A breach of civil liberties?

With courts in states such as Michigan, Arizona, and Idaho striking down abortion bans within these past few months, California's latest abortion initiative, Prop 73, seems a peculiar and unique piece of legislation to surface in the political arena. One of the major issues that have been raised in this ongoing fight is simply the question of women's rights - especially a minor's rights - and their rights to privacy. Currently, California law does not require minors to notify or consult their parents should she decide to get an abortion. In fact, according to Pro-Choice California:

The California Supreme Court has already ruled that parental notification laws are unconstitutional because they violate young women’s right to privacy and threaten their health.

Many feel that Prop 73 serves only to restrict women in their right to choose to have an abortion. Under this initiative, the minor in question would have to not only notify her parents about her abortion, but also wait forty-eight hours after said notification before proceeding with the abortion. Such a delay upon the abortive process may not only serve as an impingement on the minor's right to choose but even an endangerment to her safety.

In what ways and to what extent does a minor maintain rights, however? Minors are required to notify and/or gain the permission of their parents before proceeding with a variety of events, whether getting piercings, receiving tattoos, or even watching R-rated films in school. If a minor is restricted from the "freedom" of choice with such "smaller" issues involving her body, how is it justified that she have the freedom to engage in an abortion, a process potentially more harmful and with greater psychological implications than a tattoo or piercing? As much as we might wish, minors do not have all of the same rights available to them as do adults, and the very serious matter of abortion can arguably fall under the same category as do drinking, driving, voting, and, yes, tattooing.