Sac Bee-No on Prop 73

[davidinalameda]

http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/editorials/story/13698585p-14541314c.html

The reality of these difficult situations is brought home to voters in Proposition 73: Should government require parental notification when those under age 18 seek to end a pregnancy? Californians who truly care about the health and safety of pregnant teens should vote No.

Proponents note that minors can't get an aspirin from a school nurse or a tattoo without a parent knowing. But what are the consequences if a teen postpones a tattoo or an aspirin? You can't put a pregnancy on hold. It's a time-limited circumstance, where a decision should not be postponed. Delays of days or a week can turn an early stage abortion into a second trimester abortion, with medical consequences, or force teens to bear children they are not prepared to care for. No one should want that.

[kimmylavin]

1. Just to Add...

Whatever happened to the conservatives cries of "No Big Government"? First Terri Schiavo (she couldn't have been less of the business of the state or federal government), now this - state government should be regulating family communication???

Also, I love the part about how a teenage girl who does not wish to tell her parents can go to a judge. When I was 25, I had to go before a judge for a parking ticket; I was terrified! A pregnant teen has to stand before a room of strangers, announce she's had sex and would like to abort the pregnancy? That'll never happen - which is the idea for the proponents, isn't it?

Incidentally, the deadline to register to vote for this election is October 25th. There's still time! No on 73...

[IndyJones]

6. The teenage girl doesn't go before the judge. An atty does it for her.

Just to clarify.

[bliss_eternal]

12. Welcome to DU, kimmylavin!

:hi:

Thank you for posting about this important issue!

[Oerdin]

2. In states that require parental notification

There have been several cases where the fundimentalist parents killed their daughter because she got pregnant outside of marriage.

[IndyJones]

7. Really? OMG!!! You have any info I can read on that?

I'll try a google. That is terrible.

I'm torn on this one so I'm trying to research as much as possible.

[xxqqqzme]

8. Research all you can but it comes down

2 simple points

It is an amendment 2 the STATE constitution. It is on the ballot as an amendment because the legislation that required notification was ruled UNconstitutional because it did/does NOT consider the health of the woman/teen. Also the amendment REQUIRES doctors to inform the parents, not the pregnant woman/teen. If the doctor does not, it is the doctor as criminal.

The section about 'judicial bypass' is strange because, currently California law makes provisions for 'emancipated teens'. A teen can be emancipated if they R so declared by a court decree or if they are PREGNANT! Now if a teen is emancipated by becoming pregnant why does she need parental notification? See there is a major problem here. This Prop is poorly written and deserves 2 be defeated.

The initiative's primary backer is James Holman, publisher of a San Diego weekly newspaper who contributed $420,000 of the $567,000 the committee behind the measure received last year. Holman is an anti choice activist who was sentenced to 3 years probation in 1990 after pleading guilty to 2 misdemeanor charges stemming from anto-choice protests @ San Diego clinics.

[IndyJones]

11. Thanks a lot for the info.

[pinto]

3. I'm voting no on 73. Inappropriate role for the state constitution.

For those supporters of this amendment, I'd suggest they go to the legislature. Get a law passed in Sacramento, then let the Supreme Court rule on constitutionality.

(a couple of points)

The "opt out clause" is a feel good pipe dream meant to sell this.
I just don't see many young women, faced with an abortion decision for an unwanted pregnancy, unable or afraid to talk with a parent - or at personal risk if they did - petitioning a court for a waiver...

And the wording - specifically "unborn child" - sure seems intended to lay the groundwork for further inappropriate constitutional manipulation.

[Baconfoot]

4. The blurbs need to include the "child CONCEIVED but not yet born" phrase

Many people who would otherwise be in favor of this amendment would vote against it if they were informed about how they are defining abortion.

This prop is NOT just about parental notification (though it would be bad enough if it were). If it were just about parental notification there would be no need whatsoever for the language it uses. It is, as a previous poster stated, laying the groundwork for the future of anti-freedom of reproductive choice in the state of California.

[pinto]

5. Yeah, and the phrasing would go into the Constitution....they are looking

to set "precedence".

[Cleita]

9. Not only that, it's a ploy to make inroads step by step to

making abortions illegal again in the end.

[Pushed To The Left]

10. I did some No On 73 phone banking

tonight, and I was pleasantly surprised at the response of some of the people I spoke to! I talked to one woman who was undecided, but kept asking me questions. I answered her questions, and she ended up being a strong "No" vote! She was even adding some of her own reasons for opposing 73! Our main point was that teens that feel that they can't go to their parents will choose illegal or self-induced abortions if this law passes.

[bliss_eternal]

13. ...or they could conceal the pregnancy--

have the child and abandon it, somewhere. Or possibly kill the child after delivery. Hate to be the voice of doom and gloom here, but it has happened.

Parents that FORCE their children to carry pregnancies full term do more harm than good. I know of a woman that forced her daughter to have a child AND to MARRY the father. I won't go into the details of how a cycle of abuse was perpetuated and the affects of that.

I just don't think children should be forced to live as adults--because their parents want them to...