For the second time in two years, I find myself working to defeat an unnecessary, unrealistic and unsafe proposition that would endanger California’s most vulnerable teens.

The proponents of Proposition 85 claim that by requiring parental notification before a minor obtains an abortion there will be fewer teen pregnancies, increased family communication and better reporting of abuse cases. The truth is that California has reduced teen pregnancy rates by 46 percent in the last 10 years without laws like this. That is something to be proud of — we’ve reduced teen pregnancy by almost half without any intrusive laws that put teens in danger.

We know that the real answer to reducing teen pregnancy is strong caring families and comprehensive sex education, including abstinence and access to contraception. We all know that laws can’t mandate family communication. In reality, the vast majority of teenagers involve their parents in abortion decisions already, but there is a good reason that some do not: They are frightened of being abused, scared of getting kicked out of the house or worse. Finally, reproductive health clinics do a fantastic job of reporting abuse cases, and as a former employee of Planned Parenthood Los Angeles, I take personal offense to any suggestion otherwise.

What disgusts me most about this proposition is its claim to promote teen safety. As many of us know, not every teenager can talk to their parents about sex. In the real world some teens live with violent or sexually abusive parents. Rather than involving these abusive parents and risking the loss of their family life, some teens will resort to dangerous self-induced or illegal back-alley abortions. Some will go out of state, some will go across the border, some will consider suicide, some will suffer serious injuries and some may die.

This is a reality that we must accept. These young women need counseling and they need access to safe, confidential medical care. This proposition gives none of these things to California’s most vulnerable teens. Instead it presents waiting periods, which delay access to care and increase medical risks. If the proponents of Proposition 85 were genuinely concerned about teen safety they would work to avoid teen pregnancy through comprehensive sexual education, promote family communication and fight against sexual and physical abuse. This law is not about making teens safe; it’s about restricting their access to safe, confidential, medical care. That is why every major medical organization in California, including the California Medical Association, the California Academy of Family Physicians and the American Academy of Pediatrics, opposes this proposition.

Some proponents argue that for those teens that do face abuse, there is a judicial bypass which will allow them access to care. Take a moment and think about this. You’re scared, you’re pregnant, you come from an abusive home and now you need to miss school, find your local juvenile courthouse, find a clerk, file a claim and tell a judge something you can’t even tell your parents. How many of you know where your local courthouse is? How many of you know how to file a claim? This is unrealistic and unfair.

I know that many people, particularly people our age, take for granted access to safe, legal abortions. But if we’ve learned anything in the last two years, it’s that our fundamental rights are being challenged. This proposition is backed by Traditional Values Coalition, Evangelicals for Social Action and Right to Life of Central California. These organizations are not quiet about the fact that their main objective is to make abortion illegal. Now is the time to worry. Now is the time to act. Vote No on 85. This is about the safety of young women and the protection of Choice.

Mishan Araujo, a junior majoring in public policy and Spanish, is the co-president of Stanford Students for Choice. She can be reached at maraujo@stanford.edu.