California Proposition 4 (2008)

Elections in California
Federal government Presidential elections 1852 1856 1860 1864 1868 1872 1876 1880 1884 1888 1892 1896 1900 1904 1908 1912 1916 1920 1924 1928 1932 1936 1940 1944 1948 1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 Primary elections Democratic 2000 2004 2008 Republican 2000 2004 2008 2012 United States Senate elections 1950 1980 1982 1986 1988 1992 1992 (special) 1994 1998 2000 2004 2006 2010 2012 2016 Congressional elections At-Large (1849-1863) 1864 1866 1868 1870 1872 1874 1876 1878 1880 1882 1884 1886 1888 1890 1892 1894 1896 1898 1900 1902 1904 1906 1908 1910 1912 1914 1916 1918 1920 1922 1924 1926 1928 1930 1932 1934 1936 1938 1940 1942 1944 1946 12th (1946) 1948 1950 1952 1954 1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 11th (2006) 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Special elections to the House 5th (2005) 48th (2005) 36th (2007) 12th (2008) 10th (2009) 32nd (2009) 36th (2011) 34th (2017)
State government (executive) Gubernatorial elections 1849 1851 1853 1855 1857 1859 1861 1863 1867 1871 1875 1879 1882 1886 1890 1894 1898 1902 1906 1910 1914 1918 1922 1926 1930 1934 1938 1942 1946 1950 1954 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2003 (recall) 2006 2010 2014 2018 Lieutenant gubernatorial elections 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 Attorney General elections 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 Secretary of State elections 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 Treasurer elections 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 Controller elections 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 Insurance Commissioner elections 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 Superintendent of Public Instruction elections 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014
State government (legislative) State Senate elections 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Special State Assembly elections 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Special
State government (judicial) Court of Appeals elections 1994 1998 2002 2006
Propositions 1910-1919 1911 4 7 8 1960-1969 1964 14 1970-1979 1972 11 17 1978 8 13 Briggs Initiative 1980-1989 1982 8 1986 64 65 1988 98 99 1990-1999 1994 187 1996 196 209 215 218 1998 6 10 227 2000-2009 2000 21 22 36 39 2003 53 54 2004 1A 55 56 57 58 59 60 60A 61 62 63 64 65 66 69 71 2005 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 2006 81 82 83 85 87 89 90 2008 91 92 93 94, 95, 96, and 97 98 and 99 1A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2009 1A 1B 1C 1D 1E 1F 2010-2019 2010 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2012 29 30 32 34 37 38 39 2014 1 2 41 42 45 46 47 48 2016 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 Full list
Elections by year State elections Nov 1992 Nov 1994 Nov 1996 Nov 1998 Nov 2000 Nov 2002 Nov 2004 Nov 2005 Nov 2006 Feb 2008 Jun 2008 Nov 2008 May 2009 Jun 2010 Nov 2010 Jun 2012 Nov 2012 2014 Jun 2016
Los Angeles Mayoral elections 1896 1898 1900 1902 1904 1906 1909 (M) 1909 (N) 1911 1913 1915 1917 1919 1921 1923 1925 1929 1933 1937 1938 1941 1945 1949 1953 1957 1961 1965 1969 1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005 2009 2013 General elections 2009 2011 2013 City Attorney elections 2009 Board of Supervisors elections 1980 1996 2006 2008 2010 2012
San Diego Mayoral elections 2000 2004 2005 (special) 2008 2012 2013–14 (special) 2016 City Council elections 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016
San Francisco Mayoral elections 1975 1979 1983 1987 1991 1995 1999 2003 2007 2011 2015 Board of Supervisors elections 1977 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 General elections Mar 2004 Nov 2004 Nov 2005 Jun 2006 Nov 2006 Nov 2007 Feb 2008 Jun 2008 Nov 2008 Nov 2009 Jun 2010 Nov 2010 Nov 2011 Jun 2012 Nov 2012 Nov 2013
San Jose Mayoral elections 2014

Proposition 4, or the Abortion Waiting Period and Parental Notification Initiative, also known to its supporters as Sarah's Law, was an initiative state constitutional amendment on the 2008 California General Election ballot ^[1][2][3]

The initiative would prohibit abortion for un-emancipated minors until 48 hours after physician notifies minor’s parent, legal guardian or, if parental abuse has been reported, an alternative adult family member.

