THE WINDOW FOR CALIFORNIA TO ENACT PARENTAL

NOTIFICATION AND WAITING PERIOD ON

by

Laura M. Falcon

A Research Study Presented to the Faculty of the Department of Public Policy and Administration School of Business and Public Administration

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, BAKERSFIELD

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

MASTER OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

December 2009

ii

Copyright

By

Laura M. Falcon

2009

THE WINDOW FOR CALIFORNIA TO ENACT PARENTAL

NOTIFICATION AND WAITING PERIOD ON ABORTION

By Laura M. Falcon

This thesis has been accepted on behalf of the Department of Public Policy and

Administration by their supervisory committee:

Chandrasekar Comurri, Ph.D. Committee Chair

Jinping Sun, Ph.D. Committee Member

III DEDICATION

To my son, Elijah, and partner, Christian, for their love and support

To my parents, San Juana and Tereso, for their scarifies, faith, and encouragement

To my siblings, Juana, Leticia, Sylvia, and Gerardo, for their motivation

iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like thank Dr. Commuri and Dr. Sun for taking the time to help me complete this project and reviewing my work throughout the research process.

I would also like to thank Alberto Arteaga for all his help and suggestions.

v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Over the past years, the issue of allowing a to obtain an abortion without

parental involvement has become an ongoing battle for the State of California.

According to statistics, California is the state with the most a year. Moreover, the statistics have also indicated that minors are most likely to have unplanned pregnancies, which end in abortion. Therefore, this issue has become an unavailable issue that must be addressed in order to help, guide, and protect our younger generation.

The following study is a policy analysis and will do three things. First, the study will conduct a literature review to better understand the problem and determine a more effective solution to reducing the abortion rate among minors. Secondly, the three propositions that were presented to Californians will be review to help determine why all

three propositions were rejected. Last, the theory “Window of Opportunity” will be presented along with the specific window California needs in order to enact parental

involvement . In addition, three recommendations will be offer on what California can do to implement an abortion .

Several recommendations are included in this study. The State of California needs to gather more information and data in connection to minors, parental involvement,

and consent laws. If California wants to implement an , proponents need to

follow the proper steps for a window of opportunity to open. The key recommendations

are:

• Connect the issue to a critical problem (For example, find a correlation between

minors getting pregnant and obtaining abortions to an increase of minors dropping

vi out school, committing crimes, increase of tax dollars, and an increase of families

under poverty.)

• Look into further research and connect the findings to decision maker’s values,

cost effectiveness, and try to appeal to the public

• Last, get more elected officials to support the issue and change the political mood

to favor the issue

vii TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dedication ...... iv Acknowledgement ...... v Executive Summary ...... vi Table of Contents ...... viii Chapter 1. Introduction ...... 1 Background of the Problem ...... 1 Statement of the Problem ...... 2 Purpose of the Study ...... 4 Method and Procedures of the Study ...... 4 Importance of the Study ...... 5 A Brief Preview of the Research Study ...... 5 Chapter 2. Literature Review ...... 7 Defining Parental Involvement Laws ...... 7 Abortion Laws vs. Unplanned Pregnancies and Abortions ...... 8 Research behind Parental Involvement Laws ...... 9 The Controversies behind Parental Involvement Laws ...... 12 Chapter 3. Politics Surrounding Abortion Laws ...... 15 Previous Research on Influential Factors ...... 15 From Past to Present ...... 16 Propostion 73 ...... 17 Proposition 85 ...... 21 Proposition 4 ...... 23 Chapter 4. Theory ...... 27 Window of Opportunity ...... 27 Previous Research using Kingdon’s Model ...... 28 A Window for a Parental Involvement Law ...... 30 Indentifying a Problem ...... 31 Indicators ...... 31 Focusing Events ...... 32 Feedback ...... 33 Policy ...... 34 Politics...... 34 Chapter 5. Summary ...... 36 Conclusions ...... 36 Recommendations ...... 37 Appendices IRB ...... 41 References ...... 42

viii ix x CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM

Every year, approximately 50 million abortions are performed worldwide. The

United States accounts for approximately 1.4 million abortions a year. Every year, in the state of California, approximately 208,430 abortions are performed. According to statistics, California is the state with the most abortions per year (R.K. Jones et al, 2008).

Nearly half of all unintended pregnancies ended in abortion. Furthermore, over 55 percent of women having abortions are under 20 years of age (CBR, 2009).

Over the last decade, the issue of abortions among adolescents has become an unavoidable issue that must be addressed. For this reason, many states have already constructed a latticework of abortion laws, codifying, regulating, and limiting as to whether, when, and under what conditions a woman may obtain an abortion (CBR,

2009). The implementation of abortion laws have been put in place with the expectation of decreasing the percentage of women obtaining abortions.

Currently, 38 states require that only licensed physicians perform abortions. Out of the 38 states, only 19 states allow abortions to be performed in hospitals. Only 36 states prohibit abortion, unless the abortion is seen as necessary to protect the woman’s life or health after a specified point in pregnancy, most often (Alford,

2003). About 17 states mandate women to receive counseling before obtaining abortions.

Moreover, about 24 states require women to wait a specified period before obtaining abortions, which is usually a period of 18 to 48 hours (Alford, 2003). Out of all the regulations that many states have imposed, there is one regulation in particular that has caused the most controversy.

1 Parental involvement laws alone have brought a great dilemma in regards to

giving a minor the right to obtain an abortion. Currently, 34 states require some type of

parental involvement before a minor can obtain an abortion. Out of the 34 states, 22 require at least one parent to consent to the procedure, while 10 require at least one parent be notified, and two states require both parents’ notification and consent (NAF, 2009).

The different laws in many states have affected the decision of many women’s

pregnancies, especially the ones of younger age. For many women, the state laws on

abortion have influenced their decision to go full term or to obtain an abortion. The

enforcement of abortion laws have created a great controversy over the decades and have

forced people to take a stand on what affects everyone including our children. However,

what constitutes an abortion? The official title and summary of proposition 4 of

California defines an abortion as “the use of any means to terminate the pregnancy of an un-emancipated minor known to be pregnant except for the purpose of producing a live

birth” (2008). In addition, an abortion shall not include the use of any contraceptive drug

or device (Official Title and Summary, 2008).

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

For over a thousand years, illegal and legal abortions have been performed.

However, in 1953, a state law in California was enacted that allowed pregnant minors to

receive the same pregnancy care adults received without parental consent or notification.

Consequently, to this law and other legal developments in connection to abortion, minors were able to obtain abortions without parental consent or notification (Official Title and

Summary, 2008). Nevertheless, changes occurred, in 1987, the Legislature amended this

2 law and enforced parental consent or court consent in order for minors to obtain abortions. Although the law was amended, the legal challenges during that time did not allowed for the enforcement of the law, which resulted in the California Supreme Court removing the law in 1997; making it possible for minors to again continue to receive the same abortion services as adults (Official Title and Summary, 2008).

One of the reasons why abortions were legalized was to reduce the thousands of women being harmed as a result of illegal abortions. Countless of women died or suffered from serious medical problems after attempting to self-induce their abortion or going to untrained practitioners. Since 1973, many women have been able to obtain relatively safer abortions from private doctors (NAF, 2009). However, with the legalization of abortions in the United States other problems have arisen.

