VOTE NO ON PROPS 4, 6, 8 & 9!
The Official Language of the California Voter Guide And Why WE Do NOT Support These Propositions
*These arguments do not encompass all the negative aspects of these propositions. Please feel free to add information accordingly and please distribute/forward this information to everyone you know, especially people who may not be aware of these propositions.
Proposition 4: WAITING PERIOD AND PARENTAL NOTIFICATION BEFORE TERMINATION OF MINOR’S PREGNANCY.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
- Changes California Constitution to prohibit abortion for unemancipated minor until 48 hours after physician notifies minor’s parent or legal guardian.
- Permits notification to certain adult relatives if doctor reports parent to law enforcement or Child Protective Services.
- Provides notification exceptions for medical emergency or parental waiver.
- Permits courts to waive notice based on clear and convincing evidence of minor’s maturity or best interests.
- Mandates reporting requirements, including reports from physicians regarding abortions on minors.
- Authorizes damages against physicians for violation.
- Requires minor’s consent to abortion, with exceptions.
What it REALLY means:
- This proposition does NOT reinforce family communication. Forcing a minor to consult her parent to get an abortion may potentially close the lines of communication, especially when there is a large gap in cultural and social understandings between the two.
- It would create a barrier for minors to seek support from trust adults and guardians (non-parental figures)
- Issues of rape and incest would make it emotionally burdensome for the minor to come forward to her parents.
- Compassionate doctors would be prosecuted if caught performing unauthorized abortions.
- The appeal process would be traumatizing to a minor that would not be comfortable revealing details about her intimate life to strangers
- THIS PROPOSITION WOULD TAKE AWAY A MINOR’S CHOICE ON WHAT SHE WANTS TO DO WITH HER BODY-HER LIFE. It would put her in danger and may lead to an increase in back-alley/unsafe forms of abortion.
Proposition 6: POLICE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT FUNDING.
CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND LAWS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
- Requires minimum of $965,000,000 each year to be allocated from state General Fund for police, sheriffs, district attorneys, adult probation, jails and juvenile probation facilities. Some of this funding will increase in following years according to California Consumer Price Index.
- Makes approximately 30 revisions to California criminal law, many of which cover gang-related offenses. Revisions create multiple new crimes and additional penalties, some with the potential for new life sentences.
- Increases penalties for violating a gang-related injunction and for felons carrying guns under certain conditions.
What it REALLY means:
- Throwing money at the incarceration system DOES NOT address the issue of crime. This is not a preventive measure addressing crime.
- Funding this project would further cut budgets in essential institutions that would prevent crime in the long run, such as education. Educating the youth addresses their potential whereas incarcerating them would stunt it.
- The legal age to try a minor as an adult would drop from 16 to 14. This is the age when most students enter high school and are still developing against the backdrop of various pressures. We need to allow them to grow as opposed to throwing them into an adult incarceration system for petty mistakes.
- This proposition would serve as an excuse for police to swarm around neighborhoods stereotyped to have “gang-related” activities. The police have a different definition for “gang-related” offences from the general public; to them, these offences are always committed by people of color. Without a clearer and agreeable definition of “gang-related offenses,” the passing of this proposition would allow the police to would put more people of color behind bars.
- THIS PROPOSITION WOULD DIRECTLY TARGET PEOPLE OF COLOR AND TAKE AWAY A MINOR’S LIFE BEFORE IT CAN ACTUALLY FLOURISH.
Proposition 8: ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
- Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.
- Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
What it REALLY means:
- Think about how far we’ve come with addressing discrimination (you’ve seen all the No on Prop 8 commercials) … and how we’ve stopped right when it comes to same-sex couples. The world has evolved socially and culturally, and previous stigmas should not affect the progressiveness of our society today. Discrimination should not affect our personal life in terms of who we love.
- Our state gone through extraordinary lengths to pass the act to allow same-sex marriage in California. Since then, same-sex couples have been able to legalize their partnership under the bonds of marriage. Why strike down this accomplishment, especially when it has no negative effects on the whole of society?
- Contrary to popular belief, the proposition says nothing about educating children about same-sex marriage. This is purely about eliminating the right to marry someone of the same sex.
- Considering the secular position of the state, it should recognize same-sex marriage past the religious lens. Specific religious denominations and interpretations should not impede on others’ rights and decisions, especially at the state level. Equally, the state would not force the church to recognize same-sex marriages, as it has not forced the church to change its religious practices concerning any matter of the state.
- THIS PROPOSITION WOULD TAKE AWAY A PERSON’S RIGHT TO MARRY THE PERSON THEY LOVE AND FURTHER PERPETUATE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST LGBT COMMUNITIES.
Proposition 9: CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. VICTIMS’ RIGHTS. PAROLE.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.
- Requires notification to victim and opportunity for input during phases of criminal justice process, including bail, pleas, sentencing and parole.
- Establishes victim safety as consideration in determining bail or release on parole.
- Increases the number of people permitted to attend and testify on behalf of victims at parole hearings.
- Reduces the number of parole hearings to which prisoners are entitled.
- Requires that victims receive written notification of their constitutional rights.
- Establishes timelines and procedures concerning parole revocation hearings.
What it REALLY means:
- The victim or the victim’s family would have the last word. This would violate the ideal of “due process”-taking away a defendant’s right to a fair trial because the court could rule in favor of the victim’s family. As much pain as the victim’s family is forced to go through, the defendant should still be seen as a person with inviolable rights.
- Early release would not be granted to convicted defendants. Instead, they would be kept in prisons, forcing the state to put more money into prisons to support the large base of prisoners. Forcing people to stay in prison and not granting them parole would likely increase the rate of recidivism once they leave prison.
- Again, this is throwing money at the incarceration system instead of introducing a preventative measure to crime. In order to address the economic crisis, Governor Schwarzenegger has cut our education budget a great deal. Putting more money into the incarceration system rather than our schools is the wrong solution to crime and further decreases the quality of our educational system-negatively affecting the future of our youth today.
- The funding for this proposition would also force budget cuts upon our healthcare system, jeopardizing the health of all California residents.
- THIS WOULD BE AN EXPENSIVE, UNNECESSARY, AND INEFFECTIVE PROPOSITION THAT DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT APPROACH IN ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OF CRIME.
Sources:
Official Voter Information Guide
http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/
No on Prop 4
http://www.noonprop4.org/
No on Prop 6
http://defeatrunner.org/
No on Prop 8
http://www.noonprop8.com
No on Prop 9
http://www.votenoprop9.com/facts_arguments.html