Proposition 4 was rejected by voters on November 4, 2008.

Specific provisions

The proposed initiative, if enacted as a constitutional amendment, would:

• Provide exceptions for medical emergency or parental waiver.
• Permit courts to waive notice based on clear and convincing evidence of minor’s maturity or best interests.
• Mandate reporting requirements, including reports from physicians regarding abortions on minors.
• Authorize monetary damages against physicians for violation.
• Require minor’s consent to abortion, with exceptions.
• Permit judicial relief if minor’s consent is coerced.

Fiscal Impact

• Health and Social Services Costs. Annual costs in the range of $4 million to $5 million for the state and about $2 million for counties, and potential one-time Medi-Cal automation costs unlikely to exceed a few million dollars.
• Costs to Local Law Enforcement and Courts. Annual costs in the range of $5 million to $6 million per year.
• Potential Offsetting Savings. Unknown, potential savings to the state in health care and public assistance costs from decreases in sexually transmitted diseases and teen pregnancy.^[4]

Supporters

• The Friends of Sarah, the Parental or Alternative Family Member Notification Act. is the official ballot committee.^[5]
• The California Catholic Conference^[6]
• Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger ^[7]

Arguments in favor of Prop. 4

Notable arguments that have been made in favor of Prop. 4 include:

• 34 other U.S. States have had notification laws in place for as long as 25 years.
• When a minor obtains an abortion without the knowledge of a family member or guardian, her health can be endangered if health complications arise after the abortion.^[8]
• If a minor becomes pregnant because of sexual violence or predation, a sexual predator may be missed, because the abortion clinic may not report the sexual crime.^[9]

Donors

As of September 27, 2008, the six largest donors to Prop. 4 are:

• Jim Holman, $1,525,590. (Of this, $1.35 million is listed as a loan.)^[10]
• Don Sebastiani, $530,000.^[11]
• Knights of Columbus, $200,000.
• Life Legal Defense Foundation, $50,000.
• The Lenawee Trust, $100,000.
• The Caster Family Trust, $100,000.

Path to ballot and prior attempts at passage

The signature-gathering drive to qualify the 2008 Parental Notification petition for the ballot was conducted by petition management firm Bader & Associates, Inc. at a cost of $2,555,000.^[12]

Proposition 4 represents the third time that California voters will have considered the issue of a parental notification/waiting period for abortion. The two previous, unsuccessful, initiatives were California Proposition 85 (2006) and California Proposition 73 (2005).

When Prop 73 lost in 2005, some supporters thought that a similar measure would fare better in a general election. However, Prop 85 did worse. Unlike 85 or 73, Proposition 4 allows an adult relative of the minor seeking an abortion to be notified, if the minor's parents are abusive.

Camille Giulio, a spokeswoman for the pro-4 campaign said that the November 2008 election represents a better opportunity for parental notification legislation because:

• There will be a higher voter turnout in November 2008 than when 85 and 73 were voted on.
• Socially conservative voters will be motivated to come to the polls to vote in favor of the much higher profile Proposition 8. While at the polls, they are likely to also vote in favor of 4.
• The two previous campaigns represented narrow defeats in low budget campaigns.^[13]

Opposition to Prop. 4

The Campaign for Teen Safety is the official ballot committee against the proposition.