Whether adolescents should have the rights to an abortion without parental involvement is thus a complex and emotionally charged issue (Ellertson, 1997).

According to some research, parental involvement laws have not had a significant impact among minors and the rate of abortion (Ellertson, 1997). Whether this might be true for some states, for others this finding might not be true; this project will mainly focus on the state of California. In 2005, 2006, and 2008, during California’s general elections,

Californians were given the opportunities to take a stand on parental notification and waiting period initiative. The three propositions proposed parental notification and consent of one or both parents in order for a minor to obtain an abortion (Ertelt, 2006).

The propositions provided exceptions for medical emergency on parental waiver.

The propositions also allowed courts to waive notice based on clear and convincing evidence of the minors’ maturity or best interest. An additional provision enforced

3 mandated reporting, including reports from physicians regarding abortions on minors.

Other provisions would have approved monetary damages against physicians for

violations, and required minor’s consent to abortion, with some exceptions (Official Title

and Summary, 2008). The three propositions appeared to be promising; nevertheless, the

three attempts to enact parental notification measures were defeated by voters who

opinioned to care about the health and safety of minors (No on Prop. 4, 2008).

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this project is to attempt to analyze and compare all 3

propositions, 4, 73, and 85, and help understand what factors contributed to Californians

rejecting of all three propositions. In addition, the evaluator is going to study all three

propositions and attempt to provide an understanding of what no parental involvement laws could represent for the state of California. This project will also attempt to cover the Window of Opportunity Theory and what is necessary for propositions such as the ones stated to become enacted. This project will also assist California in strategically directing the future generations into being more responsible while protecting and helping them choose what is best for them.

METHOD AND PROCEDURES OF THE STUDY

The investigator is going to examine secondary research and data in order to determine why all three propositions were rejected. Moreover, the investigator is going

investigate whether the propositions are truly not in the best interest of minors. This

project is going to involve all three propositions that were proposed to Californians; the

4 propositions are going to be analyzed including how they performed during the general elections, and what contributed to their rejections. In addition, the investigator is going to look at selected states from the United States on their stand on abortion and parental involvement laws. The data from various states will be compared to states with and without parental involvements laws. Once the investigator completes the study, recommendations will be made based on the findings.

IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY

This research will help clarify if parental involvement laws are important in the lives of adolescents. Moreover, this project will help protect adolescents and guide them into the right path, so they could become the individuals society wants them to be. In addition, is in the best interest of the government, as well as of the general public, to come up with abortion laws that are effective, and at the same time protect our younger generations’ health while choosing what is best for them. The better understanding of this problem will help the State of California better assist our adolescents at a critical stage in their lives. The main focus of this study is to analyze how propositions fail even though the underlying issue itself has high emotional resonance.

A BRIEF PREVIEW OF THE RESEARCH STUDY

The last few pages have stated a brief overview of the problem behind the high rate of abortions among minors. In addition, the purpose of the study has been touched upon and why it is important to look at this problem in the state of California. The

5 overall goal behind this project is to determine how to enact a parental notification and waiting period law in California.

Chapter 2 will begin by defining what parental involvement laws are and what they consist of. The investigator will then follow with how abortion laws have impacted women’s pregnancies and abortions. The impact will be measured by looking at previous research, studies, and controversies in connection to parental involvement laws.

The investigator then will then focus on the politics that have been surrounding abortion laws. Chapter 3 will cover the history of parental notification and consent laws in the state of Californian. The three propositions that were presented during the general elections will be discuss along with what contributed to their rejection.

Chapter 4 will cover the Window of Opportunity Theory by John W. Kingdon and previous research that has used Kingdon’s theory. Based on the theory, the investigator will present the necessary window in order for a parental notification law to be enacted in the State of California. Chapter 5 will summarize what we learned and state the main conclusion of the study along with three recommendations. However, is imperative that we begin by covering what parental involvement laws represent; therefore, we must start by defining what parental involvement laws are.

6 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

DEFINING PARENTAL INVOVLEMENT LAWS

Consequently to the high rates of fertility and abortions among minors, many

states have been forced to implement parental involvement laws in order to address this

issue. This issue has gone from being an individual’s problem to becoming a societal

problem. Parental involvement laws only apply to minors as they have been found to be

the group most likely to have unintended pregnancies. A minor is defined as someone

under 18 years of age, not married, or actively in the military.

Currently, many states restrict minors the access to abortion services by enforcing

parental consent or parental notification laws. A parental consent law mandates

healthcare providers or un-emancipated minors to obtain written permission from a

parent before they can obtain an abortion. With this law, parents have the power to deny a

minor from getting an abortion. On the other hand, a parental notification laws only

requires that a parent be informed, either in writing or orally, about the minor’s intent to

obtain an abortion. However, the law does not allow parents to deny a minor the right to

an abortion; therefore, is less restrictive than a parental consent law (Medoff, 2008).

Any state can implement parental involvement laws, but they must provide a

judicial bypass procedure, which allows minors to petition a judge to grant permission for

an abortion. Some believe that parental involvement laws can be emotionally hard, time

consuming, and financial costly for minors. Emotionally hard in the sense that they have

to inform their parents if they want to obtain an abortion; time consuming and costly if they want to petition a judge to grant them permission to obtain an abortion. However,

7 some minors are able travel to other states that do not enforce parental involvement laws

and simply obtain an abortion there (Keeffee & Jones, 1990).

ABORTION LAWS VS. UNPLANNED PREGNANCIES AND ABORTIONS

The impact behind parental involvement laws shows that the laws produced a

decline in minor’s fertility and rate of abortion. According to a research released by

Family Research Council, parental consent laws are more effective in reducing the rate of

abortions among minors. When states implement parental involvement laws, the rate of abortions drop an average of 14 percent and when parental consent laws are implemented the rate of abortions drop approximately 19 percent. However, the states that mandate both parents to be involved reduce the in-state abortion rate by about 31 percent. The research behind parental involvement laws have indicated that the laws can influence and reduce the abortion rate among minors (Medoff, 2008).

From 1985 to 1999, the abortion rate dropped almost 50 percent. Today, about 34 states have parental involvement laws on the book; however, only some have been effective in reducing the number of abortions per year. Currently, Minnesota and

Mississippi laws are some of the most successful in reducing the abortion rates among adolescents (Family Research Council, 2008). In 1990, 41 states had parental involvement laws in place; however, only 18 were enforcing the laws. For 13 states, the laws were enjoined by court order and the other 10 states were not enforcing the laws. As for parental consent laws, in 1990, 26 states had parental consent laws, but only 10 states were actually enforcing the laws, nine were states enjoined by the law, and seven were not enforcing the laws (Ohsfedt & Gohmann, 1994).

8

RESEARCH BEHIND PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT LAWS

According to research, numerous studies in the public health have examined the impact that parental involvement laws produce before and after such laws are enforced.

These studies have generally examined the rates of fertility and abortion among minors

under the age of 18. In a research conducted by Virginia Cartoof and Lorraine Klerman,

they studied the impact a parental consent law had in . From August 1977

through 1982, monthly data was collected from the Massachusetts Department of Public

Health on the number of abortions obtained by minors and non-minors (Cartoof &

Klerman, 1986). In addition, data from Massachusetts’s minors obtaining abortions from

surrounding states, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maine, and New York,

was collected and analyzed. The findings indicated that after the parental involvement

law went into effect, the abortion rate dropped almost 50 percent and the rates for out of

state abortion increased. Their research indicated Massachusetts’s parental consent law

forced 90 to 95 of the state’s pregnant minors to go across to other states in search to

obtain abortions; therefore, decreasing the number of minors having abortions in the state

of Massachusetts, but increasing number of abortions for surrounding states that do not

enforce parental involvement laws (Cartoof & Klerman, 1986). There is a possibility that

if the State of California was to implement a parental involvement law the abortions

among minors would decrease, shifting the high rate of abortions to other surrounding

states.

In a different study conducted in Minnesota, teenagers were studied to determine

whether the implementation of a parental notification law motivated minors not to get

9 pregnant or obtain late abortions. Data was obtained on abortions and live births in

Minnesota. The data was calculated to obtain the rates of births, abortions, and late

abortions. The rates and ratios were study using the liner regression model. The study

indicated that the birthrates were significantly lower after the enactment of the

notification law than they were before the law. The study also indicated that the implementation of the parental notification law promoted pregnancy avoidance and late abortions for 15 through 17-year-old Minnesota women (Ohsfedt & Gohmann, 1994).

In another similar study also conducted in Minnesota, measured the impact of the

implantation of a parental notification law. Data from before and after the

implementation of the law was analyzed. The findings indicated the birthrate for those

affected by the laws, in particular young women between 15 to 17 years of age, increased

by 38 percent. The findings made the researchers question the state’s purpose in enacting

laws that increased the psychological stress and health risks of adolescents who are

seeking to obtain abortions. In addition, the inability of minors to obtain abortions led

young women to have unwanted childbearing. The findings ultimately noted that parental

notification and consent laws were not intended to protect adolescents from harm, but to

make abortions more difficult to obtain; consequently, increasing the chances of women

seeking illegal abortions (Keeffe & Jones, 1990). Findings similar to the ones stated

above have raised great concerns for the opponents of abortion laws in California.

In another study in connection to abortion laws, Carl Ellertson suggested the

contrary and stated that parental involvement laws do not cause a significant impact

among minors. Ellertson found no major correlation between parental involvement laws

and abortion rates either increasing or decreasing. His study focused on three states,

10 Minnesota, Missouri, and Indiana, which have data available before and after parental involvement laws were enforced (Ellertson, 1997). His findings from the three states did not find a significant relationship between parental involvement laws and minors’ birthrates increasing. When Missouri’s parental involvement law went into effect, the birthrate among women younger than 18 increased by 4 percent. In Indiana, the implementation of the law was followed by a 9 percent decline in minors’ birthrate. In

Minnesota, minors’ birthrate increased by 1 percent after the enforcement of the law.

Although in all three states the in-state abortion rate had an impact among minors, the impact was not significant (Ellertson, 1997).

The studies mentioned above indicate that the impact that parental involvement laws produced in minors is unclear. However, more research indicates that parental involvement laws have had a slight impact in a minor’s decision to obtain an abortion.

Most of the research indicates the need for further research to help clarify the real impact that parental involvement laws produce among minors. Some studies inclined that perhaps the issue has been over analyzed and the real factors affecting this issue have been ignored. In one particular study, the researcher stated the need to look at other factors such as religious beliefs, economy, and social status factors. Perhaps factors such as the ones mentioned could be determining the fertility and the abortion rates among minors and not the laws (Carlson & Mackin, 1993).

Overall, the studies mentioned above are important to look at and study when considering implementing an abortion law in a different state. For example, in the State of California where abortions are highly obtained by minors it is important to anticipate

11 what an abortion law could represent. Moreover, is also important to look at the possible controversies that can result with the implantation of an abortion law.

THE CONTROVERSIES BEHIND PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT LAWS

Much research has been focused on parental involvement laws and the impact that laws have on minor’s decisions about fertility and abortion. Many would agree abortions have become legal because the consequences of illegal abortions are too grave to ignore.

Although in the United States abortions have become legal, many states do not make safe abortions effectively available to a great percentage of minors (Keeffe & Jones, 1990).

Abortion advocates have deeply focused on the consequences of not making safer abortion available to minors. They have put a great deal of attention to stories of minors who have had abortions in clandestine clinics. Among the many stories that they have put a great deal of attention is a story that happened in Indiana, in 1988, when a young woman by the name of Becky Bell supposedly died as a result of an illegal abortion.

According to abortion advocates, Bell was just a teenager when she got pregnant and too embarrassed to tell her parents she decided to obtain an illegal abortion outside the healthcare system. According to Steven Ertelt, after the death of Bell, abortion advocates named Becky the “first know victim of parental consent laws,” and launched massive media campaigns that involved Becky’s parents to appeared on talk shows and lectures

(2008). The attention against abortion laws was growing tremendously until the National

Right to Life received a copy of the post-mortem report, which indicated Bell died from a deadly and fast-acting form of pneumonia. Her cause of death had nothing to do with her pregnancy or her reproductive system. However, she did have a miscarriage, which is

12 what abortion advocates wanted people to believe caused her death. Various doctors and leading medical experts in the field confirmed that she had an incomplete miscarriage, not an abortion, and pneumonia was the cause of her death (Ertelt, 2008).

Although the real caused of her death has been clarified, her parents continue to campaign against parental notification laws, asserting that had there been no such law in

Indiana, their daughter would be alive today. Even though Becky’s cause of death had nothing to do with an illegal abortion, her case, as well of other teens who have died, continue to raise concerns about what some adolescents are capable of doing in order not to disappoint their parents. Tragic stories such as Becky’s has raised serious questions and concerns about the intent and hidden effects parental involvement statutes have

(Keeffe, & Jones, 1990).

Although the issue of abortions has caused a great dilemma, parental notification and consent requirements are considered the least difficult to pass of all anti-abortion laws, because they appear to be compromise measures supported by people on both sides of the debate, in particular parents. Many of these parents view the enactment of laws as a parental rights issue and not as an abortion rights issue (Keeffe & Jones, 1990). During three different attempts in California to enact waiting periods and parental notification before the termination of minor’s pregnancy, most voters opposed to such laws indicating that laws would not protect or help their children in moments of crises. Those opposed to such propositions (4, 73, and 85) strongly believed parental involvement laws did more harm than good. Opponents believed abortion laws were not the solution, rather parents should establish strong relationships, and effective communication with their children

(Rodman, 1991). Researchers have indicated there is some evidence that good

13 communication between parents and children leads to greater adolescent responsibility about sexual behavior. On the other hand, other researchers feel the enforcement of parental involvement maintains family harmony and supports parental authority

(Rodman, 1991).

Consequently, the issue of giving a minor the right to obtain an abortion has been a dilemma for many states. Those supporting parental notification laws have offered several reasons why there should be parental involvement laws. Many believe parents have the right to know about their children’s sexual activities and help their children make wiser decisions. Furthermore, parental involvement laws force teenagers to use protection, which protects them from sexual transmitted diseases, or abstain from sex, thereby reducing teenaged pregnancy and abortion rates (Zavodny, 2004). On the other hand, opponents believe parental involvements laws only produce harm by forcing children to go full term, induce their own abortion, go to a clandestine clinic, or travel across other states to obtain abortions.

The dilemma of abortion among minors has been an ongoing issue for the state of

California. This has been a delicate battle as the issue affects minors. Much of the research in connection to the issue has been mixed, which has made being able to take a stand on the issue even harder. Numerous attempts have been made to implement parental involvement laws in California, but all three attempts have failed. The following chapter will cover in detail the history of parental involvement laws in California. In addition, the three propositions that were presented to Californians will be covered to help us understand why all three propositions were rejected.

14 CHAPTER 3: POLITICS SOROUNDING

ABORTION LAWS

PREVIOUS RESEARCH ON INFLUENTIAL FACTORS

For centuries, the government has armed legislators with the power to create laws that are of great importance and dictate how most individuals will live their lives. The government has also given most individuals the right to vote on most of the laws.

Recently, the government was forced to look into the issue of a minor’s right to obtain an abortion. The U.S. Supreme Court has demonstrated a greater degree of willingness to accept state restriction on women’s right to abortions (Rodman, 1991). Therefore, numerous state legislatures have debated about what type of restrictions to impose.

Parental involvement has represented a major dilemma at both the state and national level.

At the state level, many legislatures are enacting or trying to enact restrictions in areas such as a waiting period before abortions can be performed, banning abortions for reasons of sex selection, and outlawing abortions after a stated number of weeks of pregnancy except to save the mother’s life. Among the restrictions has been a minor’s right to obtain an abortion without parent involvement or consent, which has produced the most controversy (Keefe & Jones, 1990). Some believe that if the legislators and policymakers were to acknowledge healthy sexuality as the norm, they would be able to see past the efforts of parental involvement; consequently, a greater focus would be put in providing sufficient funding and support services for basic programs in education and public welfare. The redirection of their focus would reduce poverty, increase

15 opportunities, enhance parent-child communication, eliminate the number of unplanned pregnancies, and decrease minors from obtaining abortions (Rodman, 1991).

Part of the solution to this problem depends on family educators who develop and implement basic programs to educate families (Rodman, 1991). If the government put more focus in implementing more family planning programs and educate the public on family planning, this could help people to be more responsible about their sexual lives and procreation. In addition, it is crucial for policymakers to have accurate information about the effects parental notification laws have among minors and minors’ ability to make competent decisions regarding abortions (Keefe & Jones, 1990). The more prepared the government is the safer minors will be.

Although the government has the power to create, dictate, and enforce how individuals will live their lives, the individuals make the ultimate decision on whether to comply with these laws or not. However, the way individuals, in this case minors, will go about deciding depends on family ties, government’s laws, programs, levels of education, and religion’s belief (Keefe & Jones, 1990). Therefore, is imperative that the government understand the full advantages and disadvantages as well as the history surrounding abortion laws in connection to minors.

FROM PAST TO PRESENT

In 1953, a state law was enacted that allowed minors, without parental consent or notification, to obtain the same medical care adults receive during a pregnancy. After the implementation of this law and legal developments in connection to abortion, minors were also allowed, without parental consent or notification, to obtain abortions. In 1987,

16 California amended this abortion law to require minors to either obtain the consent of a

parent or a court before obtaining an abortion (Official Title and Summary, 2005).

However, because of the legal challenges surrounding this law, the law was never

implemented. In 1997, the California Supreme Court struck down the law. Currently in

California, minors are able to obtain the same abortion services adults receive. This

includes minors under different healthcare programs, such as the Medi-Cal healthcare

program for low-income individuals (Official Title and Summary, 2005).

Proposition 73

In 2005, Californians were given the opportunity to take a stand on an abortion law, which was presented as proposition 73 on the ballot; proposition 73 proposed a waiting period and parental notification before the termination of minors’ pregnancy.

Furthermore, proposition 73 prohibited the abortion for un-emancipated minor until 48 hours after a physician notified the minor’s parent/guardian, except in medical emergency or with parental waiver (LAO, 2005). Proposition 73 defined an abortion as causing the “death of the unborn child, a child conceived but not yet born” (Official Title and Summary, 2005). The enactment of proposition 73 would allow courts to waive notice based on clear and convincing evidence of a minor’s level of maturity or best interest. An additional provision enforced mandated reporting, including reports from physicians regarding abortions on minors. Other provisions would have approved monetary sanctions against physicians for violations, and required the minor’s consent to an abortion, with some exceptions (Official Title and Summary, 2005).

17 The legislators who presented this proposition estimated a reduction of the

overall number of minors obtaining abortions. Fewer abortions in California would result

in uncertain state savings for the Medi-Care Program and other state healthcare programs.

However, at the same time, fewer abortions would result in an increase in birthrates of

children in low-income families eligible for publicly funded healthcare (Official Title and

Summary, 2005). The additional costs would be for medical services provided during pregnancy, deliveries, and infant care. The legislators estimated that with this proposition the state would probably not exceed costs of a few million dollars annually.

In other words, the cost of implementing this legislation would be much lower than the billions of dollars required continuing to provide abortions under the Medi-Cal programs.

Medi-Cal just alone was estimated to cost the state $13 billion in 2005-06 (Official Title and Summary).

Proposition 73 promised savings in every aspect related to the cost of implementing an abortion law and the end results. To be more specific, at the state level, the Department of Human Services (DHS) would incur first-year state costs of up to

$350, 000 to make changes and implement the abortion law. The ongoing costs for DHS to implement this measure would be up to $150,000 annually. As for the juvenile and appellate court costs, the measures would result in an increased state cost for the courts, mainly because of the provisions allowing minors to request a court waiver. As for the social services cost, the cost would also increased because there would be an increase in the birthrate among low-income minors, thus leading to expenditures in cash assistance.

Moreover, the services to needy families would also increase under the California Work

Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids. Furthermore, it was possible to have a slight

18 cost increase in child welfare and foster care costs for the state and counties (Official

Title and Summary, 2005).

In addition to the savings that proposition 73 estimated, there was a more

sensitive and critical aspect to the proposition. Those in favor argue that “a daughter

under 18 years of age could not get an aspirin from the school nurse, get a flu shot, or

have a tooth pulled without a parent knowing;” however, they could secretly obtain an

abortion even if she was 13 years or younger (Yes on 73, 2005). According to a study

conducted of over 46,000 pregnancies of school age girls in California, over two-thirds of those girls were impregnated by older men whose mean age was 22.6. Many of those pregnancies were evidence of and sexual abuse, but they were rarely reported to child protective services, leaving these victims vulnerable for further abuse

(Yes on 73, 2005). Those in favor further stated that no one but parents would be able to

best assist and help their daughters decide whether to obtain abortion since they know

their daughters better than anyone else does (Official Title and Summary, 2005).

Proposition 73 had notable arguments. For example, 34 states in the United States

had notification laws in practice for over 25 years and continued to be successful for

those states (Hass-Wilson, 1996). Proposition 73 argued that minors who obtain an

abortion without their family knowledge could face health complications and possibly

affect the trust in family members. Moreover, a proposition such as 73 would put in

practice more accurate statistics on abortions for further research (CBR, 2003). Although

some voters believed proposition 73 had good intentions, there were more voters who

believed proposition 73 would negatively affect adolescents. The voters against

19 proposition 73 strongly agree in giving minors the rights to obtain abortions without their

parents being notified about the abortion procedure (Smart Voter, 2005).

