Family affairs

“Do the right thing,” your mother told you, but following her sound — albeit vague — advice becomes increasingly difficult when, in a five-minute stroll through any of Pasadena’s residential neighborhoods, you are bombarded with a barrage of posters urging you to vote either “Yes” or “No” on Propositions 4 and 8.

Almost as ubiquitous as signage for Obama or McCain, these signs — posted either to persuade or dissuade you from voting in favor of limiting abortion or marriage rights, respectively — may confound your notion of “the right thing” with ethereal political catch phrases such as “right to life” and “right to choose.”

It’s no wonder that Tuesday’s ballot Propositions 4 and 8 have earned such widespread attention — any law that affects what goes on between the sheets or underneath a hospital gown is inherently personal, but it is undeniable that both propositions carry weighty political implications as well. 

Proposition 4, or “Sarah’s Law,” would change the California Constitution by requiring that a minor’s parent or legal guardian be notified at least 48 hours before a physician can perform an abortion. Advocates argue that 15-year-old “Sarah,” who died from an infection relating to a secret abortion, could have been saved, had her parents assured that she receive competent care. Propositions such as “Sarah’s Law” have appeared frequently on the ballot since a 1987 law limiting minors’ access to abortions was struck down in court after 10 years.

Opponents — the most visible being Planned Parenthood — argue that while parental notification laws may seem ideal, Proposition 4 is truly a conservative measure that puts teenagers’ health at risk. 

“One of the main focuses of Planned Parenthood is education and fostering communication among families,” said Pamela Pitts, Pasadena and the San Gabriel Valley’s Planned Parenthood’s public affairs director. “As an aunt of 10, I would most certainly hope that any of my nieces would talk to me or a parent in a desperate situation, but I know that we don’t live in an ideal world and that Proposition 4 actually puts teens at risk by making them more likely to seek out illegal and unsafe abortions.”

Proposition 4 proponents vehemently refute this argument. “In the real world what happens is that parental involvement lowers the number of abortions, teen pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases contracted. Thirty-four states already have such laws and have proven these statements to be true,” said Aldin Rhomberg, a spokesperson for the Yes on 4 Campaign. “Planned Parenthood acts like drug dealers pushing illegal drugs. They are providing abortions — their product — and regardless of safety they want to protect the availability of that product.”

Proposition 8, the second privacy issue on Tuesday’s ballot, amends the state constitution to eliminate a same-sex couple’s right to marry. Proponents argue that 61 percent of California voters approved the statement that “Only marriage between a man and woman is valid,” and now desire to restore state law to define the sanctity of marriage as a right restricted to heterosexual couples.

The dominant public selling point of Proposition 8, however, has less to do with privacy than the purported effects gay-marriage rights have on the public sphere. Proponents of the amendment argue that the legality of gay marriage is now being taught in public schools — which they say undermines family values.

However, in a state-wide television commercial, State Superintendent of Education Jack O’Connell has explicitly stated that the teaching of gay marriage is not part of any state curriculum. 

The official Web site for Proposition 8 backers, www.protectmarriage.com, emphasizes photographs of school children, citing that gay marriage “has everything to do with schools.”

“Making the argument for Proposition 8 focus on schools is an effective political strategy that brings the issue of gay marriage home for everybody,” said John Pitney, a government professor at Claremont McKenna College. “Once gay marriage becomes an issue that affects all households with children it becomes a different story.”

Opponents — namely the American Civil Liberties Union — believe that Proposition 8 “dehumanizes marriage” and promotes sexual prejudice and homophobia.

Corrie Planck, a spokesperson for No on Prop 8, said “This amendment is a fundamental violation of civil liberties — which is not Californian — and just wrong.”