Last week, I blogged my endorsements for the statewide offices for the California general election on November 7. Today, as promised, I’ll post my endorsements for the 13 propositions on the California ballot. Props I feel strongly about are in CAPS. For a list of all props, visit here.
Prop 1A: No. (Would prevent the use of gasoline taxes for anything other than highway work; would bind the legislature.)
Props 1B-1E: Yes. This is part of the governor’s package to rebuild infrastructure. It’s not a perfect plan, but it’s bold enough and it’s absolutely needed.
Prop 83: NO! Would make it impossible for registered sex offenders to reintegrate into society — a cruel, expensive response to a media-manufactured hysteria. It will pass by a 2-1 margin, but the majority will not be right.
Prop 84: Yes. Improves water quality, backed by the major environmental groups to which I contribute and which I generally trust.
Prop 85: NO! For my reasons why, read my post about prop 73 from last year. I’m strongly opposed to parental notification laws; having worked with scared and pregnant teens as a youth minister has only made me more passionate on the subject.
Prop 86: Yes. I’ve never met a tax on consumption I didn’t like. Yes, it will disproportionately hit poor smokers. It will also ask a powerful disincentive, as previous tax hikes already have.
Prop 87: YES! I am sure it won’t pass, but this bold initiative to tax oil company profits to fund alternative energy sources is a terrific idea.
Prop 88: Yes. I like property taxes that pay for education. Basing taxes on value is reasonably progressive, too.
Prop 89: Yes.
Prop 90: No.
Bonus endorsement:
City of Pasadena Proposition A: NO!!! (This is a referendum on the NFL putting an expansion team in the Rose Bowl. Pro football is the last thing we need in this town.)
My predictions: voters in California will be surprisingly conservative. I predict most of these won’t go my way. I’m especially worried about the passage of 85, and saddened about 83 (about which I will post more). I have a small quixotic hope that 87 will get through, but suspect that the huge ad buys by Chevron will prove too powerful.
UPDATE: FlashReport, the far-right California political news website, just issued its ballot endorsements. Without mutual coordination, we’ve managed to take diametrically opposed stances on all thirteen initiatives. Perhaps in the future, I won’t read the ballot pamphlet, but simply read the lads at FR and know that the opposite of what they support is the correct way to go.
I’m down in the San Joaquin Valley this week, and it’s interesting to see the opposition to Prop 83 here. The way it’s written, it will be practically impossible to place a paroled sex offender into a dense urban area (with its numerous schools, parks, etc.), so big cities like SF and LA will divert most sex offenders to rural areas. You can imagine how rural cities and counties feel about taking on a disproportionate share of the burden.
Hey, if they’re willing to vote the right way for the wrong reasons, I’m not going to quibble.
Any particular reason you’re particularly concerned about parental notification this time around? In other words, do you sense a change in a political climate that’ll produce a different result, or is this worded in a more palatable way, or have they run a cannier campaign this time? Just curious…
Stuff like 83 is just awful; safely reintegrating sex offenders into society is a serious problem, but an unavoidable one. This is essentially a tinkerbell approach, akin to making sleeping on the streets illegal.
Do you think the free money for billionaires stadium initiative will pass?
Ack, read too fast, assumed you were building a stadium for the NFL (as so many misguided cities, including my own, twice, are wont to do). Now I’m curious as to why you oppose. Is it the corporate welfare objection, and if not, what?
Hugo: I think you’re right that 83 will pass, but I think there’s hope for 85: the identical measure has been defeated once before, and there is a sizeable population that gets pissed off at being asked to vote on the identical measure so quickly.
Proposition 90 really worries me, though; it could well mean the end of effective local government.
Hugo, not wanting to be the designated place for urban areas to “ship ‘em off and forget ‘em” is a right reason, not a wrong reason. It’s certainly not the only reason to oppose 83.
Myth, I’m never fond of NIMBYism. If the sex offender wants to move in next door to me, he or she is welcome. But I’ll concede your point.
As for 85, I think we had a depressed conservative turnout in 2005; whether that will be the case in two weeks isn’t clear at all. I hope it is, but I am innately pessimistic.
As for the Rose Bowl, I am objecting to the crowds — we already deal with UCLA football, and of course the big January game. What I am really objecting to is more human beings coming into the Arroyo natural area that surrounds the bowl.
Myth, I’m never fond of NIMBYism.
NIMBYism is exactly the point of 83, disguised as protecting children: not in the backyard of San Francisco, or Los Angeles, but gosh, the backyards of Fresno, Merced and Shasta fit the bill nicely.