In addition, those against the proposition 73 opinion the proposition would do

more harm than good, as the government could not enforce family communication. Some

children are able to speak to their parents openly about sex, but there some who cannot

safely talk to their parents about sex (Orlov, 2005). Moreover, asking the court for a

waiver was not the solution because no vulnerable and scared child would go to court to

obtain an abortion legally. Therefore, those against proposition 73 felt that this law

would put teenagers in danger. The opponents felt the real solution to teen pregnancy is

prevention, strong caring families, and not laws that would endanger teens. In addition, teens need to have access to professional medical attention and quality counseling in case

teenagers decide to obtain abortions on their own (Official Title and Summary, 2005).

In 2005, proponents and opponents of proposition 73 invested a total of $7.4

million. Those for parental notification measures collected $1.5 million and spent $1.9

million in parent’s rights coalition, a project of California ProLife Council Inc.; while,

those against the measures collected $5.3 million and spent $5.5 million campaigning for

teen safety, a project of Affiliates of California. Those opposing

proposition 73 collected $3.6 million more than those in favor of the measure

(Proposition 73 Money Watch, 2007). During the first months of the campaign, there

were slightly more voters intending to vote yes (48%) on the measure than those

intending to vote no (43%). However, as the election date approach closer and closer a

slight change began to occur. By September, the voters had evenly divided on the

measure (45% intending to vote yes and 45% intending to vote no) (Smart Voter, 2005).

20 The most in favor of the parental notification initiative were Republicans, conservatives,

Protestants, and born-again Christian. The most opposed were democrats, liberals, non-

Christians, and those with no religious preference. However, the end of the 2005 general elections concluded with proposition 73 being defeated with 52.7 percent of voters who opposed to the parental notification measures (DiCamillo & Field, 2005).

Proposition 85

In 2006, Californians were given another opportunity to take a stand on parental notification measures presented as proposition 85. Proposition 85 was very similar to proposition 73, with only a few significant changes. In proposition 73, abortion was defined as “causing the death of an unborn child, a child conceived but not born yet.” On the other hand, in proposition 85 an abortion was defined as “the use of any means to terminate the pregnancy of an un-emancipated minor known to be pregnant except for the purpose of producing a live birth,” (Official Title and Summary, 2006). Proposition 85 also eliminated that judge-by-judge listing mandate and instead mandated by the county.

In addition, proposition 85 would allow parents to sign waivers in advance if they if they do not want to be notified about their daughter’s intent to obtain an abortion (Official

Title and Summary, 2006).

One of the most notable changes of proposition 85 was on the sections titled

“Argument against Proposition 85” and “Rebuttal Argument against Proposition 85”.

Section “Argument against Proposition 85” argued that doctors and nurses strongly opposed to proposition 85 and in the real world proposition 85 would result in more harm than good; more harm in the sense that some children cannot go to their parents because

21 their parents are violent or their family sexually abuses them. In addition, those against the proposition argued that the real answer to teen pregnancy is caring families and not laws. Laws, they said, cannot force families to communicate (Official Title and

Summary, 2006). Those against 85 felt that this measure would put the health and safety of teens at risk.

The rebuttal argument against proposition 85 noted that most parents respond with love and support when they learn their daughters are pregnant. Moreover, parents can assist their daughters in selecting a doctor that is right for them; as many of the doctors employed in abortion clinics are doctors who have been disciplined by the medical board for incompetence, negligence, criminal convictions, or sexual misconduct

(Official Title and Summary, 2006). In addition, many of the abortions clinics tend to receive citations for unsafe conditions. If parents are inform about their daughter’s pregnancy they are able to help them make the best decision for them whether it is to go full term or terminate the pregnancy. Informed parents can help and even save their daughter’s life if complications arise during an abortion procedure. Furthermore, in the rebuttal section, it was noted that with proposition 85 sexual abuses against teens would no longer go unreported and teens would be protected. This section also emphasized that

30 states had abortion laws and were showing that these laws were decreasing the percentage of pregnant teens and harmful abortions (Official Title and Summary, 2006).

During the elections of 2006, those for and against proposition 85 came up with different advertisements in hopes to persuade voters to vote their way. Among the countless of advertisements against proposition 85 was one titled “Outside Bubble,” which caused a great dilemma. The advertisement, Outside the bubble, focused on

22 children of violent and abusive parents who cannot go to their parents for help or advise,

thus advertising that proposition 85 was dangerous and encouraged people to vote no on

85 (Title of Ad: Outside Bubble, 2006). The “Outside Bubble” became one of the most

popular advertisements to use or talk about during proposition 85. Supporters of 85 felt

that the “Outside Bubble” television commercial included false information and deliberate incorrect information to confuse and deceive California voters into voting no

on Proposition 85.

In 2006 elections, supporters of proposition 85 collected a total of $4.4 millions

and spent $3.8 million. Approximately, half of the expenditure was used to qualify the

measure for the ballot. Opponents on the other hand, collected and spend $6.9 million.

Most of the expenditures went towards television airtime, ad production, campaign consulting, and polling (Proposition 85 Money Watch, 2006). About 62 percent of the

total amount of money collected for and against proposition 85 came from ten

contributors. The top ten contributions came from organizations, while the other 44

percent of contributions came from two individuals James Holman, San Diego publisher,

and Don Sebastian, former California Assembly member (Proposition 85 Money Watch,

2006). However, the result of proposition 85 was very similar to the one in 2005.

Proposition 85 was defeated by 52 percent of voters opposed to the proposition and 48

percent in favor of 85 (Doyle, 2006).

Proposition 4

In 2008, Californians were re-introduced to the parental notification initiative

known as Proposition 4. Proposition 4 was similar proposition 85, which took place

23 during the general elections of 2006. Some of the changes between proposition 85 and 4 were, for example, that 4 would allow for a minor to notify a family member other than her parents or guardians about her intent to obtain an abortion (Official Title and

Summary, 2008). However, the minor had to indicate in writing that she feared physical,

sexual, and severe emotional abuse from a parent/guardian who would otherwise be

notified. The allegations would then be given to the selected adult family member as

well as the appropriate and child protective agencies.

In addition, the civil penalty would of doubled for those who lie in order for a

minor to obtain an abortion without notifying a parent. Parents wrongfully denied

notifications had up to four years after their daughter turned 18 or 4 years after

discovering about the provider’s negligence to file a civil lawsuit (Official Title and

Summary, 2008). Also, proposition 4 was personalized by advocates of parental

notification and labeled as the “Child and Teen Safety and Stop Predators Act: Sarah’s

Law”. The idea behind naming Proposition 4, Sarah’s Law, was because proponents

wanted to let Californians know that they were about protecting young women from the

dangers of secret abortions.

Among the most generous contributors and supporters of Proposition 4 was James

Holman, the founder and publisher of the San Diego Reader, who contributed $1.4

million to the campaign. Don Sebastian, former assembly member and Sonoma winery

owner, contributed $530,000. Other contributors were the Lenawee Trust of Irvine and

the Caster Family Trust of San Diego, each donating $100,000 (Money Watch, 2008).

