Prop. 73 backers avoid attack on Roe vs. Wade

[question everything]

Monday, October 31, 2005

Prop. 73 backers avoid attack on Roe vs. Wade

A campaign official says their focus is on parental rights instead of abortion.

By MARTIN WISCKOL
The Orange County Register

Proposition 73, if you haven't memorized them all yet, is the one that would require doctors to notify a parent 48 hours in advance of giving a minor an abortion.

A majority of Californians support legal abortions. A 2004 Field Poll found that just 22 percent thought that laws should be changed to make abortions more difficult to obtain. So it might not be coincidence that the Prop. 73 campaign barely mentions the measure as an obstacle to abortion. Prop. 73 "is less about abortion and more about parental rights," said Stan Devereux, communications director for the Prop. 73 campaign.

(snip)

But there is no mistaking that anti-abortion rights activists are particularly supportive of the measure. Indeed, the measure is on the ballot thanks to the petition-signature effort paid for by San Diego publisher Jim Holmanand former Domino's Pizza owner Tom Monaghan, both long outspoken in their opposition to abortion rights.

USC political scientist Sherry Bebitch Jeffe said that anti-abortion rights proponents are focusing on a battle they have a chance to win. "California is strongly pro-choice, but there is an increasing feeling that there should be some restrictions," she said. "Prop. 73 is part of a strategy to nibble around the edges of Roe v. Wade."

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/columns/article_741600.php

[Baconfoot]

1. How misleading!

The ads "barely mention the measure as an obstacle to abortion" because Prop 73 will more easily pass in that case but there are three points to be made about this:
1) A notification requirement IS an obstacle to abortion
This point should be obvious in the case of incest, but is no less true of other cases. Any delay in obtaining an abortion translates to fetal development and fetal development translates into either a) increased risk for the mother or b)increased risk that the fetus as risen through development to meet some standard of protected-entity-hood (pick your favorite standard).

2) The language of the proposed constitutional amendment defines an abortion as the killing of a CHILD (note: "child" not "fetus") CONCEIVED BUT NOT YET BORN. The notion that childhood begins at conception (soon to be enshrined in the California state constitution) is an obstacle to abortion rights if ever an obstacle there be.

Why isn't this anti-abortion, anti-female language being blasted from the rooftops? Because the people who are for it don't want Californians to know what's actually in the measure. If people knew how abortion was defined, they wouldn't vote for it. But secondly, opponents of the measure correctly feel that they have a knockdown argument even ignoring the language defining abortion. The problem is that the argument isn't persuasive enough. Every voter in California should know about this language but about 80% of those I've talked to have not heard of it.

In summation: ACK!

[ray of light]

2. what are the exceptions for children of incest or family rape?

[Beaverhausen]

3. More Prop 73 info

Proponents of Prop 73 admitted last week that the initiative may do more harm than good.

Ed Hurlbutt, the Regional President of Right to Life of Central California and a Prop 73 proponent went so far as to say, "Proposition 73...is not perfect. Involving the parents would cause more problems than it would solve" - Ed Hurlbutt, Central California Right to Life Regional President, and Prop 73 supporter. (Bakersfield Californian, September 22)

Sadly, he is right.

In other states, when parental notification laws make teenagers choose between talking with parents or going to court, some teens resort to illegal or self-induced abortions – even though they know they are dangerous. When, in desperation, teenagers turn to back-alley abortions, many will suffer injuries and some will die.

• Help us spread the word about the dangers of Prop 73 – Tell 5 Friends

California doesn’t need a new law that is clearly dangerous. Even the proponents of Prop 73 admit that it is flawed! We cannot afford to take a high-risk gamble with the health and safety of our teenage daughters.

Parents rightfully want to be involved in their teens’ lives and most parents work hard to foster good family communications in their homes. But even teenagers who have good relationships with their parents might be afraid to talk to them about something as sensitive as pregnancy.

What about teens who do not have a good relationship with their parents, or in Hurlbutt’s words live in “unhealthy” homes? Maybe their family is having serious problems. Or maybe their parents are abusive, or even worse, a relative may have caused the pregnancy.

Even the proponents like Ed Hurlbutt agree that these vulnerable teens will be hurt.

How can you tell Prop 73’s anti-choice activists that our daughters’ heath and safety is the most important thing?

• Help us spread the word about the dangers of Prop 73 – Tell 5 Friends
• Volunteer for one of our phone banks
• Donate to the campaign!



"Proposition 73...is not perfect. Involving the parents would cause more problems than it would solve"
- Ed Hurlbutt



Click here to send this email to your friends!

555 Capitol Mall Suite 510
Sacramento CA 95814

A Project of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California

Contributions to this committee are not deductible as charitable contributions.

[question everything]

4. Sadly, many of the anti-privacy group

(I really do not like to call them pro-life, especially when they call us baby killers) do not care about illegal abortions.

As far as they are concerned, "she" asked for it, and if one teenager dies as a result of illegal abortion, this will "send a message" to the rest of them.

Pro-life, indeed.

[99Pancakes]

5. Is that a Bakersfield newspaper quote?

You know what's funny? My husband and I (both living in Bakersfield) are trippin' out on how the Bakersfield Californian newspaper's "NO" editorials are being used in 2 CTA ads (for NO on 74,75,76). Now you mention a quote from our paper. Gosh, it's actually not too terribly embarrassing to be a Bakersfield resident this year. Ha! Who would have guessed?

Bakersfield Democrats rock (for once)!!!!!!

:thumbsup:

:yourock: