Opposition to Notification

• The League of Women Voters' objections to the proposition focused largely on the parental-notification mandate. Although parents want to be involved in their children's lives, said the league, they should be not legislated into good communication. Additionally, the group said the proposed amendment to the state constitution could force girls in troubled homes to seek risky illegal abortions rather than face their parents. Being informed is important but the safety of children is paramount, the league said.
  
  

Reasonable

• The Yes on 73 website says states with similar laws have seen a reduction in the rate of pregnancies and abortions for minors. It gives Pennsylvania and Virginia as examples. Supporters point out that parents must be notified before their children have their ears pierced or get a flu shot, so it is not unreasonable that the government insist upon notification of parents before an abortion. Additionally, proponents of the amendment said it would have improved family communication and decision-making.
  
  

Burden

• The American Civil Liberties Union saw Proposition 73 as an insidious piece of legislation that put a tremendous burden on teenage girls, the juvenile-justice system and doctors. The ACLU considered the proposed amendment's imposition of enhanced damages against doctors, and its language defining abortion as "the death of an unborn child, a child conceived but not yet born" to be attempts to undermine abortion rights in general in California. The civil-rights organization also said the proposition's move to make abortions a matter of public record would be a substantial invasion of privacy.
  
  

Family Support

• Because parents pay the costs of any complications or further medical treatment needed after an abortion, proponents of Proposition 73 said they should be notified before it takes place. In addition, proponents believed that parental involvement and support is necessary after a minor has an abortion.