On the other hand, the top contributors against Proposition 4 were a Project of Planned

Parenthood Affiliates of California, a Project of American Civil Liberties Union of

24 Northern California, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of

Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the California Medical Association, the National

Organization for Women, the California Nurses Association, Catholics for a Free Choice, the League of Women Voters, NARAL Pro-Choice, the National Association of Social

Workers, and the AFL-CIO Executive Council (Money Watch, 2008).

During 2008 elections, proponents and opponents of Proposition 4 collected approximately $10.8 million. Of the total amount collected, proponents raised about $2.6 million while opponents raised approximately $8.2 million. The proponents spend their total expenditure on overhead, legal services, and petition circulation to qualify the measures for the November ballot. The opponents spent $8.3 million on campaign consultants, legal services, voter contract expenses, and overhead (Watch Money, 2008).

However, the results of the 2008 elections were no different from the elections of 2005 and 2006. The parental notification measures were defected by 52 percent of voters voting no and 48 percent of voters voting yes on 4 (Smart Voter, 2008).

For the third time since the 2006 general elections, parental notification measures were defeated by voters who optioned to care about the safety and privacy rights of young women. Those against Proposition 4 took the stance that parental notification laws do not work and no law could enforce family communication. Some minors are not able to go to their parents for fear of rejection, abuse, or worse. Opponents felt that passing proposition 4 would force teens to delay medical care, turn to self-induced abortions, or consider suicide (Official Title and Summary, 2008). The arguments presented against

Proposition 4 brought stronger arguments for Californians. Although, many believe going against Proposition 4 is the better alternative, there some areas that need to be considered.

25 The policies dealing with minors’ access to abortion must balance several potentially conflicting concerns: the privacy of parental rights and responsibilities in areas associated to the health and well-being of their children, the obligation of the state to protect children from their parents when such protection is warranted, and constitutionally protected the minors’ rights (Keefee & Jones 1990). If the goal is to decrease unintended pregnancies, abortions, and childbearing among adolescents, then adolescents must be provided with the right tools. They must be given confidential access to contraceptive services and appropriate sex education. However, if there are adolescents who are pregnant, they should not have obstacles placed in their way. On the contrary, they should be offer counseling and support services in a manner that respects their decision to go full term or to terminate their pregnancies. If we cannot learn to see past this problem in order to obtain a solution, this will be the cause of an increase in negative health and social consequences for adolescent childbearing (Keefe & Jones,

1990).

One believes that in order for California to implement a parental involvement law there must be a window of opportunity present. For example, a crisis in connection to the abortions among minors. Therefore, is important to present the Window of Opportunity

Theory and offer the window California needs in order to enact an abortion law.

26 CHAPTER 4: THEORY

In order for California to enact a parental involvement law, a strategic plan must

be develop and follow. The strategic plan is to use one particular well-known theory

created by the political scientist, John Kingdon. The following chapter will explain

Kingdon’s theory, research that has used his theory, and, last, how using his theory will

make it possible for California to enact a parental involvement law.

WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY

According to “Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies”, by John W. Kingdon,

he explains why some governmental agendas rise while others are forgotten (Kingdon,

1995). In order for an agenda to gain attention, a window of opportunity must be present.

Kingdon presents three processes to how agendas are set: problems, policy, and politics

(Kingdon, 1995).

Being able to identify a problem is crucial to agenda setting. Officials use

indicators, focusing events, and feedback to define the problem. It is critical for officials

to be able to connect their given proposal or subject to an important problem, if they want

their agenda to gain attention and rise. Policy proposals play an important role as they represent the method by which proposals are generated, debated, revised, and adopted for serious consideration. Proposals are consider successful if they are compatible with decision maker’s values, reasonable in cost, and appealing to the public (Kingdon, 1995).

The political stream also plays an important role in the governmental agenda setting.

According to Kingdon, elections bring new administration to power and new ideology disturbance to Congress and interest groups of various descriptions press or fail to press

27 their demands on government (Kingdon, 1995). Visible participants also have an impact

on agenda setting. Visible participants include the president and his high-level appointees among others, and hidden participants include academic specialists and career

bureaucrats.

Although, the three elements listed above are able to function independently, the

three must be present during a critical time. Having all three elements at a critical stage

will open a window of opportunity, which will enable an issue to rise in the political

agenda. Being able to detect when a window of opportunity presents itself is vital to

governmental agendas as that will dictate which agendas will raise and which ones will

be forgotten (Kingdon, 1995).

PREVIOUS RESEARCH USING KINGDON’S MODEL

Kingdon’s theory is among one of the most well-known and used theory; among

the studies that have used Kingdon’s theory is the study titled “Federal Class Size

Reduction Policy: A Case Study Testing John W. Kingdon’s Theory on Agenda Setting”

by Sue Rohan. Her study focused on whether former President Clinton’s class size reduction policy, a key initiative for reforming elementary and secondary education in the

U.S., was an example of Kingdon’s theory. In this case, the class size had been an ongoing battle. The case had been connected to a problem and policy alternatives, but lack consensus and was missing the third element, politics. Finally, in 1998, the politic stream came together and resulted in a policy change for 1999. According to Rohan, the class size reduction (CSR) policy was intended to substantially improve the quality of teaching, and thus student’s achievement (Rohan, 2000).

28 The extent of the problem with this issue was explored using data on enrollment, average class size, teacher-pupil ration, and national perceptions. The policy approaches were developed using journal articles. Last, the politics stream was addressed by looking at the national mood in regards to class size reduction and educational reforms through the lens of newspaper articles (Rohan, 2000). For this issue in particular, the problem with class size had been identified, but the nation seemed not to be able to reach a consensus. However, what politically motivated this issue was President Clinton. He was the visible supporter of policy change, and his support seemed to be politically motivated.

Countless of newspaper articles from 1969 to 1998 were review to determine whether a swing in the national mood occurred that made class size reduction a more favorable proposal (Rohan, 2000).

The study concluded that with the occurring of a number of political factors prior to 1998 made it possible for the CSR to reach the agenda. In other words, from 1995 to

1998, the issue received an increased of public attention (Rohan, 2000). In 1998, small class size was pitted against other school reform initiatives that threatened support for public schools. However, the public clearly favored class size reduction and the national mood was utilized to fight there threats. Overall, this agenda was able to rise, as it was ready and a waiting problem with an identified policy alternative solution. Furthermore, this opportunity was linked to the politically charged tobacco settlement and the decreasing crime rate, which the political forcers were successful in getting the CSR to the agenda (Rohan, 2000).

Another example that used Kingdon’s theory was the program called Preschool for California’s Children. The goal behind this program is to ensure California makes

29 quality preschool available to all children ages 3 and 4 in all the state. The strategic that was used in order to get this program on the agenda was to show that the timing for this program had come. Focused was put in all three elements of Kingdon’s theory (Coffman,

2007). For problem identified, it was noted that the awareness had grown for the need to improve school readiness. In the policy proposed, the plan was to present research and evidence. Last, was to present favorable politics that with public and political support a tipping point would be reach. With all the three elements present this would open a policy window leading to good quality preschool policy (Coffman, 2007). In general, this program was able to use Kingdon’s model and get their program into the agenda.

