While Prop. 73 seems innocent on its face (notify parents if a minor seeks an abortion), it’s actually a stealth attempt to outlaw abortion in California and further reduce privacy rights for everyone.

Legally, the U.S. Supreme Court held in 1972 that a woman’s choice to stop her pregnancy in the first trimester is a choice she makes, not the state. The court expanded on the right to privacy. It found that privacy encompasses not only the right to use contraceptives, but also includes the choice to terminate a pregnancy in the first trimester.

The court drew an important distinction about the state’s interest in the “life” of the child. The court indicated that the state’s interest in protecting the fetus does not kick in until the point of viability. In short, it means the time at which the fetus can live outside the mother’s womb without her support, and that’s beyond the first trimester.

In the 30-plus years that have elapsed since Roe v. Wade, pro-life groups, like those pushing Prop. 73, have tried to change the definition as to when the state has an interest in protecting the “life of a child.”

They suggest that life begins at “conception.” And, with the stem-cell controversy, they have suggested that sperm and eggs, even separated, constitute “emerging human life.” So it’s not surprising that the right-to-lifers behind Prop. 73 want to write into the California Constitution that abortion means causing “death of the unborn child, a child conceived but not yet born.”

What this means is that California law would recognize that a fertilized egg would be an unborn child. Given that definition, pro-lifers would then be able to go to court to claim that abortion is murder of an “unborn child.” They would equate physicians who perform abortion in the first trimester with mass murderers. Of course, that is their mantra, so this should be no surprise.

And, of course, the proponents don’t want you to know the legal significance of the words they choose for the law. Rather, they highlight that this law would just require doctors to notify parents 48 hours prior to the procedure. Oh, the parents of the minor could sign a waiver of the 48 hours of reflection, but that form would have to be notarized.

As the law stands now, California law allows minors to obtain an abortion without parental notice or consent. It allows minors to leave school, without parental notice, to obtain “confidential medical services.”

This law would change that. Parental “notice” really equates to parental “consent.” If conservative parents know a minor is going to have an abortion, the parents may seek a court order to prevent it. The parents could potentially abuse the young woman and perhaps coerce her into not having an abortion.

But the proponents argue that there are safeguards because a minor can go to court and get a court order to waive the notice. The judge can waive notice if the judge finds that the minor is mature and capable of deciding to have an abortion.

Two problems have now arisen in this area. One, judges in Texas often find that many young women are not mature or understand abortion sufficiently. President Bush’s nominee to the Supreme Court of Texas, Priscilla Owen, was one who upholds denials of the waiver even in cases of rape. And, of course, that’s just what the right would like: to make the waiver an impossibility. The second problem now is that some judges recuse themselves from hearing such waiver petitions because they have “moral objections” to abortion. As a practical matter, if the judge is the only judge in town, the minor will not get a hearing on her petition. And, again, this is what the right wing wants.

They also want doctors to submit reports to the state about minors and abortions. And what will these public documents be used for? This will keep a public record of the doctors who perform abortions on minors. And you can imagine what some militant pro-lifers would do with this. Yes, end the lives of those doctors.

So what is the right-wing agenda here? Well, it’s the same mantra: “No sex outside of heterosexual marriage.” They lie about the effectiveness of condoms, even to the point of suggesting they don’t work and can lead to STDs. Thus, practice abstinence before marriage. They lobby the FDA to make Plan B (a progestin-only emergency contraceptive) unavailable for minors over the counter. So, if a minor does have intercourse, now she can’t prevent the pregnancy because she can’t access Plan B without a doctor’s prescription. How about chastity belts?