cahwyguy's Ballot Analysis: Part 1 - The Propositions
This is the first of a multiple part post looking at the issues on my
sample ballot. In this first part, I'm going to be looking at the propositions,
and giving you my thinking. Of course, you are free to try to convince me
otherwise, so do your best.
Statewide Measures
( Clicky Here for the analysis )
government should not be sticking its fingers into areas where it has no
business. So why should government be telling us when children have to
tell their parents something. That's the government being a nanny, and
I'm pretty sure I can guess your opinion on nanny laws.
Please. You're better than this.
Is the government sticking its its fingers into areas where it has no
business when it tells a child it needs parental notification for a tattoo? Or ear piercing? Or liposuction? Or appendectomy?
The government saying that children cannot get medical procedures done without parental consent is common sense, not nanny laws!
Do you really think a 13-year-old can give informed consent for an abortion? If you do, I have to ask what color the sky is on your planet.
13-year-olds are absolutely neither educated nor mature enough to make medical decisions, on their own, without their parents' input or knowledge.
Nanny government. As I said, you know better than this. You're making an absurd argument, and it disappoints me because I respect you. Show yourself the same respect.
Or, have I totally misjudged you and you're okay with 13-year-olds getting tattoos, piercings, or surgery without parental consent?
Reply
I'm also hesitant because these are religious organizations trying to put their religious views into State Law. I'm a firm believer in the Separation of Church and State and would like it to stay that way.
And face it, it's most likely that most pregnant 13-year-olds WOULD be talking with her parents in the first place---why should the State need to try and enforce that relationship? If she isn't, maybe she is afraid for her life, or that she'll be beaten (again?)... If there's a reason she is NOT talking to her parents about her pregnancy---maybe she is in the best position to decide that, not millions of anti-choice-theocracy-loving voters to decide?
Yeah, we acknowledge people as legal adults at age 18, but we also acknowledge that people younger than 18 should have control over their bodies, whether they are the property of their parents or NOT. (One reason why parents molesting under aged children is rather frowned upon.)
So why not let them make their informed consent about who they're going to trust?
It's not like some 13-year old is going to another 13-year old for an abortion and being counseled by another 13-year old about whether she's making the right decision.
The 13-year old in question would be encouraged to speak to her parent, and would be talking with adults in either case.
And, like I said, who better for her to decide who she is safe to talk to than the hypothetical 13-year old in question.
Sarah Palin's daughter problem didn't have to worry about being beaten, or kicked out of the house when she told her parents that she was pregnant. Not all teenagers have that luxury.
And for once, treat teenagers like the human beings they are, not like some sort of pre-adult who is just too stupid to know what they want. At least in Jewish culture, they are considered a "man" or "woman" at 13. Other cultures at 12... it varies. Nothing magical happens at age 18 (except in the State's eyes) that means the difference between a pregnant 17-year old and a pregnant 18-year old.
And yeah, some 13 year olds can be educated and mature enough to make medical decisions, ON THEIR OWN, without their parents' input or knowledge. Or is it assumed that any other adults will have their worst interest at heart?
NO matter how you look at it, the State should NOT be interfering in the personal lives of women in this way. If a pregnant 13 year old, or pregnant 17 year old, or pregnant 18 year old wishes to talk with her parents about her pregnancy, or terminating that pregnancy, or even to NOT talk with her parents that should be her right.
The United States Supreme Court has declared that people have a right to privacy. Shouldn't all people, including people under 18, have that right? Otherwise we start taking away that right from everybody. And who decides where the lines are to be drawn.
Is this group next going to push to publish the names of under-aged girls who have had abortions? Or maybe they'll start to publish the names of adult women who have had abortions? Having the State in this business is bad, very bad....
So, in short, I'm voting NO on Prop 4 as well.
Reply
abortion and being counseled by another 13-year old about whether she's
making the right decision."
No, she'll go to the 25-year-old guy who got her pregnant. He'll take her to Planned Parenthood, where they will congratulate her on her wise decision and not ask any inconvenient questions about the father.
And you don't think the parents have a compelling interest in this?
That makes me ill.