The last parental-notification bill flopped because the backers got greedy–they tried to sneak in a definition of human life beginning at conception, and lied about it.
As a registered Republican, by the way, I get a lot of interesting literature. You would not believe the braindead, scare-tactic crap the Yes on 85 people send me.
83 is horrible.
Unfortunately I have moved from California or I would most definitely be voting against it.
I too like the consupmtion tax, but $2.60 a pack? That is pretty steep. I am not sure if I could go for that.
Myth, I would not have pegged ya for a registered Republican. Learn sumptin new evry day round here.
Well, somebody has to stick around and help the moderates, you know?
Praise you for doing it!
Hugo, I note you’ve gone from pro-life to conflicted on parental notification to opposed to parental notification to strongly opposed in capital letters to parental notification.
Is there any particular reason for being all over the map, other than feminist osmosis and constitutional conflictedness?
I campaigned for parental notification here. We lost, crashingly, which we were expecting, about 70-30 in the Parliament. We’re about ready for another go. Even switching four votes at a time, we’ll only have to put this up 10 times before we get it through. One down, nine to go.
Don’t know if it changes your opinion, but something like 1A was passed in Tennessee almost 20 years ago, and it has been very successful. It enables (enabled? I moved away 8 years ago) gas taxes to be considerably higher in TN than in surrounding states, and roads to be much better maintained.
Sam, I am open to rethinking 1A.
John, I remain conflicted abput many things. I’m convinced that the way to end abortion is by changing hearts and minds and behaviors; I don’t believe that the state has any role to play in that process. As a youth worker, I recognize that in an ideal world, all teens would be able to talk with their parents before making an important decision. Alas, we live in a broken world — and the risks that mandatory parental notification pose are simply too great. Communication is a marvelous thing, but I am reluctant to allow the state to mandate it.
Don’t be silly. Every other medical procedure requires parental consent, not mere notice. Are teen abortions really so friggin’ wonderful as to deserve an exception to that rule? And what on earth “risks” are you talking about, which can’t be addressed by a judge in the rare cases where they are legit (as opposed to the not-so-rare cases where they are nonexistent, and all we’re really arguing about is whether the state should help an irresponsible teen keep her parents in the dark)?
On the one hand, I’m glad you’ve stopped pretending to adhere to a “consistent life ethic,” when it’s clear that consistent left is more like it. On the other, I’m sorry you’ve seen fit to go all the way from one extreme to the other. Sometimes I almost wonder if we conservatives should start a mock movement calling for every 12 year old’s “right” to buy guns, alcohol and tobacco (preferably under a single roof) without having to notify their parents, who just wouldn’t understand. I know mine wouldn’t have, when I was that age.
Are teen abortions really so friggin’ wonderful as to deserve an exception to that rule?
Don’t be silly indeed. Teen pregnancies, in many cases, are so friggin’ awful as to deserve an exception to the rule. Like, y’know, when they’re likely to respond with abuse, or are themselves the father. Obviously in healthy, well adjusted families the parents will be involved in the choice. But those families don’t need (ahem) big government sticking their nose in private matters such as these. A no vote is an act of mercy for those unfortunate enough to not have those healthy and functional families.
As an aside, I don’t get why people think this a really extreme version of a pro-choice position. I think it’s best understood as a separate issue. One could perfectly consistently think that a)all abortion should be illegal, and b) since (a) is off the table for now we should be fair and compassionate with our existing abortion regime. Also, anyone who claims to be a Satelan-style moderate on abortion–ie, has moral qualms with later term or post-viability abortions only–should not support parental notification statutes at all, as they’re likely to produce delays that will lead to more late term abortions.
But those families don’t need (ahem) big government sticking their nose in private matters such as these.
THANK you. I cannot fathom why self-described ‘conservatives’ think I should have to get the government involved in such a private matter.
Xrlq, you do know that 12-year-olds have no right to guns, alcohol or tobacco with or without their parents’ consent, so that’s not a good comparison.
changing hearts and minds and behaviors; I don’t believe that the state has any role to play in that process.
Hearts are God’s job. Behaviour is sometimes the government’s. Martin Luther King is reputed to have said he didn’t want the KKK to love him, just not to lynch him.
Communication is a marvelous thing, but I am reluctant to allow the state to mandate it.
As it does with every other medical operation for which parents have responsibility?
Yes, there are hard cases of abuse and incest. But there were 18,000 abortions in New Zealand last year; even if you allow the hard case and construct the law to take account of it, there are still 17,999, and they are not all frightened 10 year olds pregnant by their fathers. I’m worried about them.
