Oregon voters have a history of rejecting ballot measures designed to restrict abortions, stopping initiatives in 1986 and 1990.
Supporters of Measure 43, which would require doctors of girls ages 15 to 17 to notify girls’ parents before providing them with abortions, hope to buck that trend. They say teenage girls aren’t mature enough to handle lasting effects of abortions without parental support and believe that Measure 43 would protect girls and their parents.
But they face opposition from groups that say the measure would infringe on the sexual, medical and privacy rights of teenage girls.
Measure 43 qualified for the November ballot after the Committee to Protect our Teenage Daughters, an organization endorsed by the Oregon Republican Party, submitted enough proponents’ signatures.
Oregon law currently allows teens ages 15 and older the right to privately seek most medical procedures, including dental and hospital care, HIV testing and abortion.
If passed, the measure would require medical providers to provide parents with written notice by certified mail at least 48 hours before performing abortions on 15- to 17-year-old girls. Doctors who fail to comply would be civilly liable and possibly subject to suspension, revocation or denial of license by the Oregon Board of Medical Examiners.
As of July 2006, laws in 44 states required some form of parental notification or consent for teenage abortions.
A recent poll conducted by The Oregonian indicated that 56 percent of voters support the measure.
Yes on 43 campaign manager Sarah Nashif said the measure would act as a support system for girls to ensure that they have the necessary parental guidance when faced with teenage pregnancy.
“We don’t want girls to be left ashamed,” Nashif said. “It’s unfair to parents to not let them know what’s happening.”
Nashif said girls’ boyfriends often abandon them after learning of an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy.
Proponents of the measure are hopeful their campaign will succeed because it includes personal stories from Oregon girls affected by teenage abortions. The campaign’s Web site features narratives detailing girls’ experiences undergoing “secret abortions.”
A young woman identified only as Felicia is the face of Yes on 43. On the Web site, Felicia, a student at Portland State University, tells a story of becoming pregnant without her parents’ knowledge and how her boyfriend pressured her into seeking an abortion.
Felicia says that a nurse at the abortion clinic handed her two blue pills that made her feel “a Jell-O sensation” when she attempted to stand on her feet to undress.
“I was really weak,” Felicia says on the Web site. “So basically they both scooped me up from under my arms and we started walking down the hallway. At this point I really didn’t know what was going on. I didn’t really question it, either.”
The committee also argues that Oregon law prohibits teenage girls from many routine activities, such as using tanning booths, watching R-rated films and getting tattoos and piercings – but not abortion.
University freshman Jackie Mroz, a member of the Facebook group Yes on 43, said teenagers must even have parental permission for “films played in the classroom with a rating over PG.”
“But in Oregon, abortion is another story,” Mroz said.
Vote No on 43 campaign spokeswoman Kellie DeVore said that the measure puts female teens’ health in jeopardy because doctors already have the discretion to communicate with parents.
“Studies show over and over again that if you impede teens’ access to medical care, they stop seeking it,” DeVore said. “Passing this measure would result in more illegal abortions.”
She added that, overall, the measure might sound reasonable to voters at first because it supports communication among families. But “it’s probably too late to start building trust” when a mother receives word that her daughter wants an abortion, she said.
University Students for Choice director Jasmine Zimmer-Stucky agreed, saying that family communication cannot be forced or governed.
Proponents of the measure, however, said that since the bill requires notification – not consent – it would only facilitate the abortion process, not infringe upon teenagers’ sexual rights.
Another contentious point centers on how the measure would affect teenage girls who become pregnant from incest or abuse.
Nashif said a simple legal bypass process would allow a girl to inform an administrative judge in the Oregon Health Department, who would then decide to overrule the notification requirement if it’s in the girl’s best interest.
DeVore, however, called the process a “bureaucratic maze of a bypass procedure.”
Zimmer-Stucky said the measure falsely implies protection for these particular cases of young women.
“Having a notification letter sent to the household of a young woman in an abusive or incestuous home puts the state’s most vulnerable teens at risk,” Zimmer-Stucky said. “The judicial bypass option is time-consuming and complicated. Forcing teens to navigate through an overworked bureaucratic system adds unnecessary stress to an already emotional experience.”
University student and College Republicans Vice Chairman Sean Gremer said that while he would rather see abortion completely outlawed, abortion laws should include leeway for victims of sexual abuse.
“It is my belief that the abortion process is completely tort and needs to be reformed in such a manner that abortions should be illegal with few exceptions such as rape victims,” Gremer said.
Contact the crime, health and safety reporter at [email protected]