"Or is it assumed that any other adults will have their worst interest at heart?"
You don't assume her parents have a greater interest in her well-being than other adults???
"NO matter how you look at it, the State should NOT be interfering in the personal lives of women in this way."
Women??? A 13-year-old child is not a woman. She is a child, even if she lets some guy get into her pants.
"Nothing magical happens at age 18 (except in the State's eyes) that means the difference between a pregnant 17-year old and a pregnant 18-year old."
So, you're against the state having age laws for drinking? For smoking? For voting? For driving? For getting breast enhancement surgery?
You're all into giving adult civil rights to children, I see. So, you're good with a 13-year-old boy exercising his 2nd Amendment rights and walking into a guy store to buy a handgun, right? We don't want that nanny state or nosy parents getting involved in a civil right, do we?
"Sarah Palin's daughter problem didn't have to worry about being beaten, or kicked out of the house when she told her parents that she was pregnant. Not all teenagers have that luxury."
As I said, if a child is in danger of violence from a parent, for whatever reason, then that child should get help and get out of the home. Do you for one flippin' second believe that a parent who would do harm to a child over a pregnancy wouldn't do the exact same thing over something else? If the parent is a threat, then the child needs protection, regardless of the circumstances. But, no, you'd happily let the 13-year-old get the abortion and go back to the dangerous home. How beautifully liberal of you.
"Is this group next going to push to publish the names of under-aged girls who have had abortions?"
Who cares? That's not what's up for voting. Vote on the Proposition, not what you think might happenn if common sense prevails. If they had a Proposition to legalize pot, would you vote against it because you think the next Proposition would legalize crystal meth?
"So, in short, I'm voting NO on Prop 4 as well."
In short, your arguments are far, far from compelling. And, some of them are flat out dangerous for children--allowing them to get an abortion so they can go back to a dangerous home, rather than helping them. Shame on you.
Reply
Do you SERIOUSLY think that's how it works? Seriously?
"And you don't think the parents have a compelling interest in this?"
You're going to tell me that NO children have ever been beaten to death, or near death, by their parents? That all children are loved by their parents, who will always support them? Tell that to the children who live in the streets, or who live in foster homes.
Again I state: For parents and children who already have a good relationship, this law is not needed. For children, and girls 13-17, who are scared to death of the beating they'll get, this law is intrusive.
You seem to have this idea all under aged girls who are pregnant got that way from some nasty goings on with some 25-year old loser. That's not usually the case.
Shame on me? Shame on you!!! Who are YOU to tell every girl out there under 18 who is pregnant that YOU, or the State, or the anti-abortion groups, know what's best for her and who she should tell? For even ONE girl who knows that she could be in danger if she tells her parents, this law could be a death sentence for her. And you want to be the one to make that decision, not let her do it?
And who is going to handle "telling the parents?" Is a police officer going to go to the home of every pregnant under aged girl who is seeking an abortion to "tell the parents?" That'll be "fun" to watch I'm sure.
I would "happily let the 13-year-old get the abortion"? Wow, are you stretching. No, I would let the minor in question CHOOSE the adult she's going to trust with this. If she doesn't trust her parents, out of fear, does she really need the State swooping in to "help". NO.
Besides, California voted this down before. California has voted this down THREE TIMES already.
If you can't be convinced, anything I say isn't going to convince you. See what the http://www.noonprop4.org/about/ folks have to say.
"Parents rightfully want to be involved in their teenagers' lives, and the good news is that most teens do go to their parents when faced with an unintended pregnancy. But in the real world, parental notification laws don't work. No law can mandate family communication."
In the real world it'll put real teenagers in real danger, not just hypothetical ones.
Yeah, it's a Nanny-Government Law, plain and simple.
If I can't convince you of that, nobody will I imagine.
Reply
Should a 13-year-old boy be able to exercise his 2nd Amendment rights by buying a handgun without his parents' permission?
Is his inability to do this currently a "Nanny State" regulation?
Or should he be able to select an adult he trusts when he wants to exercise his 2nd Amendment rights to purchase a handgun?
Should children be able to select an adult they trust when getting any medical procedure?