We heard horror stories during our debate about good and decent parents kept in the dark until their teenage daughter started bleeding from complications, and they frantically tried to find out what was wrong. School councillors are taking minors for abortions at any age, we find them not competent to make an informed choice in any other situation, but suddenly abortion is so sacred that it is an exception. They need parental consent to be treated by the school nurse, and many tattoo parlours require a parent’s signature, but abortion is different. The parent who will have to bear the burden of a bleeding and traumatised daughter is kept in the dark; if we’re legislating for exceptions, how about them? Why are they not part of the debate?
They need parental consent to be treated by the school nurse, and many tattoo parlours require a parent’s signature, but abortion is different.
Exactly correct. It *is* different. If one doesn’t get a tattoo, one doesn’t have a tattoo. If one doesn’t get an abortion, one ocntinues to be pregnant and quite likely eventually gives birth to a child, which is a rather more serious consequence than not having a tattoo.
The parent who will have to bear the burden of a bleeding and traumatised daughter is kept in the dark;
Given that you surely know that abortion is far less likely to cause health problems and complications than carrying a pregnancy to term, it’s very hard to believe you’re offering this line of reasoning in good faith. Either young women will hide their abortions from their parents occasionally, or they’ll hide their pregnancies from them. Both of these scenarios are unfortunate but largely unavoidable.
Why are they not part of the debate?
I am a parent. It’s funny how I’m only invited to be ‘part of the debate’ if I’m in favor of parental-notification laws. If I oppose them, supporters will just pretend I don’t exist and will wonder aloud where the parents are, all the while professing concern for my children on my behalf.
I can’t speak for other countries, but in California, the pro-85 crowd doesn’t really want abortions with loving parental guidance. They want teenage girls to put off talking to their parents until it’s too late, and there won’t be an abortion.
DJW:
If by “many” you mean “a small minority,” I don’t disagree, but then again, neither do the authors of Prop 85.
Like, y’know, when they’d be able to get a court order to bypass parental notification under Prop 85. So far you’ve offered a great argument for the initiative; where’s the argument against it?
Oh, please. Surely you do not expect me to believe that 100% of all families are either (1) so horribly dysfunctional as to involve incest or anything analagous to it, or (2) so perfectly adjusted that their daughter either won’t get pregnant in the first place, or will rush to tell Dad the good news the minute that it happens. Here in the real world, most pregnant teenagers don’t want their parents to know they are pregnant, for the same reason that few kids want their parents to know about anything else that they did wrong. However, just because a kid doesn’t want his parents to know what he’s been up to (what kid does?!), that doesn’t mean that a state policy of helping kids keep their parents in the dark is a good one.
Mythago:
It’s a great comparison, unless and until you can provide one good reason why 12-year olds should have a right to abortion without their parents’ consent - or even knowledge. Otherwise, the only difference is that one right (guns) is protected by the Constitution, while the other is protected only by intellectually dishonest judges. There’s no inherent reason to say one right should apply only to adults while the other should apply to unemancipated minors. I’d rather have my 12-year old shoot a gun (with adult supervision) than have sex (with or without adult supervision - in this case “with” would be worse).
I think it’s mighty presumptuous of you to say what other people supposedly want. Speaking only for myself, I don’t think the two are mutually exclusive. More likely, a policy of requring parental knowledge, and therefore encouraging parental involvement in the decision, will lead to more loving parental guidance and fewer abortions. Many teens choose abortion precisely because they want to keep their pregnancies a secret from their parents forever. Once the parents know about the pregnancy, and the daughter knows that they know, she has one less reason to favor abortion over the other alternatives. That strikes me as an unambiguous good thing for anyone who either opposes abortion or is neutral on it but supports loving parental guidance. It’s only a bad thing for those so fanatically devoted to abortion that they’d rather see less loving parental guidance than promote a policy that might result in - horror of all horrors - fewer abortions.
Every other medical procedure requires parental consent, not mere notice.
As far as I know, teenagers (at least, those older than 15 or 16) are not required to notify their parents, much less get their consent, when they obtain many forms of contraception, have sex, get prenatal care, or give birth. I’m somewhat less certain about this, but I believe teenagers are generally allowed to refuse treatment or examination even against their parents’ wishes. We generally give teenagers a fair amount of control over their bodies, consistent with the idea that they are entitled to exercise autonomy in certain (but not yet all) respects. Hence, the reasoning behind this law needs to be much more subtle than `Every other medical decision requires parental consent’.