• American Academy of Pediatrics, California District
• American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, District IX
• California Academy of Family Physicians
• California Family Health Council
• California Nurses Association
• California School Counselors Association
• California Teachers Association
• Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California
• California NOW
• Equality California
• The Let California Ring coalition^[17]

Arguments against Prop. 4

Notable arguments that have been made against Prop. 4 include:

• Mandated parental notification laws do not work. No law can mandate family communication.
• Some teenagers can't go to their parents for fear of being forced to leave their home, abuse, or worse.
• Prop 4 may force these teens to delay medical care, turn to self-induced abortions, or consider suicide.
• The reason there are fewer teen pregnancies in states mandating parental notification is that more teenage girls choose to go underground and have unsafe abortions which go unreported.
• Fear of parents being notified in the event of an abortion is highly unlikely to motivate teens to practice abstinence.
• This proposition is extremely gender-biased. It is unlikely that any law would mandate the notification of the father's parents.
• The vote will be biased as those affected by the bill, namely minors, are unable to vote on it.
• If a teen seeks the support of another adult, her parents would automatically be reported to authorities and an investigation would ensue.^[18]

Consultants

The No on 4 campaign has hired the Dewey Square Group^[19] as a consultant.^[20]

Donors to opposition

As of September 27, some of the top donors to the opposition campaign were:

• A number of different Planned Parenthood affiliates, including the Los Angeles, Mar Monte, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Shasta Diablo and Pasadena offices, $4,485,000
• California Teachers Association, $450,000.
• California Family Health Council, $80,000.
• Committee for a New Economy, $25,000.
• ACLU, Northern California, $50,000.
• ACLU, Southern California, $10,000.
• Susan Orr, $100,000.
• John Morgridge, $100,000.^[21][22]

Lawsuit filed over Prop. 4 language

Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California and others filed a lawsuit with the Sacramento County Superior Court in early August to strike out all references to "Sarah" and "Sarah's Law" and "other misleading language in the voter's guide" for Proposition 4. The title "Sarah's Law" refers to the case of 15-year-old "Sarah" who died as a result of an abortion in 1994. Proposition 4's ballot language in the official voter's guide suggests that "Sarah" might have been saved had her parents known about her abortion. Opponents of Proposition 4 argue that "Sarah" was not considered a minor in Texas, where the abortion was performed, and that she already had a child with a man who claimed to be her commonlaw husband. If this is the case, the proposed law, Proposition 4, would not have helped her, since it wouldn't have applied to her. Based on this reasoning, opponents asked that the references to Sarah be stricken.^[23]

Judge Michael Kenny of the Sacramento Superior Court ultimately ruled against the opponents, allowing the original proposed ballot language and arguments, including references to Sarah, to stay in the official California voter's pamphlet.

Polling information

The Field Poll has conducted and released the results of four public opinion polls on Proposition 4, in July, August, September, and October.^{[24][25][26][27]}

Mark DiCamillo, director of the polling agency, said he believes the current version is running stronger because Latinos overwhelmingly favor it and are expected to vote in higher-than-usual numbers in November.^[28]

Newspaper endorsements

Editorial boards in favor

• San Diego Union Tribune:^[29]
• Orange County Register:^[30]

Editorial boards opposed

• Los Angeles Times^[31]
• San Francisco Chronicle^[32]

Results

Proposition 4

Choice	Votes	%
No	6,728,478	51.96
Yes	6,220,473	48.04
Valid votes	12,948,951	94.22
Invalid or blank votes	794,226	5.78
Total votes	13,743,177	100.00
Source: November 4, 2008, General Election Statement of Vote

References

Additional reading

• To defeat Obama, conservatives take the initiative
• Fisher: Anti-abortion ballot measure still a bad idea

External links

• California's official voter guide on Proposition 4
• Text of initiative
• Signature validation progress sheet, from the California Secretary of State.
• CaliforniaPropositions.org Prop 4 information page
• California Voter Online guide to Proposition 4
• Smart Voter Guide to Proposition 4
• Campaign Expenditures for Proposition 4, Parental Notification

Supporters

• Sarah's Law
• Yes on 4
• Parents' Right to Know California

Opponents

• No on Proposition 4