A WINDOW FOR A PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT LAW

California has been one of many states where the window of opportunity has played a critical role in governmental agenda setting. Many political battles have been seeing in California. Among the many battles has been the issue of abortions and parental notification laws (Orlov, 2005). Throughout the years, California has become the battleground state on the abortion issue due to its size and history related to the issue

(Orlov, 2005). There have been numerous battles dealing with minors, abortions, and whether or not they should be granted the rights to obtain abortions without parental consent or notification laws. However, the issue has not been able to reach the governmental agenda, as the three elements that make an agenda rise have not been present at the right time.

30 IDENTIFYING A PROBLEM

Identifying a problem is about getting the attention of policy decision makers into one problem over others. Therefore, the key for a policy proposal to rise is to connect the proposal to a problem that is perceived as serious and critical. Consequently, for this issue is important to look for indicators, focusing events, and constituent feedback.

Indicators

The possibilities of not being able to implement an abortion law in the State of

California can lead to an increased risk of children having unplanned and unwanted children. Therefore, is critical to look at and understand the severity of children having unplanned pregnancies, as other problems present when children have children. Many children who decide to become sexually active do not think deeper into the risks or consequences behind being sexually active. Most children who start at a very young age do not use protection, which is why some of these children end up having unplanned pregnancies and dropping out of school.

If the high rates of minors having babies and dropping out of school were associated to the need for implementing abortion laws, perhaps the agenda would have a strong chance to pass. The enforcement of parental notification and a waiting period before the termination of minor’s pregnancy would not only reduce the number of children giving birth to babies or obtaining abortions, but also make them more responsible. More responsible in the sense that they would have to think deeper about consequences of deciding to become sexually active. For example, if they resulted pregnant and wanted to obtain an abortion, parents would have to be notify by law.

31 Therefore, we must connect the having no parental involvement laws to the likelihood of more children having babies and dropping out of school over the years.

Focusing Events

The having no consequences for children who accidently get pregnant and simply

“fix” their mistake by obtaining an abortion without parents consent or notification, in ones opinion does not resolve anything. On the contrary, those who simply choose to have an abortion by circumventing their parent’s authority are less likely to learn the valuable lesson of why children should not be sexually active at their age. On some occasions, accidents such as unplanned pregnancies among minors and them obtaining abortions without parents finding out only opens doors to deeper troubles; however, for the courageous children who chose to go full term with their pregnancy sometimes life becomes more complicated.

It is imperative that we look at all angles of why it is important to implement abortion laws as the implementation of such laws would reduce to some extent the number of children having children or obtaining abortions. There are many psychological and physical problems in minors who have an abortion as well as those whose lives are drastically changed with the delivery of baby at young and immature age.

According to some researchers, many of the minors who become parents at a young age are likely to face more obstacles than those who become parents at an older age. Many of these young parents not only have to adapt to the drastic changes that come with being young parents, but also have to mature quickly and sometimes drop out of school to be

able sustain themselves and child. However, not every child who becomes parent is able

32 to manage the responsibilities that come with being a parent and those who are most effected are their babies. Some of theses babies grow up in poverty, abusive homes, are in and out of the Foster Care System and/or juvenile systems, or worse are killed by their parents. Therefore, it is crucial that real cases are connect to real obstacles pregnant minors face when getting pregnant.

Real cases will show policy makers and the public how minors’ lives are psychologically and physically affected with unplanned pregnancy that went full term or are end in abortion. The purpose of presenting true stories of minors is to show why having barriers are important for the sake of minors and to help enact an abortion law in

California.

Feedback

In addition, in order for abortion laws to be taken more seriously, proponents need to conduct an extensive program evaluation study or send informal streams of complaints flowing into Congressional offices. If the proponents of abortion laws were to conduct a full evaluation of the benefits of implementing abortion laws in California perhaps that would be a step closer to winning this battle in California.

Although proponents present the fiscal effects behind the implementation of a parental notification laws such as the savings and costs associated with this law, the proponents should also present other studies related to the possible consequences of not implementing abortion laws. For example, a study of minors who ended up pregnant, dropped out school, lived under the poverty level, the number of children who end up in

Foster Care and/or juvenile system, and the number of children abused or killed by their

33 parents. Moreover, the evaluation should also include the number of minors who acquire a Sexual Transmitted Disease (STD), Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS), and Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), due not using protection. Even though this type of data is in some cases difficult to gather, this data is necessary to better understand how we can help and protect our children. Perhaps this data will provide more clarification as to how minors are affect with unplanned pregnancies at a young and immature age. The next step to agenda setting is to look at the second element, policy.

POLICY

It is critical for officials to be able to connect their given proposal or subject to an

important problem to make the agenda. For this issue, is imperative that we look at

previous data of minors who became pregnant and obtain abortions. In addition, look at

research and journal articles that explain how pregnancies and abortions have affected

minors. The findings will then need to be connected to decision maker’s values, be

reasonable in cost, and most important be appealing to the public.

POLITICS

In the last few years, this issue has grown in controversy. One believes that the

abortion issue has been gaining controversy after visible participants from the Republican

Party were elected. During that time, the third element was identified to help press the

abortion issue, which allowed Californians to take a stand during the governmental

elections. That element is what Kingdon calls the political stream.

34 The third element necessary for the issue to rise occurred when President George

W. Bush and Governor Arnold Schwarzeneger became government officials. Both were considered visible participants and Republicans, which made the issue likely to get attention and be placed on the ballot. This issue has been highly supported by

Republicans, conservatives, Protestants, and born again Christians. The opponents to the issue have been Democrats, liberals, non-Christians, and those who have no religion preference (DiCamillo & Field, 2005). One can say that shortly after the Governor of

California, Arnold Schwarzenegger became elected the issue of minors and abortion was brought again to the attention of Californians. According to Rick Orlov, Governor

Arnold Schwarzenegger approved the abortion law hoping it would turnout more conservative voters who also would back his reform measures on the ballot (Orlov,

2005).

The investigator believes California is in need of an abortion law and if California follows Kingdon’s model the abortion issue will arise and become enacted. California has been close to enacting a parental notification law, but has not been able because the elements necessary have not been all present at a critical time. Is imperative for supporters of abortion laws to identify and connect the issue to an important problem, take inconsideration decision maker’s values, and at the same time try to appeal the public who will vote for or against the issue.

35 CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY

Currently, California is the state with the most abortions and according to statistics

minors are the group most likely to have unplanned pregnancies. Most minors who are

sexually active do not protect themselves and often find themselves having to make

decisions that they are not ready for or old enough to make. For this reason, we need to be

prepared and implement laws that will help and protect them when they are faced with a

critical problem such as an unplanned pregnancy. The literature review explored previous

research and what professionals have to say about the enforcement of abortion laws in

states. Previous studies allowed seeing how abortion laws effect minors, the public, and the rate of abortions. The studies in connection to minors and abortion laws in different states allowed looking at the issue in different ways and tried to give an informative explanation of what California can do to implement an abortion law.

