Speaking for all students?

ASUC Senate says “No” on parental notification initiative

By Michael Klein and Patrick Humphreys
From the November 2005 Print Edition

As another California special election approaches, the Associated Students of the University of California will again choose to assert its position on a highly controversial statewide ballot measure. Per the ASUC Senate meeting of September 14, Senate Bill 33 was ratified unanimously. This bill, authored by Taylor Allbright and Becca Cramer of the No on 73 Coalition at UC Berkeley, will require ASUC President Manny Buenrostro to send to the Campaign for Teen Safety a No on Proposition 73 endorsement form. The ASUC has declared its stance, as a representative body of the UC Berkeley campus, in opposition of Proposition 73.

Included in the text of the bill is language that opposes Proposition 73, a bill proposing a waiting period and parental notification before the termination of a minor’s pregnancy. The bill’s opposition rests largely on the authors’ perception that Proposition 73, if passed, would threaten the safety of minors requiring abortions. Suggesting that minors may be fearful of notifying their parents, or that the court appeals process for a waiver might be too intimidating, the bill emphasizes the need to oppose parental notification so that “if — FOR WHATEVER REASON — our sisters, neighbors, and friends cannot or will not go to their parents, they should still be guaranteed safe, professional, medical attention from caring doctors and nurses.”

When contacted about the terms of the bill, Allbright elaborated on its intent to require the ASUC to endorse a “no” vote on Proposition 73, and also claimed that it remained in accordance with ASUC by-laws. She admitted that some ASUC officials did indeed motion to consider the legality of the bill, despite her own confidence in its lawfulness. As a signatory to the National Organization for Women, Allbright mentioned the group’s importance to her campaign. This significance, she remarked, is due to NOW’s spearheading of the No on 73 Coalition and its participation in the ASUC voter registration drive, “which is non-partisan but nevertheless important for our campaign.”

Given the previous illegal earmarking of funds for Proposition 54 in 2003 by the ASUC, Judicial Council Chair Bobby Gregg maintains that this endorsement will not have any illegal funding attached. “This is a symbolic bill without any backing or enforcement,” says Gregg. Further, he explains, the senate can pass a symbolic bill but cannot spend public money to take a stance on initiatives.

Another requirement of this bill is that the ASUC’s planned 2005 special election voter guide contains the phrase, “the ASUC opposes Proposition 73.” Sharon Han, vice president of the ASUC Office of External Affairs holds that the endorsement “does not mean that the Office of External Affairs will do any legislative advocacy on the issue. My office maintains its non-partisanship.”

Alan Lightfeldt, chief of staff for the ASUC Office of External Affairs, comments briefly on the ASUC’s recent endorsement of the No on Proposition 73 campaign and on the supposedly upcoming voter guide published through the same Office of External Affairs. Lightfeldt, in accordance with Han, clarifies that the endorsement does not require or obligate that the office do anything in response to this bill.

In regards to the voter guide, Lightfeldt expresses his hesitancy as to its publication for want of assuring complete objectivity in the language. According to Lightfeldt, the publication of the voter guide is at best very tentative, in light of the bill’s clause that mandates the phrase, “the ASUC opposes Proposition 73.”

Lightfeldt says the language covering the descriptions of the propositions in the ASUC voter guide will not stray from that used by the Secretary of State in the official California voter guide. For this matter, says Lightfeldt, “the Secretary of State’s language is the best to use.” As for the arguments in favor and against the propositions, the Office of External Affairs would turn to student groups for their opinions. “Although the goal is to have a varied pool of information,” remarks Lightfeldt, “the difficulty is finding student groups that would be for the propositions.”

One alternative source they can turn to is the Berkeley Students for Life. The club is currently focusing its effort on handing out fliers, but it plans to expand its efforts as the November 8 special election draws near. As with all of their efforts, BSL is anticipating opposition to their support of Proposition 73, the ASUC included. Most of BSL’s public events and outreach face opposition from pro-choice students on campus. Several of the speakers that BSL has presented have faced large and organized protests put on by opposing student groups.

According to Annie Bowman, the Berkeley Students for Life coordinator for Proposition 73 efforts, “Pro-choice means having more than one option when it comes to abortion.” Bowman feels that this initiative gives minors several choices other than abortion, and that it works to establish a positive form of communication between daughters and parents. In regards to claims by critics that young girls may be subject to harm from abusive parents or relatives, Bowman counters that minor girls have the right to obtain a waiver from a judge if they feel threatened by the notification of their families. Bowman stresses that the initiative is “asking for notification, not consent.”

With the creation of an ASUC voter guide, the challenge to the student government is objectivity. By inserting the endorsement of the No on 73 campaign into the voter guide, the ASUC will need to find ways to balance this view with one from proponents of Proposition 73 on the UC Berkeley campus.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot