Yes on 4, the group pushing California's latest parental notification ballot initiative, calls it "Sarah's Law."

Voters in California are being asked to approve or reject an amendment to the California constitution that mandates a doctor notify an unemancipated minor's parents, in the form of written notification, 48 hours prior to the young woman undergoing an abortion.

The Yes on 4 campaign, as the anti-choice movement is wont to do, relies on the power of personal dramatic storytelling to sell the initiative. "Sarah" is the pseudonym for a 15-year-old teen who died in 1994 of complications resulting from a post-abortion infection. The campaign asserts that if "Sarah"s" family had known of her abortion, they would have been able to step in sooner to help her access emergency care, saving her life. But the story has been completely debunked. According to the Los Angeles Times, and as Scott Swenson wrote on this site, "Sarah's" death could not have been prevented by passage of this law. In fact, "Sarah" was a young woman who was 1) already emancipated from her parents and 2) not a resident of California, therefore not covered under the proposed amendment.

And while the opposition campaign, Campaign for Teen Safety, lobbied to have the story stricken from ballot guides in August of this year, a Sacramento judge ruled that the name and description of the measure could remain on the official ballot guides, citing the rule that ballot initiative language can engage in "hyperbole" to make its case.

The proposed amendment, while mandating notification of parents of minors, does offer exceptions. If a young woman wishes to notify an adult who is not her legal guardian or to bypass notification altogether, she needs to write a letter to a judge outlining the reasons why she feels her parents are unfit to be notified and detailing the "abuse" at the hands of her parent(s).  Then, she must stand before a court, explain her pregnancy and the abuse issues, and finally, obtain written notification from the alternate adult if the judge allows.

Ask Alvin Rhomberg, a spokesperson for the Yes on 4 campaign (funded almost entirely by two conservative religious businessmen, Jim Holman and Don Sebastiani), why this initiative is needed and he'll use the opportunity to focus on sexual predators and "secret abortions." Rhomberg says the proposition is critical because Planned Parenthood "conceals sexual predators" by not reporting instances when minors visit their clinics and cite pregnancy as a result of a rape or sexual assault by an older male. The home page of the campaign web site warns, "On a daily basis, older men exploit young girls and use secret abortions to cover up their crimes."

It's a claim backed up by no verifiable statistics and one that makes little sense if you think for a moment about the relationship between providers and their patients.  For providers, the first step when hearing claims of rape or sexual assault is to investigate it with the young woman herself. In fact, "reporting" these claims without the consent of the patient would violate doctor/patient confidentiality. And this sexual predator scenario simply does not ring true with health care providers themselves.

Peg Johnston, Executive Director of Southern Tier Women's Services, and founder of a web site that encourages communication between young women and their parents, Mom, Dad, I'm Pregnant, says, "In my 27 years of practice I cannot remember one case that would fit the sexual predator scenario."

The Yes on 4 campaign has used the fear to their advantage. First there's the YouTube video featuring the story of what they say is a "14 year old girl who was raped repeatedly by a 39 year old male" taken to Planned Parenthood twice, but the clinic never reported the "predator."  Additionally, the campaign has used the support of two California District Attorneys - Rod Pacheco and Tony Rackauckas - to focus attention on the sexual predator scenario. Rhomberg tells me that Pacheco "was on the show To Catch A Predator, where they lure the sexual predators to catch them. He was the first to cooperate and said he would have all of the sexual predators arrested and prosecuted." Rhomberg goes on to say that California is "experiencing increasing activity of this kind because of the internet, cell phones and coaches...and one thing this initiative has done is bring these issues to light."

But the No on 4 campaign dismantles the YouTube story and reveals not only how the law would not have protected the 14 year-old teen but, in fact, would have likely victimized her again:

The man was the teen's stepfather, who married the teen's mother when she was 3. He acted as a father to her. The relationship was therefore incestuous...She went to Planned Parenthood once, for a pregnancy test, which was positive, on September 25, 2002. The teen's stepfather took her to San Francisco General Hospital on December 17, 2002 for a surgical abortion. When the stepfather brought the teen to Planned Parenthood, the teen did not reveal that she was having sex with her stepfather when she had the pregnancy test, so no one at Planned Parenthood knew the situation.

Similarly, at San Francisco General Hospital, the teen, at the stepfather's direction, falsely filled out the admission forms, giving her age as 14 years, using the stepfather's last name as her own, and describing him as her father...Because the teen represented that the stepfather was her father, under Prop 4, the hospital staff could (and undoubtedly would) have given him the parental notification form.

What of the "parental involvement" Proposition 4 wants to mandate? In California, the majority of young people (79%) already talk to their parents about sexual issues. According to studies, anywhere between 61 -70% of teens nationally involve their parents in their decision about whether or not to have an abortion. That number skyrockets to 90% in minors 15 years old and younger. When a young woman, 16 years old or older, chooses not to, there are usually good reasons. According to the ACLU:

One study showed that 22% of teens who did not tell a parent about their abortion decision feared that, if they told their parents, they would be kicked out of the house. More than 8% feared that they would be physically abused because their parents had beaten them before. Of those who did not tell a parent, 12% did not live with either parent and 14% had parents who abused drugs or alcohol.

It's not only about communication with parents though. Abortion providers would not be doing their jobs if they did not advocate for the health and well being of their patients - and that usually means encouraging parental involvement when it's safe and possible.

"I think that people don't know that abortion providers usually encourage parental involvement--it's just better all around if it's possible," says Peg Johnston. "Younger teens almost always involve family and older teens mostly fear disapproval of their parents." In fact, Peg created the Mom, Dad, I'm Pregnant project to "help teens tell their parents, and almost more importantly, to help parents respond in helpful, rather than hurtful ways."

There is nothing in the Prop 4 measure that encourages communication between parents and their teens. The measure mandates that a physician notify an adult member of the family - not that a parent and child communicate in any way about the abortion, the teen's sexual experiences, or decision making. After studying the 34 states that mandate parental involvement (or consent), The Bixby Center found that "There is no evidence that a government mandate will positively increase the frequency or quality of communication for adolescents and their families." The Center also found that after comparing states with parental notification requirements and without, "adolescents involve their parents in their decision at similar rates..."

But Alvin Rhomberg can offer yet another reason why California is in need of this measure. He claims that states with parental notification laws "have lower rates of abortion and STDs" and that "a study by a law professor in Florida" showed that parental notification laws "caused a statistical reduction in STDs." That's a stretch. The Guttmacher Institute says that's not what the evidence shows -- parental involvement laws have been shown to increase the frequency with which adolescents travel out-of-state for abortion care and do not decrease the pregnancy rate among teens. In some states these laws have been responsible for increasing the birth rate and unintended pregnancy rates among this population of young women, in addition to creating dangerous barriers to health care for our teens.

And if its STD rates among minors that the Yes on 4 campaign is interested in targeting, why not start with ensuring comprehensive sex ed is taught in California schools? Beneficially, young people in California are able to access confidential care from a provider without parental notification for contraception and STI prevention methods. 

The initiative has been locked in a tight race over these past few weeks. California voters have defeated similar measures twice before. The initiative has been called "deceptive" and "deceitful" and is opposed by the major associations representing California teachers, social workers, nurses, medical providers and advocates across the board. And while 75% of those who are voting for the measure say they are doing so because they believe "parents have the right to know about their daughter's abortion," the truth is that they may be looking to the government for something the government is in no place to offer - honest, real communication between parents and their teens.