Also, once you require parental consent for abortion, by fairness, you must also require parental consent for carrying a pregnancy for term. That is, if parents are entitled to force their teenage daughters to carry a pregnancy to term, they are entitled to force their teenage daughters to have an abortion. And that’s not a consistent pro-life position; that’s a travesty of justice.
It’s also a non sequitur. Where is it written that a state cannot require parental consent for one option but not another? Does this reasoning apply to states, too, i.e., a state can’t prohibit me from sniffing cocaine unless it can also force me to do so? Besides, the issue here is notice, not consent. If a pregnant teen chooses any option other than abortion, notice is a given.
Like, y’know, when they’d be able to get a court order to bypass parental notification under Prop 85. So far you’ve offered a great argument for the initiative; where’s the argument against it?
XRLQ, I strongly recommend you take a look at Helena Silverstein’s research on parental notification waivers, as they’ve been applied in various states. In theory, they may solve the problem, but in practice, teenage girls are faced with a baffling and byzantine bureaucracy, the granting of waivers tends to be arbitrary, etc. It’s very good, detail-oriented empirical research covering such waivers in several states.
If a pregnant teen chooses any option other than abortion, notice is a given.
Are you really sure about that? 85 doesn’t require a doctor to refuse to assist a teen in childbirth unless the doctor can prove her parents were notified. And “it isn’t consent” is bizarre. Are you saying you approve of a law that tells parents they have a right to kknow about their daughter’s abortion, but can’t lift a finger to stop it?
I think it’s mighty presumptuous of you to say what other people supposedly want.
I think it’s mighty disingenous to pretend that groups wanting to end abortions would suddenly be in favor of teenagers having abortions as long as the parents approve, especially when supporters of the previous version flat-out lied about the effects of some of the provisions they included.
I’m still not seeing your analogy. I can’t give consent for my 12-year-old to smoke, but you believe it’s appropriate for me to give consent for my 12-year-old to abort.
Mythago, by “a given” I mean a given, not a requirement of Prop 85. When attempting to conceal a pregnancy from Mom and Dad, it’s relatively easy to get an early term abortion and leave your parents none the wiser. Stealthily carrying a kid to term takes a great deal of skill.
As a first start, yes. That’s exactly what Prop 85 would do. It’s probably the best anyone can reasonably hope for in a state like California.
Absolutely. Are you suggesting you SHOULD be able to give consent for your 12 year old to smoke, or that the law should be changed to allow your 12 year old to take up smoking without your knowledge or consent?
When attempting to conceal a pregnancy from Mom and Dad, it’s relatively easy to get an early term abortion and leave your parents none the wiser.
Easy relative to what? If we’re going to talk about getting around Mom and Dad, how hard is it to forge Mom’s signature on the notice form, or tell Mom and Dad “I’m going to the library” when she’s really going to court for a judicial bypass?
And again: you’re comparing an activity that is illegal, and to which parents CANNOT consent, to an activity that you believe should be legal as long as the parents are aware of it.
By the way, ‘consent’ is another lie. 85 doesn’t require consent, merely notice. So much for the idea of parental control.
I see the issue of parental notification is going around again. Hugo and DJW and I have debated it before. I disagreed with Hugo’s reasoning on Prop 73 here, Hugo responded here, and DJW commented here.
All pretty good posts, I think. I doubt any of us have changed our minds, though you do seem a fair bit more committed to, and less conflicted about, your position this time around Hugo.
I can’t speak for John or Xrlq, but to me the real argument over notification cannot help but track back to the argument over exactly what kind of harm–if one even considers it a harm–abortion to be. Is it a private harm, or a public one? When John says there were 18,000 abortions in New Zealand last year, presumably that would have involved 18,000 individual women dealing with a hard and painful choice–yet that’s not his point. His point is that the social prevelance of abortion itself is a wrong, period, full stop. And so he says “yes” to laws that may stop some of the borderline cases, even if their application is likely to be far from perfect. DJW responds by pointing out that “either young women will hide their abortions from their parents occasionally, or they’ll hide their pregnancies from them…both of these scenarios are unfortunate but largely unavoidable.” This is a good, pragmatic, liberal response, one which begins from the assumption that, in the midst of the varied tragedies which individuals face, one has to be realistic and allow for maximum choice. But if this is not John’s assumption–if, on the other hand, he happens to believe that young women hiding pregnancies which are then brought to term, while not ideal, nonetheless is more moral than young women obtaining abortions, simply because such abortion is a moral wrong and a social tragedy regardless of whatever tortured path may have led each individual person to have to make that desperate choice–then DJW’s response is not relevant at all, and we remain at square one. The same could probably be said of much of the Xrlq-DJW exchange as well.
