Proposition 73
We're getting down to the wire--just one week to go before the November 8 special election. There are eight propositions to vote on. They cover a variety of subjects: unions, prescription drug benefits, school administration, abortion law and utility regulation.
If you're on the conservative side, you may see this election as a chance to curtail certain individual freedoms--freedoms that allow others to make choices that go against your own conservative values. Proposition 73, for example, will require pregnant minors to wait longer for abortions and will require that they inform their parents (with certain exceptions) prior to terminating a pregnancy.
Proposition 74 also includes a waiting period--this one is for teachers seeking tenure. Conservatives are backing Prop. 74 because it allows teachers to be fired more easily for poor performance, while also increasing the time they must work prior to achieving tenure. Conservatives see this as an issue of teacher accountability. But liberals tend to view it as a way of scapegoating teachers, while failing to address the real problems with California's educational system, such as budget cuts and poor system administration.
Each of the propositions on this November ballot can be pretty easily categorized as either conservative or liberal. Chances are, if you are a conservative, you'll be voting "yes" on the first six propositions, in keeping with the Governor's recommendations. If you're left of center, however, you'll mark "no" on props. 73-78 and say "yes" to 79 and 80, in keeping with the recommendations of MoveOn.org.
If, however, you're a moderate, and you're not inclined to vote by association, here are some of the specifics to chew on. Let's start with Prop. 73.
Proposition 73:
This measure, cited as the Parents' Right to Know and Child Protection Initiative, is supported by the idea that people have "an interest in and a responsibility for protecting the health and well-being of children, ensuring that parents are properly informed of potential health-related risks to their children, and promoting parent-child communication and parental responsibility."
One can hardly argue with a law meant to promote the health and well-being of children by promoting parent-child communication and parental responsibility. Unfortunately, if we look at the underlying premise for this measure closely, we see some major flaws in it. First, if a 13-year-old girl is pregnant and chooses not to inform her parents, there is already a serious problem in the family unit: birth control and AIDs awareness have not been taught effectively, for starters. Given the importance of educating our children on both topics, the parents of said 13-year-old girl have already failed to be ultimately responsible for their daughter's health and well-being.
Yet Proposition 73 will require that a physician report, in writing, to the parent or guardian of an unemancipated minor before performing an abortion on said minor. It further requires the notice be written in both English and Spanish. In addition, a 48-hour period of "reflection" must be imposed after the written notice is delivered, prior to the actual performance of the abortion.
While the intent of the legislation is clear, one can't expect to promote communication between a parent and child by passing a note from a third party. Granted, under Proposition 73, if the unemancipated minor does not wish to comply with the written notification requirement, she does have the option of filing a petition with the juvenile court. And, to their credit, the drafters of this measure have factored both timeliness and economic concerns into processing such a request. After specifying her reasons for the request to withhold parental notification, the court will waive the petition filing fee. What's more, the court will conduct the hearing by 5 p.m. the day following the filing, and the judgment will be entered within one court day of the submission of the matter. So far so good--but then what?
"If the judge finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the unemancipated minor is sufficiently mature and well-informed to decide whether to have an abortion, the judge shall authorize a waiver of notice of a parent or guardian." But what if she's not deemed capable of making a "sufficiently mature and well-informed" decision? What do you suppose will happen when the court rules not to allow the abortion without parental notification?
Here's another rarely asked question: if she's not mature enough to have an abortion, how can she possibly be mature enough to have a child? Unfortunately, the answer to that question is that she's not--and she's knows it. That's why she wants the abortion in the first place. If she can't get one from a physician who is a law-abiding citizen, she will find another way to end her pregnancy--one that won't require her to tell her parents about it. I wonder, what kind of back-alley enterprise will she end up resorting to? Let's not confuse our beliefs and our morality with reality. This is a practical issue--not a moral one.
Let's take a look at another scenario. Let's say the judge finds that notice of the parent or guardian is not in the child's best interest. According to Prop. 73, the judge may then also issue a waiver of the notice. But should he find that the reason the notice is not in the girl's best interests is due to "physical, sexual or emotional abuse" then "the court shall ensure that such evidence is brought to the attention of the appropriate county child protective agency."
Again, that sounds okay. But let's take a closer look at what this means. If a child is fearful of her parents and knows that in order to get a waiver for notification the government will refer her to another government agency--one that will investigate her situation--then, in effect, parental notice has not been waived at all. It's simply been diverted so that it will come, later, from another source.
Practically speaking then, the end result of this of legislation will not be to protect young girls--it will be to frighten them into seeking the services of possibly unethical, probably unqualified and most certainly less competent practitioners who are only too eager to take fast cash from a desperate and frightened young woman with nowhere else to turn.
If we want to promote family values and a pro-life agenda, let's set up educational programs for parents and children so that questions about sex, AIDs, pregnancy, etc., can be asked and answered in a supportive environment. If we wait until a child is pregnant and try to legislate such values, we will likely succeed only in adding to her emotional, psychological and possibly physical trauma--and that's not what anybody wants.
