After the fact: California election, Prop 73

[Amadeus]

Originally Posted by achilleus

It's a fetus, not a child. That's an important distinction to make. And it's not about the fetus' right, but the right of the pregnant woman/girl to govern her own body....

i agree with you completely. I was trying to explain the situation from an anti-abortion standpoint, as they usually consider the life of the "child" to be their primary reasoning.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

This is the text found at:

http://www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/prop..._summary.shtml

-Excerpt starts-
OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY
Prepared by the Attorney General
_spacer

PROPOSITION 73

WAITING PERIOD AND PARENTAL NOTIFICATION BEFORE TERMINATION OF MINOR'S PREGNANCY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

* Amends California Constitution, prohibiting abortion for unemancipated minor until 48 hours after physician notifies minor's parent/legal guardian, except in medical emergency or with parental waiver.
* Defines abortion as causing "death of the unborn child, a child conceived but not yet born."
* Permits minor to obtain court order waiving notice based on clear, convincing evidence of minor's maturity or best interests.
* Mandates various reporting requirements.
* Authorizes monetary damages against physicians for violation.
* Requires minor's consent to abortion, with certain exceptions.
* Permits judicial relief if minor's consent coerced.

SUMMARY OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S ESTIMATE OF NET STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FISCAL IMPACT:

* Potential unknown net state costs of several million dollars annually for health and social services programs, the courts, and state administration combined.
-Excerpt ends-

There is also a link to the total law on that site. It is a .pdf document, 2 pages of dense legalese.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

The proposition failed - 52.6% voting no. Full results are here:

http://vote2005.ss.ca.gov/Returns/prop/00.htm

In a map linked from that page one can see that it failed in the coastal CA counties, and especially so around the SF bay. My guess is that it pretty well followed GOP-DEM voting majorities, and that a big majority of voters followed a GOP-yes/DEM-no pattern.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Hi!

The proposition failed - 52.6% voting no. Full results are here:

http://vote2005.ss.ca.gov/Returns/prop/00.htm

In a map linked from that page one can see that it failed in the coastal CA counties, and especially so around the SF bay. My guess is that it pretty well followed GOP-DEM voting majorities, and that a big majority of voters followed a GOP-yes/DEM-no pattern.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

Peter, you know our politics better than we do. Move here. If you put on a chef hat, you could use the swedish chef as your political logo. Bork bork bork can be your slogan.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by Maeve_Mari

Here you go Slim. I'm a parent and I have a young daughter.
I am not specifically in favor of parental notification. While I think that as a parent I do possess special care and concern for the safety or my own daughter, I don't think that all young girls have parents who are as understanding and supportive as I am. <snip>

Stuff explicitly relating to MM and MM Jr. snipped.


If MM Jr. is anything like the teenagers that I know or have known, then she would be quite miffed to know such information volunteered on the net. Then again, I know neither mother nor daughter in this case, so I might be off in my guess.

I am also a parent, but only to boys - presently aged 9 and 5. The issue is a few years off for me, but:

I think that minors should not procreate, period. If they do, then that is a sign of some failure, probably in the upbringing done by at least one, but probably both, set(s) of fetal grandparents.

I think that prop. 73 misses one aspect - if a girl gets pregnant and her parents should be notified, then the boy´s parents should be notified also. (Unless the fetal father is not a minor, then he should go to jail for other reasons.)

If my boys were to mess up like this, I would like to know, so that I can correct my ways as parent. If they are minors, they should not have the same right to medical privacy as over-18´s - I got to know all the details of my son´s appendectomy earlier this year.

Minors are minors, and they are governd by specific laws for a reason. Minors are afforded several specific protections by law because they can not be assumed to act maturely. Conversely, minors should not have the same rights and priviledges as majors, just because they are not assumed to act maturely.

There is a really thorny sub-issue inside this: Girl says to doctor: "Pleease give me an abortion, but if you tell my parents they will kill me!" How is the rest of the society to judge whether the girl´s description of her parents is correct? I personally feel that society has a duty to protect her against truly abusive parents (beatings and worse), but not against those parents who give her a talking-to, and other normal parental control (groundings, chaperoning, etc.) How is society to, in a situation requiring speed, to evaluate what kind of parents it is dealing with? The only (in most cases) evidence comes from a party of case with a lot at stake, a recipe for non-objective statements.

One possible way out would be to require the girl to act upon her statement. Present her with a choice: if she truly believes that her parents are potentially abusive, give her an abortion without parental notification, but then she must become a warden of the state, and be put up for foster care or child home. If she does not believe her parents to be potentially abusive, give her an abortion, but with parental notification afterwards.

Such a solution would deter the exaggerating girls, and still let healthy parental censure take its course. Girls with really abusive parents would also be presented with an escape route.

Since I have never lived in a family with females under the age of 32, I may have missed something about the mentality of teenage girls. Please inform me in that case.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by D+F+P=Hadouken!

Peter, you know our politics better than we do. Move here. If you put on a chef hat, you could use the swedish chef as your political logo. Bork bork bork can be your slogan.

My mom comes from Kern county in CA, so I take an interest in CA politics. Took me all of 2 minutes to do a google search.

BTW, the sounds emanating from the Swedish chef are not in any way, shape, or form even distantly reminiscent of Swedish. The muppet show has been shown on Swedish TV, "Svenske Kocken", as he is known here, was a constant cause for consternation and mirth here.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!


If some pair of minors causes an accident which necessitates medical intervention, and the minors demand of the doctors not to tell their parents because the parents would give them problems - then what? Are there laws covering what the doctor may tell the parents in that case? Food for thought.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Hi!



My mom comes from Kern county in CA, so I take an interest in CA politics. Took me all of 2 minutes to do a google search.

BTW, the sounds emanating from the Swedish chef are not in any way, shape, or form even distantly reminiscent of Swedish. The muppet show has been shown on Swedish TV, "Svenske Kocken", as he is known here, was a constant cause for consternation and mirth here.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

Yeah, I know. The bork bork bork is just a parody of swedish speach.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!


Some more stats:

Country Abortion rate per 1,000 women aged 15-44* Maternal deaths per 100,000 live births
Where abortion is legal
United States 26 12
England/Wales 15 9
Netherlands 6 12
Finland 10 11
Japan 14 18
Australia 17 9

Where abortion is illegal
Brazil 38 220
Colombia 34 100
Chile 45 65
Dominican Republic 44 110
Mexico 23 110
Peru 52 280

Table copied from:
http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/ib19.html

Interesting data. Among the listed countries, USA has the highest abortion rate among the abortion-legal countries, but it is lower than those of all abortion-illegal countries. Based on those data, criminalization does not appear to be an efficient abortion preventative method.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by jBirch

This isn't even directed at me and I find it offensive.

That you would expect a 12 or 13 year old child to brave their parents instead of speaking to a stranger about an abortion shows you haven't a clue when it comes to kids. That you'd call in to question MM's parenting skills is just plain rude (not to mention wrong).

Come on, what do you expect from him?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by achilleus

The law, as was read to me, gave provisions for minors who were emanicpated, whose life was threatened by the pregnancy, etc...

If one reads the legal text (see link previously provided by me) one does indeed find that it only pertains to unemancipated female minors. There is also a special mention of medical emergency waiving the notification demand. There is also a special mention of cases where parental notification should be waived (see bottom right of 1st page)

"If the judge finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that notice to a parent or guardian is not in the best interest of the unemancipated minor, the judge shall authorize a waiver of notice. If the finding that notice of parent or guardian is not in the best interest of the minor is based on evidence of physical, sexual, or emotional abuse by a parent or guardian, the court shall ensure that such evidence is brought to the attention of of the appropriate county child protection agency."


This was proposed to be part of the CA constitution. I find that wrong. This is the kind of issue that should be dealt with in a law, not the constitution. It adresses a highly specific case, it is not something that describes how the state is governed, nor is it a foundation-type issue. Sort of like having alcohol prohibition statutes in the constitution.

If one looks at Section 32. b) (middle of left column, 1st page) one sees that it was proposed that the parental notification was to take place before the abortion, at least 48 hours to be exact. I see no compelling reason to have the notification before the abortion. Parents will be informed of their failure to promote safe sex even after the fact, and the proposition does not explicitly suggest that parental consent should be necessary. I see this as an underhanded attempt to stop abortions by giving parents, to whom the decision should not belong, a chance to talk (or worse) their daughter out of the abortion. The parents do not need to know beforehand to be able to improve their parenting, after the fact is fully sufficient for that objective.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Zilverzmurfen]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

BTW, the sounds emanating from the Swedish chef are not in any way, shape, or form even distantly reminiscent of Swedish.

That's what I've always said: it's Dutch!!!

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by achilleus

It's a fetus, not a child. That's an important distinction to make. And it's not about the fetus' right, but the right of the pregnant woman/girl to govern her own body....

Philistine,

I agree completely on the surgery thing. The law, as was read to me, gave provisions for minors who were emanicpated, whose life was threatened by the pregnancy, etc...

Really, I am torn.

I also don't believe we should only make laws that people won't break. I mean, could you imagine if the lawmakers said, 'Well, people are gonna rape no matter what law we make, so let'snot make a law against it...'

Unfortunately abortions rate more rage and anger and fear than an appendectomy. Telling your parents you have a medical problem is one thing... having to confess prohibited behavior is another one completely.

Abortions are several hundreds of dollars... up to about $1,200 depending on the facility and the level of assistance. So, really. I dont think most teens will see abortion as a convenient birth control.

Another issue that occurs along with passage of Resolutions like 73 is that they then reach further into parental notification and other restrictions to obtaining birth control by minors. So once you take the first step with limiting teen access to safe abortions, you then risk restricting access to birth control and sex education to them also.

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by Slim

Why is the argument always that it's to "protect" those who dont have understanding parents? I think most parents are probably a lot more understand than most young people realize.

I actually view it as enabling those who would prefer just make it go away and keep the whole episode a secret from their parents. It provides them with an easy way out of a difficult situation. But, the real problems dont just go away after the procedure.

I find your attitude rather sad in a couple of ways. First, that you as a parent feel a pregnant girl who could be as young as 12 or 13 would even be able to make a rational decision on her own regarding an abortion. Second, that if your daughter did get pregnant, and that if she did not tell you, it would be ok with you for her to make such a critical decision on her own. We're talking about a child making a decision that will change them forever.

I just think as a parent you should be doing everything and anything you can to be injecting yourself into all matters of her life. Even if it means passing a law to require notification.

This is a family matter involving a minor. The parents of the minor child should not be left in the dark.

I don't need a law that requires me to parent my children, but millions of American children do need laws that protect them from their abusive, irrational, and sexually predative parents and relatives.

(Hey Slim, ask anyone of the teens here on this board just HOW MUCH injecting into all matters of their lives they provide to their parents. Check in here and try to understand how much access - even pretty normal and okay teens that we find here on FNet - decide to provide their own parents.)

I've got a terrific daughter and a pretty good understanding of what her life is like outside the house. At 16 I also think she does have the maturity to consider her choice decisions, though I believe (how would we ever know for sure) that she would voluntarily discuss them with me.

[Slim]

Originally Posted by Maeve_Mari

I don't need a law that requires me to parent my children, but millions of American children do need laws that protect them from their abusive, irrational, and sexually predative parents and relatives.

(Hey Slim, ask anyone of the teens here on this board just HOW MUCH injecting into all matters of their lives they provide to their parents. Check in here and try to understand how much access - even pretty normal and okay teens that we find here on FNet - decide to provide their own parents.)

I've got a terrific daughter and a pretty good understanding of what her life is like outside the house. At 16 I also think she does have the maturity to consider her choice decisions, though I believe (how would we ever know for sure) that she would voluntarily discuss them with me.

This particular law is about notification. The parents can choose to do what they want with the information. And there are plenty of laws already in place to protect children. The failure of this law passing does nothing but keep the parents in the dark. You argue that it protects some children (not yours) from crazed parents. I argue that it takes away from parents (me) being able to do their job. I guess that I'm just a mean-spirited, selfish conservative and you are the enlightened liberal, always putting the needs of a few other unfortunates ahead of yourself.

A responsible parent doesnt need to be "allowed" into all aspects of child's life. What young teen wants their parents "prying" into their lives? None. Kids will "provide" only the information they want their parents to have. If that's good enough for you as a parent, that's your choice. I, as a parent, know a lot more about what my kids are up to than what they would prefer. Too bad for them if they dont like it. They're kids. Until they're off to college, it's the way it will be in our house.

And if you think some of the parents of the kids on here don't have keystroke logging and other computer network monitoring utilities installed, you're fooling yourself.

[L.O.A.S.]

Originally Posted by Slim

A responsible parent doesnt need to be "allowed" into all aspects of child's life. What young teen wants their parents "prying" into their lives? None. Kids will "provide" only the information they want their parents to have. If that's good enough for you as a parent, that's your choice. I, as a parent, know a lot more about what my kids are up to than what they would prefer. Too bad for them if they dont like it. They're kids. Until they're off to college, it's the way it will be in our house.

Well said.

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by Maeve_Mari

Unfortunately abortions rate more rage and anger and fear than an appendectomy. Telling your parents you have a medical problem is one thing... having to confess prohibited behavior is another one completely.

I agree they are different in many respects. However, should that matter as the law is concerned? Should the law not inform parents when their child crosses the line?

Originally Posted by Maeve_Mari

Abortions are several hundreds of dollars... up to about $1,200 depending on the facility and the level of assistance. So, really. I dont think most teens will see abortion as a convenient birth control.

I agree. In this case, there is no 'easy way out' as some like to refer to it...

Originally Posted by Maeve_Mari

Another issue that occurs along with passage of Resolutions like 73 is that they then reach further into parental notification and other restrictions to obtaining birth control by minors. So once you take the first step with limiting teen access to safe abortions, you then risk restricting access to birth control and sex education to them also.

I think this is the big fear that many pro-choice supporters have. That the curtailing of any abortion rights weakens their position, and will eventually lead to further issues...

I still don't know. It didn't pass, I didn't have to vote on it, but it is a difficult question with many far reaching possiblities...

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Slim

This particular law is about notification. The parents can choose to do what they want with the information. And there are plenty of laws already in place to protect children. The failure of this law passing does nothing but keep the parents in the dark. You argue that it protects some children (not yours) from crazed parents. I argue that it takes away from parents (me) being able to do their job. I guess that I'm just a mean-spirited, selfish conservative and you are the enlightened liberal, always putting the needs of a few other unfortunates ahead of yourself.

I see what you're saying. You're point is that if you only knew what your child was doing, you could give the appropriate advice. The only issue I have with that approach (which is in general, a good one) is when advice becomes control. How would you prevent your daughter from getting an abortion?

A responsible parent doesnt need to be "allowed" into all aspects of child's life. What young teen wants their parents "prying" into their lives? None. Kids will "provide" only the information they want their parents to have. If that's good enough for you as a parent, that's your choice. I, as a parent, know a lot more about what my kids are up to than what they would prefer. Too bad for them if they dont like it. They're kids. Until they're off to college, it's the way it will be in our house.

Right. The only additional factor I'd enter into the equation is that kids under the age of 10 or so, are physically incapable of leaving. When they hit the teen years, you can not physically stop them from doing what they choose to do unless you resort to draconian (and illegal) measures. At that age, you can only influence those choices as best you can to achieve the outcomes that you think are in their best interests. You can't control them.

And if you think some of the parents of the kids on here don't have keystroke logging and other computer network monitoring utilities installed, you're fooling yourself.

Sure, but would you agree that this is a good thing? Does your partner keep a key logger, screen recorder or network access transcript of YOUR activities? If not, what message of trust are you sending to your kids with the double standard? It's not that they DON'T trust you to have their best interests at heart, it's that you don't trust them to be responsible. If they are not able to show responsbility, how will they acquire it?

Here's some additional information on the debate that I thought was interesting:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pare.htm

Seems to interject some interesting facts on the matter (and shows that it's an issue t