Parental notification measure withdrawn

An initiative to require California medical practitioners to notify
parents before performing abortions on minor children has been postponed
due to a lack of signatures.

Supporters of the referendum had hoped to place it on the Nov. 2000
ballot. Had they been successful and voters approved the initiative, the
measure would have changed the state's constitution to reflect the
requirement of parental notification. The initiative's backers
preferred that method because, if successful, the measure could not have
been challenged by lawsuits or be subjected to further judicial reviews
or delays.

But a California pro-family group said supporters of the referendum
decided to abandon their drive to gather the required 1.1 million
signatures to qualify it for voter approval "because they just started
too late and there was a funding shortfall."

Randy Thomasson, executive director of the Campaign for California
Families, told WorldNetDaily that the
issue has received widespread support from state voters so far, and "the
momentum to get the issue up for a vote was growing." However, he said,
"supporters were not going to get the required number of signatures"
before the Jan. 6 filing deadline, so they decided to abandon their
petition efforts "until a later date."

TRENDING: Take heart, patriots! These 3 House members are the future of the GOP

Furthermore, said Jan Carroll, the western regional director of the
National Right to Life Committee, "the paid signature element, which we
knew from the start would be necessary to complete the task, fell far
short of expectations."

In an e-mail newsletter to group members, Carroll said hiring
signature gatherers "requires big dollars, which apparently were not raised until
it was too late to make up the deficit of signatures by the January 6
deadline." And, she added, efforts to hire enough paid staffers were
probably hampered by the Christmas season.

"No one supporting this is giving up on it," Thomasson said. "It's
more like, 'If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.' It's just been
postponed."

"There are just a few important moral initiatives up for
consideration during the March election," he said. "The parental notification issue
was to be one of them."

However, Thomasson added, not all of the news is bad. Another issue,
the Protection of Marriage Initiative -- which seeks to legally define
"marriage" as a union between a man and a woman - did qualify and is on
the ballot. Another is "the parental choice in education, or vouchers"
initiative.

Besides, noted Carroll, "There is a possibility that if all essential
elements of a successful effort fall into place soon, this parental
notification initiative may be re-filed and a new campaign may be
launched."

The drive for a parental notification measure was initiated after the
California Supreme Court ruled a 1987 law requiring doctors to notify
parents before performing abortions was unconstitutional. Though the
law was technically on the books for more than a decade, it was never
enforced because opponents had tied it up in court.

Thomasson said the high court's ruling was based on the state
constitution's privacy considerations "and that fact that reproductive
rights (in California) seem to be paramount." The court also based its
decision, he said, on an obscure part of the law that did not require
parental notification in cases when minors who wanted to keep their
newborn babies requested "food assistance or prenatal care."

Thomasson also brushed off criticism that he and other anti-abortion
advocates seek to punish women or limit their so-called reproductive
choices. He believes parental notification -- indeed the entire abortion
issue -- is about morality and is an issue that goes to the heart of
children's health and welfare.

"Many studies suggest that parental notification laws in force in
other states lead to fewer abortions and fewer teen pregnancies in the first
place," he said.

In another twist, Thomasson said, an earlier state Supreme Court had
already ruled in favor of the parental notification law.

"Right after they decided in favor of the law, though, they retired,
and the new appointees opted to review the first decision" during a required

30-day grace period before the law went into effect. "Needless to say,"
said Thomasson, "the new court did not review their reversal of the
original pro-notification decision," and after 30 days the reversal --
which struck down the law -- went into effect instead.

Supporters of the initiative say that if they can't get the measure
before voters by Nov. 2000, they may consider June 2002.

"Ultimately, I believe the initiative will succeed," said Thomasson.