Should children be able to get any medical procedure they like without parental notification?
Are all laws that prevent children from exercising adult rights "Nanny State" laws that wrongly force them to communicate with their parents?
Simple questions. I'm sure you can answer them all easily without a hint of contradiction or hypocrisy in your answers.
Reply
Should a 13-year-old boy be able to exercise his 2nd Amendment rights by buying a handgun without his parents' permission?
We're talking about two fundamentally different situations. One is the right for a person to be able to make decisions that affect their life or well being, and the other is for a person to own a device that can kill another person.
For the sake of argument, let's say that if someone is old enough to get pregnant, that they're old enough to know whether their health or wellbeing is in danger. (We're not talking about a 4-year-old who wants to go back to the North Pole with Santa Claus at the mall.) Now, a 13-year-old boy is plenty old enough to fire a hand gun. And people in rural areas DO teach children how to shoot. When I was 16 my girlfriend's father, my girlfriend, and I went out in a field and taught us how to shoot a shotgun. (Those clay pigeons are hard to hit!)
My parents sure didn't give any "permission" for this minor (me) to learn how to shoot. And plenty of people in rural areas DO buy guns for their kids, above and beyond BB guns, but usually rifles or shotguns and not usually handguns. But still, lethal weapons.
Now, if they want to take their kids to a gun range in the city, either a parent or guardian may need to be with them, if a gun range even allows minors at all. But that would be a range decision, not a Law against it.
I'm not a fan of denying "minors" rights that they may wish to exercise before they turn 18. Freedom of Speech is a big one, of course.
In short you are talking about two things that aren't even the same. One case is the right of a pregnant minor to make choices to be secure in her person (and I'm not talking about her worrying that her parents will ground her or take away her call phone), and the other in the rights of a minor to own a hand gun that could be dangerous to OTHER people.
Is his inability to do this currently a "Nanny State" regulation?
As a minor owning a hand gun could be potentially dangerous to OTHER people, and a pregnant girl making a decision without her abusive parents are two different things--- I would say that if the Government started to come in and take handguns away from minors who own them by permission of their parents would be a Nanny State. Then again, have him take his gun to school for "Show and Tell" and see how long that lasts.
Again I reiterate, a decision made for an individual girl, and a decision made that could affect (wound, maim, or kill) other people. Again I don't see how they're connected.
Reply
Colorado has it right. This is an example of a case of a 16-year-old who went to court:
The pregnant minor's burden of proof was to either show by clear and convincing evidence that she was mature enough to make the decision, or by a preponderance of the evidence that parental notification was not in her best interests.
After the hearing the judge found that "she lacked the maturity to decide whether to have an abortion." The court emphasized her "unwillingness to communicate with her mother or consult with other adults, her focus on her own needs, and her failure to discuss the matter with a doctor." The trial court also felt that she had "only minimal understanding of the risks of the abortion procedure" and that she was "unemployed and being supported by her mother."
http://www.coloradoconfidential.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2325
* * *
Don't you want somebody to decide if the minor is mature enough to make an adult decision?
Reply
Or should he be able to select an adult he trusts when he wants to exercise his 2nd Amendment rights to purchase a handgun?
Again, two separate situations. If a minor kills people with his handgun, the law will come down on the parents. If a minor gets an abortion without the knowledge of her parents, because she has a legitimate fear about them. Who is harmed in this situation? The parents?
Should children be able to select an adult they trust when getting any medical procedure?
We're not talking about a 4-year-old who believes in Santa Claus here. If a child were going to be beaten, disowned, or kicked out of the house for having a "medical procedure", then hell yeah they should be able to go to a trusted adult if they can't go to their parents. But we are NOT talking about a nasty hang nail here, but a "medical procedure" that bears way too much religiosity with it. Also we're not talking a girl afraid she'll be grounded, or lose car privileges, or her call phone, but a girl who is afraid of being beaten, raped, kicked out of the house, or otherwise abused.
I am not in that situation, but shouldn't that girl be able to go to someone ELSE? And yeah, maybe she should look for someplace else to live.... But to criminalize her wanting to be safe while she has this "medical procedure" is truly criminal.
