But a year can be a lifetime in politics. Don Sebastiani, a former California assemblyman, Sonoma winemaker, and one of the two major donors financing the Prop. 85 campaign, believes the political winds have changed dramatically in the past year. He expects this year’s initiative to pass.

“With the political environment last year, we were flying into headwinds,” Sebastiani said. “There was a feeling to vote ‘no’ on everything Arnold backed, and we got hit by the crossfire. This year, that's not the case. It looks like Schwarzenegger will definitely get re-elected… he is very sympathetic to our cause. Also, the turnout will be better.”

The passage of Proposition 85, entitled the “Parent’s Right to Know and Child Protection Initiative,” would amend California’s constitution to require that a parent or legal guardian of a girl under 18 be given written notice that the girl is pregnant and has requested an abortion. The restrictions do not apply if the minor is married, a member of the military, or already emancipated. In most cases, the girl has to wait for 48 hours before she can proceed with the abortion.

Exceptions to the law include the option for a parent to sign a written waiver, a physician’s finding that the abortion “is necessary due to a medical emergency,” and a “judicial bypass” that allows a Juvenile Court judge to waive parental notice.

Proposition 85 does not specifically address cases of rape or incest, but supporters say a minor could use the judicial bypass option in those circumstances.

If Proposition 85 passes, California will join 34 other states that currently require either parental notification or parental consent before a minor female can obtain an abortion. Oregon voters will decide a similar initiative this year.

Both this year and last, the proposed amendments have galvanized voters on both sides of the issue. Each side claims it has statistical data for its position, and each has a number of medical and religious leaders, newspaper endorsements, and celebrities supporting its stand on Proposition 85.

Supporters of Proposition 85 claim they are trying to restore parental rights that courts have eroded over the past two decades, and they just want to be involved in their daughters’ lives as they make major decisions about pregnancy and abortion.

Opponents claim that Proposition 85 is a poorly-disguised attempt to chip away at a woman’s right of privacy to terminate her pregnancy, which was first established in Roe v. Wade in 1973. They cite data that the great majority of pregnant minors already involve their parents when they get pregnant, and teens who don’t may come from violent or abusive homes.

Feeling caught in the crossfire, some Californians do not understand why this issue is on the ballot again just a year after the initiative was rejected 52.8% to 47.2%.

Michael Byrne, a staff member with the “Yes on 85” campaign, explained why supporters started working on the new initiative right after Proposition 73 failed. “We believe that the health and safety of our daughters is at stake. We didn’t want to waste any time in advancing legislation that will protect them.”

Between 1991 and 2000, the U. S. pregnancy rate for teenagers ages 15-17 declined more than 30%, and the rate of abortions for that age group decreased more than 36%, according to a 2005 brief by the Bixby Center for Reproductive Health Research & Policy.

For the same time period, California’s pregnancy rate for teenagers ages 15-17 decreased 46%, the second largest decline in the U. S. The abortion rate for California girls in that age group decreased approximately 50%, the study shows.

“Everything has been improving because California has good laws that protect confidentiality and encourages teens to come in and get services,” said Dr. Cynthia Kapphahn, the past president of the Northern California Chapter of the Society for Adolescent Medicine and a practicing physician in the Division of Adolescent Medicine at the Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford. She opposes Prop. 85.

“[Proposition 85] will just create more obstacles for teens who try to get services, and that is really going to be disastrous for them,” she said.

Supporters and opponents of Proposition 85 disagree about whether parental notification laws promote good family communication and whether other states’ laws lower the rates for teen pregnancies and abortions.

“If you set rules for your child, they won’t always come up to your expectations,” said Carol Hogan, the communications director for the California Catholic Conference. “But if they don’t have those rules, there’s no chance they will come up to your expectations.

“The very fact that a young woman knows that if she gets pregnant, her parents will know, has a ‘chilling effect’ on her sexual activity as a minor,” she said. “And that has been documented from studies in the other 30+ states that have parental involvement laws.”

Other religious groups disagree.

“The main issue for us – which is the safety of young women – caused us to oppose Prop. 85,” said The Rev. Dr. Rick Schlosser, Executive Director of the ecumenical group California Church Impact. “Basically, we support anything that will improve family communication, but [this initiative] doesn’t provide any mechanism to do that. All it does is put the onus on girls who have a tough decision to make. There is evidence in other states where legislation like this has passed that it has driven young girls to make really rash choices.”

In supporting their arguments for or against Proposition 85, proponents and opponents refer to data from other states that have parental notification laws.

Citing a Florida State University law professor’s 2005 study which found that teen gonorrhea rates dropped by an average of 20 percent for Hispanic girls and 12 percent for white girls in states where parental notification laws were in effect, Byrne said, “[The study shows that] girls are either not having sex, or they’re having safer sex. There’s an incentive factor here: The girl and her partner are more motivated not to engage in risky behavior.”

Opponents of Proposition 85 argue that most pregnant teens under 18 already involve at least one parent before they seek an abortion. The Bixby Center’s brief states that more than 90% of 14-year-olds, 74% of 15-year-olds, and 61% of 16- and 17-year-olds involved “at least one parent… in their decision.”

“We know from the data that teens don’t talk with their parents any more in states that have [parental notification] laws,” said Dr. Norma Jo Waxman, an associate professor of Family and Community Medicine at UCSF and a spokeswoman for Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health and the American Medical Women’s Association. “The differences were statistically insignificant.”

The real concern is for those teens who are estranged from their parents or live in a home where there is incest or domestic violence.

“We know that in this situation they’re very unlikely to turn to an abusive parent, and we want to make sure that rather than taking matters into their own hands – trying to self-induce an abortion or seeking an illegal abortion – that they actually receive quality medical counseling and the care that they need,” said Liz Haas, the Director of Communications for Planned Parenthood – Golden Gate.

