2008 California Proposition 4
# 2008 California Proposition 4

Elections in California :

Federal government

U.S. President

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

Dem

Rep

2000

Dem

Rep

2004

Dem

Rep

2008

Dem

Rep

2012

Dem

Rep

2016

Dem

Rep

2020

Dem

Rep

2024

Dem

Rep

U.S. Senate

1849

1850

1852 sp

1856

1857 sp

1860

1860 sp

1868

1872

1873

1873 sp

1878

1880

1885

1886 sp

1887

1891

1891 sp

1893

1895 sp

1897

1900 sp

1903

1905

1909

1911

1914

1916

1920

1922

1926

1928

1932

1934

1938

1940

1944

1946

1946 sp

1950

1952

1954 sp

1956

1958

1962

1964

1968

1970

1974

1976

1980

1982

1986

1988

1992

1992 sp

1994

1998

2000

2004

2006

2010

2012

2016

2018

2022

2022 sp

2024

2028

U.S. House of Representatives

1849

1851

1852

1854

1856

1859

1861

1863

1864

1867

1868

1871

1872

1875

1876

1879

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 sp

1948

1950

1952

1954

1956

1958

1960

1962

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1987

5th sp

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2001

32nd sp

2002

2004

2005

5th sp

48th sp

2006

50th sp

2007

36th sp

2008

12th sp

2009

10th sp

32nd sp

2010

2011

36th sp

2012

2014

2016

2017

34th sp

2018

2020

25th sp

2022

22nd sp

2024

30th

45th

47th

vte :

State government

Executive Governor

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

2021 (recall)

2022

2026

Lieutenant governor

1954

1958

1962

1966

1970

1974

1978

1982

1986

1990

1994

1998

2002

2006

2010

2014

2018

2022

Attorney general

1970

1974

1978

1982

1986

1990

1994

1998

2002

2006

2010

2014

2018

2022

Secretary of state

1970

1974

1978

1982

1986

1990

1994

1998

2002

2006

2010

2014

2018

2022

Treasurer

1994

1998

2002

2006

2010

2014

2018

2022

Controller

1994

1998

2002

2006

2010

2014

2018

2022

Insurance commissioner

1994

1998

2002

2006

2010

2014

2018

2022

Superintendent

1994

1998

2002

2006

2010

2014

2018

2022

Board of equalization

2018

2022

Legislature Senate

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

2022

2024

Special

Assembly

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

2021 (79th sp)

2022 (17th sp)

2024

Special

Judiciary Court of appeals

1994

1998

2002

2006

Elections by year

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2005

2006

2008

Feb

Jun

Nov

2009

2010

Jun

Nov

2012

Jun

Nov

2014

2016

2018

2020

2022

2024

vte :

State propositions

1910–1919

1911

4

7

8

1960–1969

1964

14

1970–1979

1978

6

8

13

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

2018

68

69

70

71

72

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

2020–2029

2020

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2022

1

26

27

28

29

30

31

Full listvte :

Los Angeles County

Los Angeles County Board of supervisors

1980

1996

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

2022

2024

Ballot measures

1980

A

2008

R

2012

B

J

2016

M

Elections

2020

2022

Los Angeles Mayor

1896

1898

1900

1902

1904

1906

1909 (sp)

1909

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

2017

2022

City attorney

2009

Ballot measures

1986

U

2017

S

Elections

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

2019 (sp)

2020

2022

2023 (sp)

2024

Long Beach Mayor

1994

1998

2002

2006

2010

2014

2018

2022

vte :

Orange County

Orange County Board of supervisors

2018

2020

2022

2024

District attorney

2018

Anaheim Mayor

2002

2006

2010

2014

2018

2022

Irvine Mayor

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

vte :

Sacramento

Mayor

2000

2004

2008

2012

2016

2020

2024

vte :

San Diego County

San Diego County Board of supervisors

2020

San Diego Mayor

1887

1889

1891

1893

1895

1897

1899

1901

1903

1905

1907

1909

1911

1913

1915

1917

1919

1921

1923

1925

1927

1929

1931

1932

1935

1939

1943

1947

1951

1955

1959

1963

1967

1971

1975

1979

1983 (sp)

1984

1986 (sp)

1988

1992

1996

2000

2004

2005 (sp)

2008

2012

2013–14 (sp)

2016

2020

2024

City attorney

2004

2008

2012

2016

2020

City council

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

Special

vte :

San Francisco

Mayor

1959

1963

1967

1971

1975

1979

1983 (recall)

1983

1987

1991

1995

1999

2003

2007

2011

2015

2018 (sp)

2019

2024

District attorney

2019

2022 (recall)

2022 (sp)

2024

Board of supervisors

1977

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

2022

Board of education

2018

2022 (recall)

Elections

2004

Mar

Nov

2005

2006

Jun

Nov

2007

2008

Feb

Jun

Nov

2009

2010

Jun

Nov

2011

2012

Jun

Nov

2013

2022

Feb

vte :

San Jose

Mayor

1974

1978

1982

1986

1990

1994

1998

2002

2006

2010

2014

2018

2022

vte :

Other localities

Bakersfield

Mayoral elections:

2004

2008

2012

2016

2020

Fresno

Mayoral elections:

1996

2000

2004

2008

2012

2016

2020

Oakland

Mayoral elections:

1994

1998

2002

2006

2010

2014

2018

2022

Riverside

Mayoral elections

San Bernardino

Mayoral elections:

2005

2009

2014

2018

2022

Stockton

Mayoral elections:

2008

2012

2016

2020

vte :

vte :

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 in the 2008 California general election.

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.

## Supporters

* The Friends of Sarah, the Parental or Alternative Family Member Notification Act. is the official ballot committee.
* Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger

### 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.
* 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.

### 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.)
* Don Sebastiani, $530,000.
* 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.

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.

| Year | Proposition | Votes for | % for | Votes against | % against |
| - | - | - | - | - | - |
| 2005 | Prop 73 | 3,676,592 | 47.2% | 4,109,430 | 52.8% |
| 2006 | Prop 85 | 3,868,714 | 45.8% | 4,576,128 | 54.2% |
| 2008 | Prop 4 | 4,761,465 | 48.0% | 5,157,174 | 52.0% |

## 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

### 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.

### Consultants

The No on 4 campaign has hired the Dewey Square Group as a consultant.

### 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.

## 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 common-law 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.

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.

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.

| Month of Poll | In Favor | Opposed | Undecided |
| - | - | - | - |
| July 2008 | 48 percent | 39 percent | 13 percent |
| August 2008 | 47 percent | 44 percent | 9 percent |
| September 2008 | 49 percent | 41 percent | 10 percent |
| October 2008 | 45 percent | 43 percent | 12 percent |

## Newspaper endorsements

### Editorial boards in favor

* San Diego Union Tribune
* Orange County Register

### Editorial boards opposed

* Los Angeles Times
* San Francisco Chronicle

## 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 |||