I’ll freely grant that much of the support for parental notification laws probably arises from an ill-informed projection that religious and/or cultural conservatives like myself make regarding how family’s ought to act when dealing with unwanted pregnancies. Just the same, it is probably worth noting that the side opposed to parental notification laws probably engages in a fair amount of projection itself, specifically along the lines Xrlq describes: namely, the belief “that 100% of all families are either (1) so horribly dysfunctional as to involve incest or anything analagous to it, or (2) so perfectly adjusted that their daughter either won’t get pregnant in the first place, or will rush to tell Dad the good news the minute that it happens.” Plenty of comforting myths to go all around, I suppose.
Whoops. I have no idea how I underlined all that, Hugo; sorry for the mess. Feel free to fix it if you have the time.
His point is that the social prevelance of abortion itself is a wrong, period, full stop. And so he says “yes” to laws that may stop some of the borderline cases, even if their application is likely to be far from perfect.
Exactly. The point of the law is to reduce abortion–not to involve parents in their daughters’ lives. I don’t know why it’s such a big deal to admit that.
Because it’s a load of crap. The point of the law is to reduce abortion and to involve parents in their daughters’ lives by not encouraging their daughters to go behind their backs. I don’t know why it’s such a big deal for you to admit that.
As Xrlq writes, I would say that the more fundamental argument behind proposals like this is that you have two goods. However, I think it is also clear that the primary one is “reducing the number of abortions,” by making obtaining them more complicated and more psychologically and emotionally burdensome. “Involving parents in their daughters’ lives” is important, but only secondary. I’m in favor of parental notification laws, and I think it’s fair to acknowledge where one’s focus is. If “involving parents in their daughters’ lives” was the number one goal, well, there are many other ways for the state to socially sanction and incentivize that aim; it seems odd for abortion to be the site for such an intense legislative effort in that regard. The fact that most supporters of parental notification laws would be appalled if “parental involvement” meant forcing (either physically or through emotional manipulation) their teen-age daughters to obtain an abortion shows the deeper truth.
Very simply put: I’m in favor of parental notification laws because they will, by announcing to the public at large that abortion is not to be considered wholly a private choice but rather a social phenomenon that demands the moral involvement of parents and others, oblige at least some young people to rethink their choices and oblige at least some parents to rethink how they raise their children. The hoped for pay-off will be moderately fewer abortions. I’m sure that won’t be the only result of such laws; there will be negative, maybe even occasionally horrible, results in some cases as well. If you think that abortion either isn’t wrong or at least isn’t a very big wrong, then for society to act in such a way as to make possible such potential individual harms is appalling. But if you think abortion is wrong, a moral blot on society itself, then we’re still at square one, and laws like Prop 85–depending on numerous other factors, such as how they are enforced, etc.–may well have their place.
If you think that abortion either isn’t wrong or at least isn’t a very big wrong, then for society to act in such a way as to make possible such potential individual harms is appalling. But if you think abortion is wrong, a moral blot on society itself, then we’re still at square one, and laws like Prop 85–depending on numerous other factors, such as how they are enforced, etc.–may well have their place.
Your candor here is impressive and appreciated. What I find odd, though, is that it seems like, even with this recognition, you still think laws like 85 make good public policy. Shouldn’t policy be justified by arguments that the advocate at least thinks everyone should find plausible or convincing? Once you’ve given up on trying to justify it as good policy, well, haven’t you given up on trying to justify it as good policy?
More generally, this is a variation on the point I was trying to make against Xlrq earlier in the thread. I don’t see any real attempts at justification behind policies that raise barriers to abortion. Maybe someone somewhere is making them and I simply haven’t read them, but the only arguments I’ve come across for restrictive policies that even pretend to appeal to pro-choicers look like `the barriers won’t be all that hard to hurdle anyways, so just calm down’, which is really just bizarre. Everything else seems so much ad hoc handwaving or just assumes that any measures restricting access to abortion are a good thing.
My feelings about notification are less tied to my views on abortion and more to a firm conviction about the rights of minors. As a youth worker who has been through this very issue with a girl who wouldn’t tell her parents (and had an abortion), and as someone who impregnated his girlfriend in high school, I have a keen sense that there are some decisions that we must allow even those in mid-adolescence to make for themselves. We can hope and pray that they would seek the guidance of their families and other adult mentors, but I’m unwilling to mandate it — less out of a lack of concern for the trauma of abortion and more out of a profound respect for the rights of the individual girl. I understand Russel’s communitarian position; I’m just not willing to use the power of the state to enforce it.
