I Vote, You Decide
I got my absentee ballot a few days ago for the special election to be held on Nov. 8 for the various state and local measures. I figure I'd share my brief thoughts on each.
Prop 73 - NO (This bad boy modifies the state constitution to require parental notification for the termination of a minor's pregnancy. Duh!)
Prop. 74 - YES (Changes probationary period for teachers to 5 years from 2 and makes it easier to fire incompetent teachers. I've long resented teachers' unions, in particular UTLA, because they have been incredibly successful at preventing the firing of morons. I've had great teachers throughout school, but I think this rule is worth changing.)
Prop. 75 - NO (Limits political contribution of union dues. So many things wrong with this one)
Prop. 76 - NO (Although Prop 98 is choking the budget, I don't think this is the answer. Now if there was an initiative to repeal Prop 13, I'd be the first in line to sign).
Prop. 77 - NO (Texas needs to adopt this measure not California. After redistricting in 2000, the Democrats lost seats. I think it was done fairly.)
Prop. 78 - NO
Prop. 79 - YES (78 and 79 are very similar and it's almost impossible to differentiate. But 79 covers more individuals and goes further in screwing drug companies. I'm all for that).
Prop 80 - YES (places electric utilities under the purview of the PUC.)
LA also has a bond measure for schools. As much as I disdain the LAUSD, I voted for this with the vague hope that some day my alma mater will return to a traditional calendar from year round.
I tried to gloss over the summaries provided by the Secretary of State before deciding, and you should do the same.
Prop 73 - NO (This bad boy modifies the state constitution to require parental notification for the termination of a minor's pregnancy. Duh!)
Prop. 74 - YES (Changes probationary period for teachers to 5 years from 2 and makes it easier to fire incompetent teachers. I've long resented teachers' unions, in particular UTLA, because they have been incredibly successful at preventing the firing of morons. I've had great teachers throughout school, but I think this rule is worth changing.)
Prop. 75 - NO (Limits political contribution of union dues. So many things wrong with this one)
Prop. 76 - NO (Although Prop 98 is choking the budget, I don't think this is the answer. Now if there was an initiative to repeal Prop 13, I'd be the first in line to sign).
Prop. 77 - NO (Texas needs to adopt this measure not California. After redistricting in 2000, the Democrats lost seats. I think it was done fairly.)
Prop. 78 - NO
Prop. 79 - YES (78 and 79 are very similar and it's almost impossible to differentiate. But 79 covers more individuals and goes further in screwing drug companies. I'm all for that).
Prop 80 - YES (places electric utilities under the purview of the PUC.)
LA also has a bond measure for schools. As much as I disdain the LAUSD, I voted for this with the vague hope that some day my alma mater will return to a traditional calendar from year round.
I tried to gloss over the summaries provided by the Secretary of State before deciding, and you should do the same.
Labels: Elections
posted by Armen Adzhemyan at 11:35 AM
11 Comments:
I'm not sure prop 73 is a "DUH!" question. I think there's something wrong with a country, or state, that says it's okay for a minor to drink alcohol only with a parents consent but not okay for that same parent to be notified if the same minor wants to abort a fetus.
Mostly, I think it depends upon how you view the effects. If you hope parental consent will bring fewer abortions then I'd tend not to side with you. If you, however, like me think that parental consent should be required because minors are not mature enough to handle that kind of decision on their own (and society has deemed minors incapable to consume alcohol and smoke tobacco on their own) prop 73 makes sense.
Food for thought because this issue tends to split along pro-choice / pro-life lines, and I'm not so sure it's that black and white.
Proposition 73 puts teens in danger. The fact is that over 50% of teens speak to a parent before trying to obtain an abortion. More importantly, of the remaining 50% who don't speak to a parent, 80% of them consult an adult before seeking an abortion. Proposition 73 cannot mandate that families speak to each other. If those girls believe that they cannot talk to their parents about this decision it may be because they are in a family where they are abused, or it was a family member who impregnated them. Girls and their doctors can and should decide what is safe for them. Importantly, there is a provision in the proposition that would hold adults who are not parents criminally liable for aiding girls seeking abortions. Think about that - your parents cannot be reached for whatever reason and have never taken responsibility for your upbringing. You live with your grandparents and approach them about getting an abortion. They can be held criminally liable for helping you obtain an abortion.
Girls who feel they cannot notify their parents can obtain a judicial bypass. Imagine being a kid and trying to navigate the court system. Imagine trying to get to court if you live in a rural area and don't have access to a car. Imagine explaining to a judge why you are mature enough to decide why you need an abortion if English isn't your first language. Imagine going before a judge if your parents are undocumented immigrants. These are real obstacles to obtaining such a bypass that will overwhelmingly affect poor and minority women and girls.
More importantly, this not just a proposition - this is an 8 page amendment to the state Constitution. In 1997 the California Supreme Court struck down a similar proposition - one that did not seek to amend the constitution - as an unconstitutional invasion of privacy. Additionally, there is a phrase in Proposition 73 which states that an unborn child is "a child conceived but not yet born" to the California Constitution. This has nothing to do with parental notification and could have far-reaching consequences for stem cell research and women over the age of 18 seeking abortions.
The bottom line is that whether you are pro-choice or anti-choice the reality is that the government cannot mandate family communication. If they feel threatened girls are going to get abortions. Better that they go to a doctor and obtain a safe and legal abortion than put themselves at increased risk and delaying important medical care.
