Berkeley City Councilmember Susan Wengraf will present resolutions at Tuesday night’s council meeting opposing two proposed California constitutional amendments that would require that the parents of minors are notified and give written consent prior to an abortion.
Measure 1496 proposes an amendment to the state constitution prohibiting abortions for unemancipated minors without written notification to the minor’s parents from the physician. Measure 1497 is virtually identical, except that it also requires the physician to wait 48 hours after notifying the parents to perform the abortion.
“The issue of women being able to control their reproductive health is being attacked nation-wide,” Wengraf said. “Things like this are being done at the state level to undermine reproductive health across the country.”
The measures — which together would be called the Parental Notification, Child and Teen Safety and Stop Predators Act — were submitted to the state Attorney General’s office in June, and have been cleared by the Secretary of State for signature gathering.
In California, the signature requirement for proposed initiatives amending the constitution is “8 percent of the total votes cast for Governor in the most recent gubernatorial election,” according to Secretary of State documents. This would mean that Measures 1496 and 1497 would need approximately 807,000 signatures each to be placed on the 2012 ballot.
If approved, Wengraf said she hopes Berkeley’s public opposition to the proposed constitutional amendments will prevent anyone in the city from signing the initiatives.
According to Wengraf, this is the fourth legislative attempt in recent years to restrict young women’s reproductive health rights in California. Wengraf said she believes that Berkeley’s voting record in support of reproductive rights designates it as a “pro-choice city”, and that the proposed measures would endanger the welfare of young women by delaying abortions or potentially causing young mothers to hide their pregnancies.
“Cities that look to Berkeley will hear about these initiatives and hopefully follow suit by opposing them,” she said. “Also, other people in the state will be made aware of what they are trying to do.”
Adelyn Baxter covers city government.
Comment Policy
Comments should remain on topic, concerning the article or blog post to which they are connected. Brevity is encouraged. Posting under a pseudonym is discouraged, but permitted. The Daily Cal encourages readers to voice their opinions respectfully in regard to the readers, writers and contributors of The Daily Californian. Comments are not pre-moderated, but may be removed if deemed to be in violation of this policy. Click here to read the full comment policy.
If a girl is mature enough to decide whether her baby lives or dies then she’s mature enough to decide whether to take drugs, sign a lease agreement, have sex with adults, join a cult, and drop out of elementary school, and her parents and the state should have no say in the matter.
Reproductive health? Can we take the spin off these terms of” reproductive health” and “pro-choice”?
If a female is pregnant, her body is doing what it was designed to do. She is reproductively healthy!
Or is the real question “Does she have a right to kill her own child?”
Do the child’s grandparents have a right (and a responsibility) to protect their own child and grandchild from the dangers of abortion? And does the abortionist have to wait for the girl to obtain counseling and be given other choices such as keeping the child or offering it to adoptive parents?
After the abortion, how healthy is she physically, emotionally, morally and spiritually?
Read the stats, folks. The “spin” on abortion has spiralled us down.
I agree with Wengraf 100%, but can the Berkeley City Council really *do* anything about a state measure, other than symbolically oppose it?