Noumena,
“Your candor here is impressive and appreciated. What I find odd, though, is that it seems like, even with this recognition, you still think laws like 85 make good public policy. Shouldn’t policy be justified by arguments that the advocate at least thinks everyone should find plausible or convincing? Once you’ve given up on trying to justify it as good policy, well, haven’t you given up on trying to justify it as good policy?”
Well, first, I should reiterate that I’m just speaking for myself here; while I think I am articulating the concern which operates at a deep level in the thinking of practically everyone who supports parental notification and other types of legal hurdles in the way of obtaining abortion, Xrlq or someone else may think I’m off my rocker. Second, what have I said that suggests I am abandoning the “good policy” argument? It seems to me that a “good policy” is a policy which is pursuant to, or helps to secure, that which you consider to be a “good.” Of course there are a lot of different goods out there, and they are prioritized differently by different people. That’s why we, among other things, make use of elections and referendums like Prop 85. If enough people recognize the aim of the proposition (namely, taking the public stand I mentioned above) as a good, and vote accordingly, then–all other considerations being equal–the proposition can be democratically implemented as a “good policy.” That’s the best our system can do; no higher tests are legitimately available. Outside of enforcing laws against murder and maybe a couple other of the Ten Commandments, I’m not sure there is anything which any government could decide to do which would fully satisfy your expectation that said action be justified solely through arguments that “everyone should find plausible or convincing.” I’ve got relatives who think the arguments in support of an income tax, the Food and Drug Administration, and public schooling are implausible and unconvincing…but they have accept the policies in place, because they haven’t managed to win many elections yet.
Note: I slipped in the reference to “all other considerations being equal.” Those “other considerations” include valid legal, medical, and personal rights which have been recognized by our system. There is evidence, such as DJW has produced, that practically speaking no possible parental notification law can satisfy all those considerations. I’m not convinced by that evidence, but it lends credence to his above argument that even if you were a strong enough opponent of abortion to want it outlawed, you might want to oppose parental notification laws in the meantime since, until you have support to outlaw the procedure entirely, decency demands that you make sure it is not restricted or made burdensome in an inequitable manner.
“My feelings about notification are less tied to my views on abortion and more to a firm conviction about the rights of minors….We can hope and pray that they would seek the guidance of their families and other adult mentors, but I’m unwilling to mandate it–less out of a lack of concern for the trauma of abortion and more out of a profound respect for the rights of the individual girl. I understand Russel’s communitarian position; I’m just not willing to use the power of the state to enforce it.”
And I respect where you’re coming from, Hugo; while I disagree with it, to me your position makes good coherent sense. Where our thinking parts, I suppose, isn’t really in regards to abortion, which we both recognize as morally bad; it’s in regard to the relative status of individuals, parents, children, and communities in responding to that badness.
abortion is not to be considered wholly a private choice but rather a social phenomenon that demands the moral involvement of parents and others
“And others”? Then why limit notification only to parents?
The point of the law is to reduce abortion and to involve parents in their daughters’ lives by not encouraging their daughters to go behind their backs.
Then, again, why pitch this merely as a “Gosh, we just want you parents to be in the loop”, instead of openly admitting that part of the goal here is to put pressure on pregnant girls so they won’t have abortions?
The law very much does encourage girls to go behind their parents’ backs, by the way. It’s just that your daughter has the option of telling a judge, in addition to her doctor, why she couldn’t possibly talk to you about her pregnancy.
I can’t help but notice that despite the What About the Parents line, nobody else here has stated that their views on 85 (or similar) are informed by the fact that they have children. Perhaps people just aren’t mentioning their having kids, but as a parent, I am damn tired of other people trying to make decisions about my children by pretending they are speaking on my behalf.
Russell: bingo.
No one is disputing that part of the goal is to reduce the total number of abortions, although “put pressure on pregnant girls” is a strange way of saying “notify parents.” My beef is with your silly assumption that this is ALL the notice law would do, and with your downright nervy assumption that this is all its proponents even want it to do. If your idea of utopia is a world in which every abortion that can take place, does, then by all means, you should vote against Prop 85. And the rest of us should roll our eyes and shake our heads.
Yeah, I know, it really is all about you, isn’t it? Tell you what: if Prop 85 passes, and anyone ever challenges your God-given right to ignore notices you didn’t want to receive in the first place, keep your head buried deep in the sand, and remain blissfully ignorant of whatever your daughter is up to whether California voters like it or not, then I promise to personaly fly back to California (shudder!) and defend you for free. All I ask in return is that you extend the same consideration toward those of us who do want to know what our kids are doing.