Dr. Waxman objects to the fact that Proposition 85 does not permit a minor to turn to a relative or trusted adult for help in making important decisions about her pregnancy. She recalled a case she handled at Children’s Hospital Oakland in the early 90s. A woman brought her young, pregnant niece to the hospital. The girl’s mother was a crack addict, and the mother’s boyfriend – the man who impregnated the girl – had molested her for three years.

“If this law were in place, we would’ve had to tell the mother,” Waxman said. “As it was, the girl’s aunt was there to help her, we were able to refer her for an abortion, and the man was arrested and put behind bars. Who knows what would have happened if she’d had to tell her mother?”

Proponents of 85 think it is scandalous that minors can’t even get an aspirin from a school nurse without a parent’s permission, yet they can get an abortion. On the “Yes on 85” web site, a list of “Suggested Talking Points” states that “children under 18 can’t get an aspirin from the school nurse, a flu shot, have a tooth pulled… or go on school field trips without parental consent”, yet they can currently obtain an abortion without parental notification or consent.

Waxman said that is a specious argument. “It’s ludicrous to put aspirin and abortion in the same argument. One is a serious medical condition that needs to be dealt with safely – whether or not a teen can talk with her parent – and the other is a legal, over-the-counter medication that any teen can walk into a Walgreen’s and buy. The reason teens don’t get aspirin at school is because the schools are concerned about liability.

“Also, I’ve never heard of a teen being beaten or thrown out of her home because she asked for an aspirin or to go on a school field trip. These are two different realms, and it’s a ridiculous comparison.”

If Proposition 85 passes, there would be several ways to get around the requirement that a minor seek the permission of one of her parents. A doctor could declare that an abortion is necessary to save a pregnant woman’s life or that continuing the pregnancy would cause great bodily harm of some sort.

It’s unclear how physicians will interpret that exception if voters approve Proposition 85. If a minor advises her doctor that she will commit suicide if she cannot get an abortion without notifying her parents, does that meet the test for the exception?

“We probably won’t know how this comes out until and unless that situation arises and a doctor either does or does not perform [an abortion] without the notification being sent, and at that point it’s raised in a defensive posture,” said Mary-Beth Moylan, Assistant Director of Appellate Advocacy and law professor at University of the Pacific McGeorge School of Law. “This falls under the life-at-risk exception, and then the court makes a determination on a case-by-case basis.”

A second exception exists if a minor’s parent or guardian signs a notarized written waiver for the physician.

The third exception allows a minor to use a “judicial bypass” option. With this approach, a girl files a juvenile court petition and asks a judge to find that she is mature enough to make decisions about her pregnancy and that parental notification is not in her best interest. Proposition 85 waives a filing fee, requires that the minor’s identity be kept confidential and the court documents be sealed, and states that the girl is entitled to both a temporary guardian and an attorney. The court must hear and rule on the petition within three days.

Haas has concerns about whether the judicial bypass process will really help minors in cases where they can’t talk to their parents.

“First, how many teens can you realistically expect to navigate the court system? It’s complex and difficult even for adults,” she said.

“And second, what we’ve seen in other states is that judges who are anti-choice will not grant any waivers whatsoever. In some cases, we’ve heard about judicial
candidates campaigning on that fact – that they will never allow a teen to get an abortion without parental notification or consent. It’s going to depend on the judge you get.”

Byrne disagrees. “The [judicial bypass] process seems to be working well in many states. Five to 10 percent of girls seem to be making use of [it], and in some states Planned Parenthood has listed ways on their affiliate web sites as to how to navigate the judicial process. In others there are organizations that are dedicated to helping girls do this.”

Many supporters of Proposition 85 think that the judicial bypass procedure is the answer for pregnant teens who come from abusive homes. The initiative states that in any case in which the court finds evidence of “physical, sexual, or emotional abuse, the court must refer the evidence to the county child protection agency.”

Just as they disagree about every other issue pertaining to Proposition 85, supporters and opponents distrust the motives of those on the other side of the initiative.

Opponents of Proposition 85 believe that the supporters’ real agenda is to chip away at the right of California’s women to obtain a safe, legal abortion.

“The people who have put together this initiative are the more extreme right-to-lifers, and it’s potentially part of an overall strategy that they have to interfere with access to services,” said Dr. Kapphahn.

“I think we’ve got to question the motivation of a man, Jim Holman of San Diego, who would put $2.5 million of his own money into getting an initiative on the ballot, along with Don Sebastiani, who put $500,000 into this,” said Dr. Waxman. “What we know is that these are radical men opposed to abortion in all cases. They’re also opposed to sex education in the schools and contraception.”

Byrne denies that supporters of Proposition 85 have a hidden agenda.

“That’s not true,” said Byrne. “The final paragraph of initiative says: ‘Except for the rights, duties, privileges, conditions, and limitations specifically provided for in this Section, nothing in this Section shall be construed to grant, secure, or deny any other rights, duties, privileges, conditions, and limitations relating to abortion or the funding thereof.’”

Supporters claim that Planned Parenthood’s opposition to Proposition 85 is financially motivated.

In an online fundraising letter that bears the logo “Friends of GOPUSA” and says it is “[a] critical message from Don Sebastiani, Winemaker and former California State Assemblyman,” it states:

“Abortion is big business. Planned Parenthood and other abortionists will surrender huge sums if Prop 85 passes. But if Prop 85 goes down, the abortionists will pop champagne corks in celebration. It's that simple.”

“That’s ridiculous and insulting,” Dr. Waxman said. “Planned Parenthood provides excellent health care. Only about 6% of the services it provides in California are abortion-related.”

“Planned Parenthood opposes Prop. 85 because it puts teens in danger,” said Haas.