Do the majority of people in California have children? If they do then I would wonder why they defeated Proposition 73 a proposed constitutional amendment that would require doctors to notify parents or guardians when a minor seeks an abortion. "What did you do today? Oh and if you had an abortion and had our grandchild killed don’t tell me about it." Or do they just think this might happen only with other people’s children? If they are so permissive on abortion then why would they have a problem with their daughter telling them first?
Now you might make the argument that they are for the autonomy of the individual and that the individual gets to decide. You could make that argument if they hadn’t also voted against a proposition that would have allowed union members not to have their dues go towards political contributions without their permission.
Though maybe the silver lining is that Proposition 73 was only narrowly defeated. The amendment though also "Defines abortion as causing "death of the unborn child, a child conceived but not yet born."" Maybe that was what killed it off. While the wording isn’t very strong, it might have been an uncomfortable truth. "The emperor has clothes on I tell you and don’t dare make me think otherwise." How insensitive the writers of the amendment were using child instead of fetus and daring to associate the word death with child. "We totally support abortion, but please don’t words that more accurately describe what happens. Ignorance is bliss. Bliss me father for we have not sinned."
12 comments
I think you’re right about the definition of abortion in the bill being uncomfortable for people. Of course, that’s not why they’ll say they voted against it – that will be a range of excuses like the Religious Right is getting too powerful, and you can’t legislate morality, and that venerable chestnut I don’t want to impose my beliefs on others – but it’s the root of it with a great many people, no doubt. As far as the parental notification part goes, quite a lot of parents don’t want to know what their daughter is up to. They’re busy with their own careers, and while they don’t want to supervise her social life themselves, they certainly don’t want her to have a baby at sixteen and go on welfare. Not knowing what’s going on saves them a lot of trouble all round.
Elinor is right. They are like mothers who wont admit the stepfather is molesting the kids. They dont want it to be true.
Actually, the argument was floated that allowing minors to have abortions without parental consent would protect those minors who could not talk to their parents because they live in abusive homes. I guess people bought that argument.
“Bliss me father, for I have not sinned.”
You are so clever!
The truely sad thing is:
1.) Tanning salons can cause cancer
2.) Tanning salons are therefore dangerous
3.) Therefore California requires consent for tanning salons to operate on children
4.) Recieving an abortion is considered major surgery.
Go figure.
I, too, am flummoxed by this. I can’t figure out how a law that is generally supported by up to 80% of the population didn’t pass muster in California.
California Votes Against Parents
The parental notification failed. How is a mystery to me because somewhere between 70 and 80% of people think that it’s important for a parent to know when their underage daughter is having an abortion. She can’t get aspirin at school without permiss…
“It doesn’t matter who votes. It matters who *counts* the votes” — Josef Stalin
The text “Defines abortion as causing “death of the unborn child, a child conceived but not yet born.” wasn’t even an issue – Arnold identified himself with this proposition and some people voted no based on that, some were told that it dealt with parental consent rather than notification (which is blatantly false, but some pro-choicers said that anyway), pro-life people didn’t have as much funding and couldn’t hit urban areas with tv ads as pro-choice people could do — the list goes on.
Also, people didn’t actually seem to be familiar with the proposition. e.g. one objection was that the proposition would cause horrid delays. But, according to the text, if a minor applied for a judicial waiver then her case would be heard *and* decided within three business days. There was not a little confusion sown about this proposition.
Pax+
The irony is that affirming the status quo protects abusive parents and does nothing to help minors in abusive relationships. Prop73 would have required that Planned Parenthood take an interest in the child’s situation. If the child was truly in an abusive situation at home, the appropriate action would be to remove the child from the situation, which any judge could do, and which Prop73 would have ensured. After all, if a child sought judicial bypass, the judge would naturally inquire the reasons why.
The status quo is “don’t ask, don’t tell”. If you live in an abusive home, Planned Parenthood will give you your abortion and return you to the home. If you are 13 and are impregnated by a 30 year old man, PP doesn’t care.
But we have PP on the television saying that Prop73 will result in more abused children.
Prop73 is common sense, and it still boggles the mind how it could’ve been voted down.
there are not words to express my dismay over the failure of prop 73. it did pass in my county, an island surrounded by idiocy. People just didn’t bother to read – or didn’t want to start down the slippery slope of impacting on someone’s rights to an abortion.
You know, there *might* be less abortion if people weren’t so convinced that the earth is overpopulated.
Over in France, the population is declining, but immigrant (Muslim) population is rising. The same thing is happening all over Europe. Europe is dying, and they’re too obsessed with “choice” to care.