Should children be able to get any medical procedure they like without parental notification?
In most ordinary situations No... but we aren't talking "any medical procedure" here. What about a child who is the son or daughter of Christian Scientists or Jehovah Witnesses who believe that "God will Cure"
them. And a child wants to LIVE, but because the parents deny modern medicine, or the blood transfusion, or anti-biotic shot that will safe their life... Yeah I support that child divorcing their parents and saving their life. (I also support throwing those parents in jail, not for exercising their Freedom of Religion, but for child abuse.)
There have been a few cases out there about that, and children have died. Do you support the parents rights, and Freedom of Religion, to allow their children to die then??
Are all laws that prevent children from exercising adult rights "Nanny State" laws that wrongly force them to communicate with their parents?
It depends. In some cases a 16-year-old CAN divorce their parents and become emancipated. All it takes is money. Since you're now painting all laws with some broad stroke of "Nanny Laws" you have to realize that not all laws are equal. Children drive at 16 (I had a driver's license at 14), and laws required us to carry insurance because if I crashed my car, and injured someone, my parents would be ultimately responsible.
By your definition is that a "Nanny Law"? How dare they require kids to drive insured? There's a different between laws that protect other people though, and basic rights like Freedom of Speech.
For that matter, some states allow minors as young as 16 years-old to MARRY without parental permission. So yeah, they're exercising the Right to Marry (See Virginia vs. Loving) without parental permission.
With that in mind.. why are people supporting Prop 4 again?
Simple questions. I'm sure you can answer them all easily without a hint of contradiction or hypocrisy in your answers.
The big problem I see is that Prop 4 doesn't actually protect children, it endangers them. It's an unnecessary law, and will put people at risk.
I don't see hypocrisy or contradiction there.
Reply
it endangers them."
I see the exact opposite. You judge children to be better judges of their well-being than their parents.
That's a dangerous attitude.
Why can't we agree that a child in need of medical help need to go to either a parent or a judge? Why can't we agree that 13-year-olds don't always know which adults have their best interests in mind?
Reply
Some children are. In fact, the children that are the better judges are the most likely ones to have screwed up parents for whom notification is a problem. As for the other ones, they are more likely to go to their parents even without the law.
Why can't we agree that a child in need of medical help need to go to either a parent or a judge? Why can't we agree that 13-year-olds don't always know which adults have their best interests in mind?
And why can't you realize that children can go to adults or their parents under the current laws; they don't need this law to force them. This law is a guise for doing only one thing: making abortion harder to get for minors. It makes there be more hoops to jump through, allowing more time for abortion to be discouraged.
You're welcome to vote for this if that is your belief. But this one I'm against.
Reply
for abortion to be discouraged."
I get it now.
You aren't pro-choice. You're pro-abortion. You're concerned someone might be discouraged from getting one.
Now I understand your stance.
Reply
Both terms are pejorative. I'm not pro-abortion in the sense that I think we should encourage abortion. But I'm not your sense of pro-choice either.
I believe abortion should be available without significant bars to the mother having the abortion. Notification laws such as this only make it harder for those with difficult parental relationships -- and those with good relationships don't need the law.
Laws such as this are the same as the bars put up for blacks when voting in the south back in the 1960s, with poll taxes and poll tests. Sure, we're in favor of letting the black votes. Sure, we'll let them do it, after they jump through all the hoops we put in their way.
When faced with these hoops, what will the girls do. Will they break down and tell their parents? Or, more likely, will they go to a doctor who ignores the laws and puts their health in danger? Will they not consult with a doctor at all?
The girls who this will most affect -- those with bad parental relationships, are scared to go to their parents. They are scared of the courts, and don't often have the upfront money required (or that they believe is required).
I also know you don't believe in adding costs to the state. This measure will add annual costs in the range of $4 million to $5 million for the state and about $2 million for counties, and potential one-time Medi-Cal automation costs unlikely to exceed a few million dollars. For the courts, it will add to an already overburdened court system with annual costs in the range of $5 million to $6 million per year. It will also tie up that system so it can't deal with the important matters of dealing with criminals.
If Prop 4 made it better for the children, then why are groups such as the California Nurses Association, the California Medical Association, the California Association of School Counselors, and the California Teachers Association opposed to it. You would think they would be in favor of a child's welfare.
I don't know if you bother to follow the links I give you, but the Public Health Institute published a brief on the implications of mandatory notification laws. It noted two studies. A UCSF summary that reviews a study of two states, one with a notification law and one without, concluding that pregnant adolescents in each state involve their parents in the decision to have an abortion at similar rates. The summary also notes the absence of any research evidence that a mandate increases the frequency or quality of parent-adolescent communication on these issues. The full summary is available at tinyurl.com/53feq6. The second research summary, by the Public Health Institute’s California Adolescent Health Collaborative, further discusses this research as it applies to California. This summary also reviews the alternative notification option in Proposition 4, which requires written allegation of parental abuse. And again, the authors note that there is a variety of reasons beyond parental abuse that young women do not involve their parents in the decision to have an abortion. The second summary is available at tinyurl.com/4vjguy.
I have only so much space for a comment. Suffice it to say that this law is not needed: either for the children, for the parents, for the state budget, or for the courts.
Reply
In the cases of the CTA and CASC, it allows them to usurp parental authority, something they live for. So, no, I don't think they have a child's welfare in mind ahead of their own.
And, I'd say the same thing applies to the other groups. They get to call the shots with the child, rather than the parents.
You're right. It's a huge power grab...away from parents to people with their own agendas.
Reply
Actually, the only power being grabbed is by that of the person at the center of this controvery: the woman who is pregnant.
Reply
We're talking about children. Girls.
Reply
I consider a pregnant "child" to be a better judge of their well-being (or potential harm to their well-being) than people voting on a Law. And if that child lives in fear of her parents... then who are WE to tell that child IN ALL CASES that she is wrong?
I'm sure I don't need to list the thousands of child abuse cases (parents abusing children) world-wide to say that Parents aren't always the best judge of their child's well-being. "Hey, mommy's going to take you all in a car ride to the lake!" Yeah, most parents aren't like that, but some ar.
Even if there's a situation where the child is pregnant, and the father is her own father. Father knows best, huh? And the reaching of Prop 4 could put her life into danger... And yeah, that Father should be going to prison, but this Pro 4 doesn't cover that.
That's a dangerous attitude.
What? I assume that a person knows her situation better than millions of people who have never been in that situation. YES. Voters who have only been in happy family situations where there's communication between children and parents can never know what it's like to be young (13, or 17), pregnant, and in fear of their life.
To assume that you do, or that a blanket law will take all dangerous situations into account is blind optimism.
Why can't we agree that a child in need of medical help need to go to either a parent or a judge? Why can't we agree that 13-year-olds don't always know which adults have their best interests in mind?
Why is it always a 13-year-old in your argument? What about a pregnant 16-year-old? Or a pregnant 17-year-old? Aren't they in a position to be a better judge of their well being than you and I?
And she'd need to go to a judge? Seriously? A girl who is already in fear of her life should go and try to figure out how the legal system? I'm pretty smart, and I find it a headache doing jury duty.
So why tie the hands of the adults who CAN help her? Why support this law at all? It's not needed, and it's dangerous. Maybe not to daughters who have good communication with their parents, but to a daughter who lives in actual, real fear of her parents.
And you're telling me that you don't care? That she just can't know what her parents are like, but we, the voter, do?
So here's what I saw. In 99.9% of the time, a pregnant teenager (13, or 17) will go to their parents without fear. In 99.9% of the time, a pregnant teenagers fear of her parents will be over dramatic. In 99.9% of the time, an abused pregnant daughter will be safe at home, whether she chooses to get an abortion or not.
But if there is just ONE situation, in California, where this law puts ONE child in danger... If this law passes, and one child dies, because she couldn't go to her parents, or because she tried an at home coat-hanger abortion, or because she committed suicide because she couldn't handle it... then that death is on everyone's head who supported this law.
It's a law that is not needed for the rest of the girls out there, it's needed for that one in danger.
Reply
Leave a comment