It is imperative for the health and safety of teenage girls that we vote NO to Proposition 73.
I get the sarcasm, but...
If you really thought it was "screwing" the insurance companies, I'm guessing you'd be against it. So if it isn't about giving the evil insurance companies the punishment they deserve (right?), how about we just say it's protecting patients or something, eh?
Man that's just being nit picky (what do I expect from lawyers to be). But the main difference that I latched on to between 78 and 79 is that 79 creates civil liability (or at least civil penalties) for price gouging on the part of the drug makers (I never said anything about insurance companies). Since I based my decision on that single provision, I think my statement is fair, accurate, and yes, tinged with sarcasm.
Everyone should vote for 77. The elected pols of both parties use re-districting to keep themselves from competitive races. They protect the incumbants of the majority party and the side effect is that they create safe districts for the opposing party as well. When you let the parties choose retired judges to fix the boundaries, you get far more competitive races and neither party can lock itself into power.
Prop 77 is a no-brainer if you value vibrant democracy (but if you simply want to protect Dems than oppose this measure in California but insist on it in Texas).
My sentiments exactly, Anonymous at 5:21. We'll have a split on this blog regarding this proposition methinks!
I don't see the need for Prop 77. They re-district every ten years, why the urgency to do it before the tens years is up? Does the fact that Ahhnold put this on the ballot to get the dems to negotiate on other issues make it a naked power grab by the minority party? It seems that for the most part, the number of political seats for either party closely mirrors people's political persuasions. I don't understand why having competition for competitions sake is that important. Have you seen a primary election lately? Lots of competition there.
Christine,
In most states, the political party in power gets to re-draw the lines after each census. It's obvious what the party's goal is. Take a look at what's going on in Texas, for example. Each party does it. In a few states -- and the list is growing -- the redrawing is left to a panel of retired judges chosen by both (or all) parties. The judges have a completely different motive than either party does. They have the voter in mind. They have no incentive to create safe districts for incumbents. They have no incentive to lump minority party voters in one district so as to ensure majority party victories in surrounding districts. They have no incentive to create bizarrely shaped districts for the purposes of re-electing the sitting legislators. This may seem like a boring issue, but if you look at the rising costs of running for office and the winning percentage of incumbents, I think you will conclude that having retired judges redraw the lines will restore a lot of accountability to the voters.
Well, yes there is competition in the primary, but that competition does not cause the elected representative to correspond with the preferences of the median voter; instead, the nominee corresponds to the median of the gerrymandering party. THis exacerbates polarization in the legislature and means that if I really do think of myself as a centrist, I am constantly put at loss being represented by fringe members of either party.
Tom,
The median voter in this state may not necessarily be the wisest: in the last 25+ years, he has enacted Props. 13, 209, and the Knight Initiative, to name a few. Thwarting the median voter probably led to us having Schwarzenegger in office instead of Riordan, which probably would have happened had he and not Bill Simon faced Davis in '02.
While we can debate the merits of these developments until the Big One hits (and I don't personally miss Davis or affirmative action), I would question whether we should strive to give the median voter what he wants. Public choice posits that this maximizes social utility, but remember that this is an assumption to buttress an academic theory, not a proven way to run a democracy. I like a bit of dialectic/polarization in my political brew and think it beneficial: as a heterogeneous society the "median voter" is as much a construct as the law's "reasonable man."
Good points on Prop 73 all around. As someone with years of experience working in an abortion clinic (which, by the way, taught me to detest abortion and to honestly wish that there were less abortions...but reaffirmed my belief that women need to have legal access to the service), I am generally against everything that would put up a roadblock for a woman seeking an abortion.
I think it is dangerous to place the abortion decision in anyone's hands but the pregnant woman. Ideally, she would consult with her partner, of family, of friends, or parents, or siblings, or church-leader, whoever, etc., but Prop 73 is not about the women who are comfortable talking to their parents...because those women already ARE talking to them. Prop 73 is about giving parents a say in the reproductive choices of their children who AREN'T comfortable telling them.
In addition, for the thousands of foster children and juvenile delinquents...these minors often do not have a legal parent or guardian that they are comfortable speaking with. I do not think that the abortion decision should be placed in the hands of the state (who is often the legal guardian) or the minors' attorney.
Finally, one of the major proponents of this Proposition is the father of a teenage girl who died after having an abortion. She started bleeding and her dad took her to the ER. She did not tell her father that she had had an abortion. She also did not tell the ER doctor that she had had an abortion- maybe bc her dad was there when she was being examined. I believe that she was almost 18 years old. She got an infection that spread, she maintained her silence, and she died.
I would hope that as a cautionary tale, this would serve to teach women to tell their doctors if they had had an abortion. I hope it would teach MDs to examine minor females outside the presence of their parents. I hope that it will show the rest of the world that the girl COULD have talked, COULD have told her parents (they couldn't have prevented the abortion, after all, it was already done), but she DIDN'T. Why? Because she did not want her parents to know. And I dont think that forcing her to tell them would have saved her life; she probably would have obtained an illegal abortion (with an even higher rate of infection) and died without telling her secret.
To this girl, her silence was more important than her life. She died to keep her secret. I hope that no more women have to choose between maintaining their silence, and surviving the abortion. But if this Prop passes, I am sure that more women will have to make that exact decision. What dreadful irony for the poor girl whose death dueled this Proposition.
Post a Comment
<< Home