My beef is with your silly assumption that this is ALL the notice law would do
The assumption that this is what the notice law would do is being made by 85 proponents, not by me. And that goal is certainly not one publicized by 85 supporters–I suppose because “We hope that your teenage daughter will put off telling you long enough that abortion is no longer an option” isn’t a catchy slogan.
Yeah, I know, it really is all about you, isn’t it?
So, getting back to my question, am I the only parent actually discussing this issue here? Since this is an issue that’s supposed to be about, uh, parents?
Perhaps I’m missing something in all the whipsawing here, but it seems to me that “protect your daughters” and “it’s about parents” is thrown out as long as there are no inconvenient, actual parents with opinions on the issue. If there are, why, they’re evil and selfish for believing all the rhetoric that it’s all about them.
those of us who do want to know what our kids are doing
You could try talking to them, and having the sort of relationship where they know they can turn to you, even if it’s a bad situation, even if they screwed up. Or, you could wonder if it’s any improvement to have your daughter actually go to court to talk to a judge about how she should be allowed to go behind your back. YMMV.
Then, again, why pitch this merely as a “Gosh, we just want you parents to be in the loop”, instead of openly admitting that part of the goal here is to put pressure on pregnant girls so they won’t have abortions?
I’m with Russell here, in that I think abortion is a public harm, and the fewer abortions we have, the better. To the extent that the law makes abortion harder, the law is a good thing.
However, when it comes to Parental notification, that’s only a side benefit. If it happens, great. However, even if it didn’t reduce a single abortion (and I hope, pray and believe it will) I would still support parental notification, because it upholds the sanctity of the family. The State should not empancipate children from their families unless the families are broken and abusive-that’s the provision for the exception. As a rule, parents should be informed what happens to their minor children, for whom they are legally responsible. For the State to aid and abet minors to abort is a bad thing, because it sidelines parents.
I admit to being somewhat inconsistent in that I also and further support the original intent of that clause in our Abortion Act which allows minors to withold consent from abortion; to protect those teens who want to have their babies against their pro-abortion parents. That intent has been turned on its head, and I would like it back. This is, I admit, because I think the choice to abort a bad one, and the choice to keep the baby a good one.
But that’s another amendment for another day. We can’t rebuild a culture of life overnight, but what we can do is limit the damage, and make sure families are involved and there for their children. That’s a step towards a culture which is open, supportive and cohesive, and that’s good whatever side of the debate you’re on. I generally agree with both the Reverend Gentlemen who are doing a brilliant job here, but I would support PN anyway as a support mechanism.
So, getting back to my question, am I the only parent actually discussing this issue here? Since this is an issue that’s supposed to be about, uh, parents?
Mythago, you are one of the people around here I always read with respect. But it is rather unkind of you to elevate your personal experience to the level of received truth on the assumption that other people have no experiences of this issue to offer, and devalue arguments on the (possibly erroneous) assumption that those who make them have no experience to match yours.
Maybe they do. And maybe they just don’t want to trumpet them around. This is the case for me, and I’m sure for other people.
In any case, this issue is about parents, yes, but also about families, and societies, and the sort of principles and people we value, and what sort of country (ies) we want to be. We all have opinions to share about that, and all have things of value to share concerning it.
You’re a parent, and your perspective is extremely valuable, in my humble opinion. But there are other parents, and other members of families, and other citizens around too.
the assumption that other people have no experiences of this issue to offer
This is something you have inferred, John, not something I said.
In California, Proposition 85 is being pitched as something that will help families, and that parents need and deserve. I am, therefore, the target audience–and the excuse–for this ballot measure in a way “society” is not.
So on the one hand, pro-85 folks are saying that this is a ballot measure that helps families and parents need. But if I speak up and say that, yo, I’m a parent and I don’t agree? Why, then, I’m being self-centered, and not respecting different voices, and anyway society has something to say about this measure, so my opinion doesn’t matter. Unless, of course, it’s the ‘correct’ opinion.
I would still support parental notification, because it upholds the sanctity of the family.
Except it doesn’t. Notification is not authority. It’s not consent. Legally, I don’t have the power to actually refuse to allow my child to have an abortion. I wouldn’t even, really, have the right to notification, because my child can go to a judge and get around me that way.
I don’t know that this will really reduce abortions, unless teenage girls are much stupider than they were in my day.