Tomorrow: Proposition 74--stay tuned. -- Laurie
If you're on the conservative side, you may see this election as a chance to curtail certain individual freedoms--freedoms that allow others to make choices that go against your own conservative values. Proposition 73, for example, will require pregnant minors to wait longer for abortions and will require that they inform their parents (with certain exceptions) prior to terminating a pregnancy.
Proposition 74 also includes a waiting period--this one is for teachers seeking tenure. Conservatives are backing Prop. 74 because it allows teachers to be fired more easily for poor performance, while also increasing the time they must work prior to achieving tenure. Conservatives see this as an issue of teacher accountability. But liberals tend to view it as a way of scapegoating teachers, while failing to address the real problems with California's educational system, such as budget cuts and poor system administration.
Each of the propositions on this November ballot can be pretty easily categorized as either conservative or liberal. Chances are, if you are a conservative, you'll be voting "yes" on the first six propositions, in keeping with the Governor's recommendations. If you're left of center, however, you'll mark "no" on props. 73-78 and say "yes" to 79 and 80, in keeping with the recommendations of MoveOn.org.
If, however, you're a moderate, and you're not inclined to vote by association, here are some of the specifics to chew on. Let's start with Prop. 73.
Proposition 73:
This measure, cited as the Parents' Right to Know and Child Protection Initiative, is supported by the idea that people have "an interest in and a responsibility for protecting the health and well-being of children, ensuring that parents are properly informed of potential health-related risks to their children, and promoting parent-child communication and parental responsibility."
One can hardly argue with a law meant to promote the health and well-being of children by promoting parent-child communication and parental responsibility. Unfortunately, if we look at the underlying premise for this measure closely, we see some major flaws in it. First, if a 13-year-old girl is pregnant and chooses not to inform her parents, there is already a serious problem in the family unit: birth control and AIDs awareness have not been taught effectively, for starters. Given the importance of educating our children on both topics, the parents of said 13-year-old girl have already failed to be ultimately responsible for their daughter's health and well-being.
Yet Proposition 73 will require that a physician report, in writing, to the parent or guardian of an unemancipated minor before performing an abortion on said minor. It further requires the notice be written in both English and Spanish. In addition, a 48-hour period of "reflection" must be imposed after the written notice is delivered, prior to the actual performance of the abortion.
While the intent of the legislation is clear, one can't expect to promote communication between a parent and child by passing a note from a third party. Granted, under Proposition 73, if the unemancipated minor does not wish to comply with the written notification requirement, she does have the option of filing a petition with the juvenile court. And, to their credit, the drafters of this measure have factored both timeliness and economic concerns into processing such a request. After specifying her reasons for the request to withhold parental notification, the court will waive the petition filing fee. What's more, the court will conduct the hearing by 5 p.m. the day following the filing, and the judgment will be entered within one court day of the submission of the matter. So far so good--but then what?
"If the judge finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the unemancipated minor is sufficiently mature and well-informed to decide whether to have an abortion, the judge shall authorize a waiver of notice of a parent or guardian." But what if she's not deemed capable of making a "sufficiently mature and well-informed" decision? What do you suppose will happen when the court rules not to allow the abortion without parental notification?
Here's another rarely asked question: if she's not mature enough to have an abortion, how can she possibly be mature enough to have a child? Unfortunately, the answer to that question is that she's not--and she's knows it. That's why she wants the abortion in the first place. If she can't get one from a physician who is a law-abiding citizen, she will find another way to end her pregnancy--one that won't require her to tell her parents about it. I wonder, what kind of back-alley enterprise will she end up resorting to? Let's not confuse our beliefs and our morality with reality. This is a practical issue--not a moral one.
Let's take a look at another scenario. Let's say the judge finds that notice of the parent or guardian is not in the child's best interest. According to Prop. 73, the judge may then also issue a waiver of the notice. But should he find that the reason the notice is not in the girl's best interests is due to "physical, sexual or emotional abuse" then "the court shall ensure that such evidence is brought to the attention of the appropriate county child protective agency."
Again, that sounds okay. But let's take a closer look at what this means. If a child is fearful of her parents and knows that in order to get a waiver for notification the government will refer her to another government agency--one that will investigate her situation--then, in effect, parental notice has not been waived at all. It's simply been diverted so that it will come, later, from another source.
Practically speaking then, the end result of this of legislation will not be to protect young girls--it will be to frighten them into seeking the services of possibly unethical, probably unqualified and most certainly less competent practitioners who are only too eager to take fast cash from a desperate and frightened young woman with nowhere else to turn.
If we want to promote family values and a pro-life agenda, let's set up educational programs for parents and children so that questions about sex, AIDs, pregnancy, etc., can be asked and answered in a supportive environment. If we wait until a child is pregnant and try to legislate such values, we will likely succeed only in adding to her emotional, psychological and possibly physical trauma--and that's not what anybody wants.
Tomorrow: Proposition 74--stay tuned. -- Laurie
posted by LA Fosner at 11:05 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home