In November, Californians may be voting on a constitutional amendment requiring parental notification for teens seeking abortion care. The law may seem harmless, but in reality, its intention is to decrease instances of abortion by promoting parental intervention in teens' medical care.

Compelling social justice advocacy and activism must take the form of multidimensional organizing and intersectional thinking. Justice NOW in Oakland, California is a brilliant example of this kind of work.

Dian Harrison is President and CEO of Planned Parenthood Golden Gate.

The 34th anniversary of Roe v. Wade on January 22nd, is a cause for celebration for all who care about women's health and especially for those of us in the reproductive rights movement who work to protect and extend this legacy every day. It also provides a valuable opportunity to promote prevention.

Prevention - of unintended pregnancies, sexually transmitted infections and cervical cancer - is a goal that everyone should be able to support. Not only is prevention good health policy, it also makes good fiscal sense. For example, in California, every dollar spent preventing unintended pregnancy, saves California an additional $5.33 in future medical and social services costs, according to the California Research Bureau.

Unfortunately, there are still many who prefer to use this anniversary to stage an annual conflict here in San Francisco.

As a progressive political wave washed across the country yesterday, reproductive justice advocates experienced three major victories. Voters in South Dakota, California, and Oregon rejected ballot measures that would have restricted abortion in their states.

The most publicized ballot measure - the one that would have banned abortion (except to save a woman's life) in South Dakota - was defeated. Sara Stoesz, President of the Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota Action Fund, announced this victory:

Yesterday, tens of thousands of people across the state of South Dakota came together to overturn the most far-reaching abortion ban in many decades. Our coalition of men and women, faith leaders, business professionals and healthcare professionals sent a strong message to their legislators -- don't use our state to push an extremist agenda.

Dr. Connie Mitchell is a nationally recognized expert on the health care of victims of violence and abuse. She serves on the AMA National Advisory Council on Violence and Abuse and is a member of the Board of Directors of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health.

I grew up as one of four daughters in a middle-class family. As sisters, we shared everything: bedroom, clothes, cars and double dates. It was a loving and lively home and one, I thought, of few secrets. But recently, after one of my sisters was killed in a tragic accident, another sister told me of the secret the two of them had kept for many years. At age 16, my deceased sister was pregnant and wanted to terminate the pregnancy. She sought the counsel and support of the sister now disclosing the story and got the reproductive health care she needed.

Later, I asked my mother about her reaction to the story, as I too was raising teenagers and would appreciate her perspective. My mother began to cry, but she quickly let me know that these were not tears about the abortion. Her tears flowed because the story made her feel so inadequate. She said, "I wish that I could ask her what I might have said or done differently so that she would know, really know, that I understood life provides challenges, that I loved her no matter what, and that I respected her as a young woman."

Dr. Connie Mitchell is a nationally recognized expert on the health care of victims of violence and abuse. She serves on the AMA National Advisory Council on Violence and Abuse and is a member of the Board of Directors of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health.

I believe that the people who have financed and supported Proposition 85 are sincere, so I must ask: what do they really want? Decreased teenage abortion rates? More parental involvement with teens? Time to explore all the pros and cons of a decision regarding abortion? Whatever the real goals of Prop. 85, as Senator Clinton said in a recent phone message about this initiative: "We can do better."

If the goal of Prop. 85 is to reduce teenage abortion rates, we can do this a better way. Teen pregnancy and abortion rates are already declining in California. California was one of the first states to refuse federal funding for sex education, because educators wanted to ensure that young men and women in our state get complete information about their sexual health. If the backers of Prop. 85 really want to reduce teen pregnancy rates, they should help support legislation that requires and funds comprehensive sexuality education. We must also ensure that teens who do become sexually active - despite our concerns that their minds are not as mature as their bodies - have access to contraception. If they're not ready for sex, then by all means, they're not ready for a baby.

Molly Goldberg is a Field Organizer for the San Francisco chapter of Pride at Work.

The San Francisco chapter of Pride at Work, an organization that seeks to mobilize mutual support between the Organized Labor Movement and the LGBT community, has taken on California's Proposition 85 this year. Proposition 85 is an anti-choice parental notification initiative on the ballot. It is a dangerous initiative that puts California's most vulnerable teens at risk, and seeks to undermine reproductive choice for all women. San Francisco's young LGBT activists are turning out across the city to do bar crawls and voter education against Proposition 85. Still more people are coming out to walk door to door in LGBT neighborhoods, and to call voters in these neighborhoods to talk to them about choice. But why is an LGBT organization organizing the queer community against Proposition 85? Why is this reproductive health issue also an LGBT issue?

No on Prop 85 released an unusual TV ad on Monday. Sponsored by the ACLU and the California Teachers Association (CTA) in the Bay Area, this ad was designed to cut through the election clutter and highlight vulnerable teens who would be endangered by Prop 85.

Watch the New Ad from No on Prop 85

Dr. Anne Foster-Rosales is the Chief Medical Officer for Planned Parenthood Golden Gate.

As a mother, I know that parents rightfully want to be involved in the lives of their teens. As a Planned Parenthood doctor, I counsel teens to speak with their parents, to seek their support and guidance in all situations...when they are thinking about becoming sexually active, when they are seeking birth control or when they want to terminate an unintended pregnancy. Unfortunately, the reality is that not all teens can safely turn to a parent in these situations. And that's why I'm voting No on proposition 85.

Dr. Mitchell H. Katz is the Director of Health for the San Francisco Department of Public Health (SFDPH).

In her recent column Debra Saunders says that those of us who oppose Proposition 85 "argue that teenagers will tell good parents...if they are pregnant. But if pregnant teenagers don't talk to their parents, it probably is for a good reason."

While Ms. Saunders is correct in this narrow observation, the Chronicle's editorial board better understood the entire issue and recommended its readers reject Prop 85.

No law, including Prop 85, can create good family communication. Prop 85 has the added disadvantage that it will put teens in real danger. Teens "not talking to their parents for good reason" is more than just a "nifty-sounding sentence," as Ms Saunders describes it... it's reality.