Julia Springer/Guest Commentary

Sometimes what appears to be a good idea is not a good idea at all but instead opens the door to unintended consequences.

Proposition 85, on the ballot this November, may seem like an innocent appeal to parents to protect their teens but in reality this dangerous initiative put the lives of California/s most vulnerable teens at risk.

Last year California voters turned down an all-but-identical measure, Proposition 73, with a resounding &#8220no.C Now, just a year later, the same supporters of that initiative are back with another constitutional amendment, which if passed, will have dire consequences for many young women.

Parents who have good communication with their teens will, no doubt, at first embrace this proposition but I am encouraging them to look beyond their own backyards. Taken at face value, parents having the right to know if their daughter is considering having an abortion may sound like a good idea. But in the real world, some teen-agers live in dangerous homes.

Some parents are violent or sexually abuse their daughters. These teens can/t go to their parents.

Proposition 85 forces those vulnerable teens to delay critical medical care or turn to self-induced or illegal back-alley abortions. Some will go across the border, some will consider suicide and some will suffer serious injuries or even die.

The alternative offered to these young women by Proposition 85, judicial bypass, is not a real-world alternative. Imagine a frightened, vulnerable teen trying to negotiate her way through a complicated and overcrowded court system in a situation where time is of the essence.

In fact, the state/s Juvenile Court judges last November recommended that the California Judges Association take a stand against Proposition 73, the predecessor of Proposition 85, saying the measure regarding parental notification for a minor/s abortion &#8220would impose substantial burdensC on an &#8220already overburdened court system.C

The real answer to teen pregnancy is caring families and good parent/child communication. Proposition 85 is a misguided attempt to mandate this parent/child communication and no law can force families to communicate.

Parent/child communication doesn/t begin at 14 or 16. It begins at birth and is nurtured as the child grows older. The reality is that most women under the age of 18 do involve a parent or another family member, counselor or older family friend when seeking an abortion. Those who do not, generally have good reason.

Don/t be fooled by rhetoric. The backers of Proposition 85 would have you believe this proposition will reduce the number of teen pregnancies and abortions in California. Well, I have news for them. In the last 10 years, teen pregnancy has declined by 40 percent in California, more than any other state.

This decline is largely attributed to accurate sexuality education, abstinence and access to contraception. No constitutional amendment was necessary. Studies show that as unwanted pregnancies go down, so does the abortion rate.

Proposition 85 is not what it appears to be. Not only does it pose a threat to teens, it is part of a larger strategy to chip away at legalized abortion in the United States. Supporters of Proposition 85, including the Traditional Values Coalition, Evangelicals for Social Action, and Right to Life of Central California, are the same people who want to overturn Roe v. Wade and ban all abortions.

This is not about parental rights. This is about their political agenda.

Instead, join with the doctors, nurses and teachers, including the California Medical Association, the California Nurses Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the California Academy of Family Physicians, the California Teachers Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and strongly oppose Proposition 85.

Vote &#8220noC on Proposition 85. Protect all teens 7 don/t open the door to unintended consequences.

Julia Springer is chairperson of the Board of Directors of the Planned Parenthood of Santa Barbara, Ventura and San Luis Obispo counties.

Aug. 27, 2006