Dr. Connie Mitchell is a nationally recognized expert on the health care of victims of violence and abuse. She serves on the AMA National Advisory Council on Violence and Abuse and is a member of the Board of Directors of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health. This is another in a series of posts looking at the ballot initiative in California.

Last week, I read an opinion piece in the Sacramento Bee from a doctor who supports parental notification legislation. In his op-ed, Dr. John Gisla argued that Proposition 85 is "simple, common sense legislation." I completely disagree. Prop. 85 is neither simple nor common sense, nor is it necessary. Let's look at the facts.

It is not simple for a frightened young woman to seek a judicial bypass. A study in Pennsylvania on impact of parental consent found that only eight of 60 court districts provided complete information to teens asking about judicial bypass. It is not common sense to delay urgent health care decisions by up to two weeks for court hearings and appeals, potentially taking a safe first trimester procedure to one in the second trimester which has more health risks.

Dr. Gisla tries to make judicial bypass sound helpful by noting that "the judge would report evidence of abuse to child protective authorities." What Dr. Gisla fails to mention is that doctors in California are already required to report to law enforcement any sexual activity of a minor that they suspect is abusive, coercive, or involves concerning age disparities. There is no need for Prop. 85's additional reporting requirements and documentation bureaucracy.

Dr. Gisla also states that "there is no evidence that any girl in a state with a parental involvement law… has suffered any harm because of these laws." Really? What about Spring Adams who was cited in testimony to the House of Representatives? Her father killed her when he learned she planned to end the pregnancy that resulted from his incest. Or how about Becky Bell, an Indiana teen who died of complications from an illegal abortion she had to avoid telling her parents she was pregnant? Her parents spoke out on "60 Minutes" about their change of opinion on parental notification laws and now want them repealed nationwide.

As a doctor, I know how Prop. 85 will really affect teens in California. I've spent many hours working with teens, and I always encourage them to talk with their parents about their health concerns. I know that this holds true for all of my physician colleagues. The majority of teens already involve their parents in the decision to have an abortion, a fact that proponents of this initiative conveniently ignore. But those teens that don't want to, for whatever reason, will delay care, delay counseling, increase their own personal health risk and increase the risk of poorer pregnancy outcomes should they decide to continue the pregnancy to term.

I agree with Dr. Gisla when he wrote, "No law can mandate communication between a girl and her parents." I'm a mother of two teens, and I talk to them every day about the issues and values that are important to our family. Of course I'd want them to come to me with any important medical decision. Of course I would want them to know that I love them when they learn both in triumph and in tribulation. But above all, I want them to be safe and their wellbeing supersedes my "need to know."

I'm voting NO on 85 on November 7th because as a doctor and a mother, I don't need a law that:

• adds another barrier to accessing needed health care
• expands the healthcare bureaucracy
• does not apply to most patients and their families
• could endanger the health and well being of some of our most vulnerable teens.