We have written a response to submit to the paper we saw it in and any others we find, but the problem is that this is a syndicated column that appears in papers all over the state so it is going to be very hard to catch up with them all.

This is a job for YES on 4 bloggers and e-commenters. We need to get
the word out fast that this guy is a LIAR. There are no "studies" no
 "case histories," he is just making this stuff up. You can't even
think that maybe he is just repeating what PP told him, because PP has
never made claims this outrageous.

Here is a response written by Katie Short, one of the authors of Prop 4:

 

In warning his readers about Proposition 4, the parental notification initiative, Tom Elias makes some bold assertions about "case histories" showing girls getting back alley abortions or self-aborting when faced with the prospect of a parent being notified. His claims are pure, unadulterated fiction. There are no case histories, no studies, no support at all for his oh-so-scientific sounding proclamations. The opponents of Prop 4 are unable to point to a single case of a minor being harmed by a parental involvement law. But with "journalists" like Mr. Elias around to fabricate this stuff, why would they need facts or evidence? It's in the newspaper; it must be true.

If Mr. Elias has any integrity, he will put up or shut up. Show us the "case histories" and the "studies" indicating "the percentage of back- alley abortions goes up" with notification laws, or admit he made it all up. Not even Planned Parenthood, the main opposition to Proposition 4, has made claims as wild as these.

Moving from full lies to half-lies, Mr. Elias states that, under Prop 4, a minor from an abusive home could only get a waiver to tell another adult family member if there was a "formal record" or "formal history" of abuse by a parent. That's incorrect.
Prop 4 allows the doctor to notify another adult family member in place of a parent whenever a girl states in writing that she has been the victim of abuse by either parent. The doctor then follows the same notification procedure for the adult relative that would have been followed for the parent, and the abortion may take place within days.

At the same time, the doctor reports the abusive situation to the proper child welfare authorities, so that the girl can receive the help she needs.
Compare what happens to Mr. Elias's hypothetical Susie, beaten regularly by her abusive father, with and without Prop 4. Without Prop 4, she gets a secret abortion and returns home to the same abusive situation, living in constant fear that her father will find out anyway. With Prop 4, she can still have the abortion if she chooses, but she is finally put in contact with adults outside her immediate family who will help her out of this dangerous situation.

And suppose Susie wasn't impregnated by "young Jason," but, because of the abusive situation at home, had turned to an older man, ready and willing to provide her the "affection" she was lacking at home.

Without Prop 4, she gets a secret abortion and returns not only to her abusive home, but to an exploitive relationship, putting her at risk of further pregnancies and abortions, not to mention the variety of sexually transmitted diseases which randy older men are more likely to carry and spread. With Prop 4, there is both someone in her family and someone trained to deal with sexual exploitation of minors to help her break free.

But suppose, as Mr. Elias says, the older man was her stepfather. 
Wait: we don't have to hypothesize. We know exactly how it works without Prop 4 in place. A recent California Supreme Court decision related how a 39-year-old man impregnated his 13-year-old stepdaughter. He took her to Planned Parenthood twice and then to San Francisco General for a late-term abortion. No medical provider reported the abuse, and the man continued to molest this young girl for seven more months after the abortion until her mother found out and turned him in.

 

This is the status quo Mr. Elias wants to preserve?

Over 30 states, both red and blue, have parental involvement laws in place that are protecting young girls. California voters should provide the same protection to vulnerable girls in our own state by voting Yes on 4.