No, nor does it matter. Your rights as a parent are not at issue here. If you don’t want to be notified about what your daughter is up to, then receiving a notice you didn’t want is no skin off your nose; you are still free to ignore it. It IS skin off the noses of parents who do want to be notified, but can’t be because of a public policy of either (1) maximizing abortions at all costs, or (2) treating unemancipated minors as though they were miniature adults.
This is like that idiotic chickenhawk argument: do you really think your side would fare better if ONLY parents were allowed to participate in the debate? Better still, let’s make parenthood a condition of voting on Prop 85 at all, either pro or con. Then the measure will win by a landslide.
Of course that’s an improvement, as she’d have to prove grounds for going behind my back or she wouldn’t be allowed to do so. Of course, it might not prove to be much of an improvement if Planned Parenthood and the ACLU manage to buy enough judges to guarantee that every 12 year old will be ruled mature enough to decide on her own, that every girl who says “if my parents found out, they’d just, like, KILL me” is really in danger of being murdered, and that every girl who says her father isn’t the father must really be an embarassed incest victim who is covering for … her father. I like to think California’s judicial system still have a leetle more integrity than that.
Speaking of which, I’m one step closer to winning our bet on the CA Supremes and gay marriage. Either they deny cert and I win right away, or they hear the case and I’ll collect in a year or so.
Hugo - change of pace. Prop 87 is neither bold nor a tax on “oil company profits.” Well, let me take one part back - what is bold is the claim the state can guarantee the consumer will bear none of the costs of this proposition (tax).
Harvard Professor Greg Mankiw, in a recent WSJ on-line commentary, summed up the point nicely, “A basic principle of tax analysis — taught in most freshman economics courses — is that the burden of a tax is shared by consumer and producer.” Time and space will prevent me from expounding on this point as applied to Prop 87, but the entire proposition is a great example to use in an economics or public policy class of superficial analysis and ambiguous policy formulation.
The goal is worthy — or at least worthy of public policy discourse. Heck, even the Department of Defense has for a couple of years been working toward alternative energy sources. The driving factors did not come from mandates, but from responding to “market” forces such as the direct cost of higher than projected/budgeted fossil fuels (DOD is the largest government consumer) and other costs such as reducing casualties (operating bases using renewable energy need less supplies that in turn reduces the number of convoys/people exposed to IEDs for example).
Michael McElroy, Professor of environmental studies at Harvard, noted policies such as taxing oil companies is policy by scapegoating. Prop 87 is an example of this type of “easy fix” solutions.
Both he and Mankiw advocate gasoline taxes at the pump…and you did mention you’ve never met a tax on consumption you didn’t like.
I am all for taxes at the pump, Col Steve. $7 a gallon ought to get us a good way towards where we need to go in terms of developing alternate fuels and public transportation networks.
Spoken like somebody who can afford $7 a gallon and/or lives in an area with good public transport. The short-term pain isn’t going to fall evenly on that one.
Your rights as a parent are not at issue here.
Wow, we really are down the rabbit hole. 85 is about parental notification and protecting families and keeping parents aware of what’s going on with their daughters, but my rights as a parent are not at issue here?
What I don’t want is for there to be an idiotic Big Government scheme that requires our family’s doctor to prove I have notice that my daughter is seeking an abortion–it doesn’t require my consent for the abortion, it doesn’t require notification that she’s pregnant or giving birth, and it certainly didn’t require me to be told what she was “up to” that got her pregnant in the first place.
Oh yes, Planned Parenthood and the ACLU. You forgot Phil Angelides, who also shows up on the pro-85 flyers I receive (although apparently he changed his first name to “Liberal”). On the other side, of course, are merely humble servants of the Lord; there are no organized anti-abortion groups at all, certainly none who merely see 85 as a way to make sure some teenage girls damn well stay knocked up.
You know the California Supremes aren’t going to deny cert; the appellate opinion all but said “Hell no are we going to do anything controversial on this one, we’re kicking it upstairs.”
That’s OK, I’ll win the bet either way. It’s just a question of when, not if.
What are you doing making bets with me when you could be using your powers to predict next week’s Lotto numbers?!
Out of curiousity, did anyone see Dear Abby’s advice on the 27th? Basically, a teen told her mom that a friend of hers was pregnant and didn’t know what to do, and was terrified to tell her parents about said pregnancy. Mom convinced daughter to tell friend to tell friend’s parents, assuming that friend’s parents would stand by their daughter and help her through a troubled time. Friend did so, and “her father beat her so badly she ended up in the hospital and lost the baby.”
That’s why I don’t like parental notification laws.