.