CONCLUSION

Based on a literature review, family, friends, school, and educational programs

play an important role in the development of minors and how minors will make

decisions. However, even sometimes with the guidance of those ties, minors still need

governmental laws to look out for their safety. For example, laws similar to parental

involvement law are important, as their purpose is to help children and connect them to

their parents during a time of crisis. Enacting an abortion law in California will perhaps

help decrease the number of abortions to minors. Moreover, get them the right medical

care, most importantly get parents involved to assist minors into doing what is right for

them, and stop abortions for the wrong reasons. In addition, implementing an abortion

36 law in California will help children to become more responsible; as, in this case, parents

would be notified about a minors’ intention to obtain abortions, with the goal of having

parents be there for their children. However, if children do not want their parents to be

involved there is always the option of going through the courts to obtain a waiver.

Furthermore, this law will protect minors from sexual predators, which research has

indicated many predators try to cover their sexual crimes with secret abortions.

California has had an ongoing battle with abortion laws. Over the past years, the

issue of giving minors the right to obtain an abortion has grown and California’s general

elections have witnessed this. In 2005, 2006, and 2008, the issue was brought up and placed in the ballot for voters to take a stance and vote. All three propositions were written very similarly with a few differences. However, for various reasons Californians rejected each proposition. All three propositions were rejected by 52 percent of voters

opposing an abortion law.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Since all three propositions were unsuccessful in implementing an abortion law in

California, it is time for California to formulate a plan that will be effective in enacting a

parental involvement law. Therefore, California needs to look into Kingdon’s theory and

follow his model to get the agenda to rise.

It is recommended to:

1) Connect the issue to a critical problem (For example, find a correlation between

minors getting pregnant and obtaining abortions to an increase of minors dropping

37 out school, committing crimes, increase of tax dollars, and an increased of

families under poverty.)

2) Look into further research and connect the findings to decision maker’s values,

cost effectiveness, and try to appeal to the public

3) Last, get more elected officials to support the issue and change the political mood

to favor the issue

Supporters of the abortion law need to reframe the problem. The issue needs to be associated to a serious problem that affects everyone not just minors. According to

Kingdon, it is imperative to associate the issue to an important problem to get the attention of policy decision makers (Kingdon, 1995). This issue is in need of more research to better present the severity of this problem. For example, more data is needed about children who have unplanned pregnancies and how their lives were affected in every aspect. The current research about abortion laws in connection to minors has mix findings; therefore, more information will help to determine how to address this ongoing battle and what the public needs to know.

It is recommended that once more research is gathered on abortion laws, the findings get then connected to the values of policy decisions makers and, at the same time, the findings try to appeal the public. Once stronger findings are gathered, we can start changing the perspective of decision makers and of the public. It is imperative that the findings include real cases of minors who have had unplanned pregnancies and the obstacles that they have faced because of their pregnancies at a young age.

It is recommended that proponents try to get the attention of more elected officials to support the issue and try to change the political mood to favor the issue, if they want to

38 enact a parental notification law. The enforcement of abortion laws can possibly

decrease the number of minors who get pregnant yearly, while at the same time help

those likely to get pregnant at a young age have a brighter future.

Overall, Kingdon’s theory appears to be a good fit to analyze this issue. If

proponents follow his model there is a good possibility of finally enacting a parental

notification law in California. However, first, more research is needed to better

understand how minors are affected by the enforcement of abortion laws. In addition, it

is crucial for California to determine whether allowing minors to obtain abortions without parents’ notification or consent laws is in the minor’s best interest. Minors are our future

generation; therefore, we must ensure that they are being adequately protected by laws,

raised properly, and given the right tools to become responsible and productive citizens.

39

APPENDIX

40

41 REFERENCES:

Alford, S. (2003). The facts: Adolescents and abortion. Retrieved April 13, 2007, from

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/factsheet/fsabortion.htm

Cartoof, V. & Klerman, L. (1986). Parental consent for abortion: Impact of the

Massachusetts Law. American Journal of Public Health, 76(4), 397-400.

CBR. Abortion facts. Retrieved January 31, 2009, from www.abortionno.org

Coffman, J. (2007). Evaluation based on theories of the policy process. Harvard Family

Research Project, 14(1), 23-27.

DiCamillo, M. & Field, M. (2005). Proposition 73: Parental notification of teen abortion.

The Field Poll, Release #2169.

Doyle, P. ( November 17, 2006). Prop 85’s defeat reflects inability to reach the `mushy

middle`. The San Francisco Chronicle, p.A16.

Ellertson, C. (1997). Mandatory parental involvement in minors’ abortions: Effects of the

laws in Minnesota, Missouri, and Indiana. American Journal of Public Health,

87(8), 1367-1374.

Ertelt, S. (2006). California Planned Parenthood runs false abortion ad on prop 85.

Retrieved April 10, 2009, from www.lifenews.com

Ertelf, S. (January 16, 2008). Abortion advocates still peddle misleading story’s of Becky

Bell’s death. Life News. Retrieved October 30, 2009.

Haas-Wilson, D. (1996). The impact of state abortion restriction on minors’ demand for

abortion. The Journal of Human Resources, 31(1), 140-158.

Health Vote. Title of ad: Outside bubble. Retrieved April 3, 2009, from

http://www.healthvote.org

42 John W. Kingdon. 1995. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. 2nd ed. New York:

Longman.

Keefee, J & Jones, J. (1990). Easing restrictions on minors’ abortion rights. Issues in

Science and Technology, 6, 74-80.

Legislative Analyst’s Office. Waiting period and parental notification before termination

of minor’s pregnancy. Initiative constitutional amendment. Retrieved April 3,

2009, from http://www.lao.ca.gov

Los Angeles Times. No on prop. 4. Retrieved April 3, 2009, from

http://www.latimes.com

Medoff, M. (2008). The effect of abortion cost on adoption in the USA. International

Journal of Social Economics, 35(3), 188-210.

Money Watch. Retrieved April 3, 2009, from http://www.healthvote .org

NAF. National Abortion Federation. Retrieved January 31, 2009, from

www.prochoice.org

Ohsfeldt, R. & Gohmann, S. (1994). Do parental involvement laws reduce adolescent

abortion rates? Contemporary Economic Policy, 12(2), 65-77.

Proposition 73: Waiting period and parental notification before termination of minor’s.

pregnancy. Initiative constitutional amendment. 2005.

Proposition 85: Waiting period and parental notification before termination of minor’s

pregnancy. Initiative constitutional amendment. 2006.

Proposition 4: Waiting period and parental notification before termination of minor’s

pregnancy. Initiative constitutional amendment. 2008.

R. K. Jones et., (2005). Abortion in the United State: Incidence and access to services.

43 Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 40(1), 6-16.

Rodman, H. (1991). Should parental involvement be required for minors abotions?

Family Relations, 40, 155-160.

Rohan, S. (2000). Federal class size reduction policy: A case study testing John W.

Kingdon’s theory on agenda setting. Policy Perspectives, 10, 25-35.

Waiting period and parental notification before termination of minor’s pregnancy State of

California. Retrieved April 3, 2009, from http://www.smartvoter.org

Zavodny, M. (2004). Fertility and parental consent for minors to receive contraceptives.

American Journal of Public Health, 94(8), 1347-1351.

44