October 4, 2006
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Albin Rhomberg at (916) 421-5732

Voter Information Guides on their way to Californians -- with some important changes

Judge rules anti-85 ballot language “false and misleading” and orders it removed

Between Sept. 28 and Oct. 17, the California Secretary of State will be mailing the official Voter Information Guide to all registered voters, but with changes ordered by a superior court judge, who ruled that language used by opponents of Proposition 85 in ballot arguments against the measure is so misleading that it must be stricken from the pamphlet.

Among several points of contention argued before Judge Patrick Marlette in Sacramento Superior Court was whether Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers, by providing secret abortions to minors, are protecting child predators by failing to report sexual abuse, as required by law. Proponents of Proposition 85 forcefully argue that position in their ballot statements, but opponents sought to refute the claim by using what the judge called “false or misleading” language.

Judge Marlette ordered the following phrase used by opponents of the proposition stricken from the ballot pamphlet: “the U.S. Inspector General recently found this accusation just plain false.”

First of all, said the judge, using the title “U.S. Inspector General” was deliberately misleading because, in fact, “the subject memorandum was written by an Assistant Inspector General within one governmental agency, the Department of Health and Human Services. The language used in the argument implies that the finding was made by the overall Inspector General for the entire government, a higher authority than an assistant inspector general, or even the Office of Inspector General contained within a given department, and is thus false and misleading.”

Second, said the judge, opponents of Proposition 85 were unfairly trying to lead voters to believe that abortion providers like Planned Parenthood had been cleared of violating laws requiring them to report the sexual abuse of minors. “The challenged language implies that the ‘inspector general’ specifically investigated charges regarding the violation of state reporting requirements and found that such violations had not occurred in any case,” Judge Marlette said in his ruling. “The Court has reviewed the entire memorandum, and that is not what it says.”

The judge also found that opponents falsely claimed in their argument against the measure that all medical professionals oppose Proposition 85. Judge Marlette said: “It is false to state that all doctors and nurses strongly oppose the proposition.”

On the other hand, Judge Marlette let stand language in favor of the initiative that states: “Investigations have shown that secret abortions on minors in California are rarely reported to child protective services although these pregnancies are evidence of statutory rape or sexual abuse. This leaves these girls vulnerable to further sexual abuse, rapes, pregnancies, abortions, and sexually transmitted diseases.”

The judge said that opponents of Proposition 85 had not demonstrated that there had been no such investigations, that the actual findings of the “Inspector General” did not support the opponents’ position, and “the fact that some teenage pregnancies may not be evidence of statutory rape or sexual abuse because, for example, they are the result of consensual relations between persons of similar age, as petitioners argue, does not make the challenged statement false or misleading. The statement must be read as referring to unreported abortions on certain pregnant minors that have been revealed through investigations, rather than to all teenage pregnancies.”

The judge also ruled that he would not strike the following language in favor of Proposition 85: “Many abortion providers choose not to report sexual abuse, abandoning these girls to further sexual abuse.”

“Petitioners have not established by clear and convincing proof that this statement is false or misleading. Petitioners, in effect, assert that there are no abortion providers who choose not to report sexual abuse. There is no admissible evidence before the Court that establishes this proposition.”

Both sides had lodged complaints with Judge Marlette over arguments and rebuttals in favor of and against Proposition 85, which would amend the state constitution to require that parents be notified before a minor undergoes an abortion. The judge found in favor of backers of the initiative in several instances, while dismissing in their entirety challenges by the measure’s opponents.

The rulings were issued Aug. 11 in Department 19 of Sacramento County Superior Court.