California Special Election 2005

Great Debates
41

I have seen the opt-out box on a membership application form (teachers’ union, in this case). People can also put it in writing later–a very brief statement.
The new prop. would require members to say yea or nay in writing to every issue, which would create a tremendous amount of extra paperwork, mailing, and so on.

I voted some time ago via mail and it was “NO” on durn near everything.

42

I think you’re being a bit disengenuous. I can’t think of any reason to inform a parent other than to involve them at a level of either consenting or not to a child’s medical procedure.

43

I think in the vast majority of cases the parents will know what is going on. Which is as it should be. The moral calculus here is whether the harm of a parent not being notified outweighs the harm of a girl suffering the consequences of a parent being notified. If abortions were being done by back alley butchers, I’d be for parental notification, since the chance of harm to the girl is greater without a parent helping to choose a safe place to have it. (I know - there aren’t any butchers as long as abortion is legal - I hope.) With a girl likely to have a safe one, I tend to think the harm on the girls is greater.

In the situations of greatest risk, don’t you think notification equals consent? Would you support safe houses for girls to hide while the parents get notified?
I’ll do some research when I get home to answer your reasonable questions. I also want to find out what percentage of pregnant young girls become pregnant from adults in the household as opposed to boyfriends or outside predators.

44

Will they? When I was a kid, we did all kinds of things our parents never knew about. That’s SOP for being a teenager. Do you think that “in the vast majority of cases” that parents know their kids are having sex? Do you think that “in the vast majority of the cases” that parents know their kids are drinking, etc? Mine certianly didn’t. I’m a guy, but if I were a 15 year old girl and I got pregnent, I doubt I’d tell my parents about an abortion if I didn’t have to.

No.

Only if the girl could convince a judge that parental abuse was invovled.

45

From post #12:

46

Alright. I agree with that, as far as it goes. Can you explain why you feel they should have to?

Could you be a bit more specific? When informing a legal guardian of a medical procedure being performed on their minor child, how does notification not equal consent?

Yes. I see that. California courts being what they are: “I’d like to make a court date, please. In six months for a pregnancy I’m not yet aware is going to happen to ask a judge to protect me from my parents who may or may not be abusive toward me.”

47

Thanks, and I apologize for not reading your earlier post all the way through. In that case, would you not agree that this initiative should be tossed out, and a better one written, specifically including an age restriction? I’m not aware of the statistics involving what percentage of minors under the age of 16 actually present for D&C’s without a parent, but I can’t think that it’s as great as the percentage over the age of 16.

48

Let’s start off with the simple observation that, of Props 73-77 (the ones that got the ballot started), not a single one is so urgent that it could not wait until 2006 to be decided. Remember, we are spending an extra $60 million to hold a special election in 2005 for these issues (78-80 were added afterwards).

So, let’s look at all the Propositions in the light of, “Is this law so good it can’t wait, or is there a significant political aspect to this?”

NO on 73. Your kid is out, having sex and getting pregnant. They’re already seeking an abortion, so unless your teenage daughter is out trying to get an abortion behind your back, this law will not affect you. You’ve pretty much failed as a parent already, and what, you want the State to give you a 72-hour notification of your stupidity? I have an idea that will cost less and is more effective: talk to your kids about sex rather than clapping your hands over your ears and pretending they haven’t heard of blowjobs before.

NO on 74. Are superintendants clamoring for extra years to decide? This Proposition will not change the criteria for hiring/firing teachers, nor will it introduce any oversight, nor will it provide incentives for good teachers. This is purely a political jab, making public school teachers fight for their own jobs. This is Arnold Schwarzenegger’s personal vendetta against teachers for having the gall to ask him to keep his promises (when he “borrowed” $2 billion from the schools last year).

YES on 75. I don’t know what the current rules are, but the government forcing you to pay money to an organization you don’t believe in is a travesty of justice, and the more restrictions on [del]organized crime[/del] unions, the better. Since so many lawmakers have conflicts of interest when it comes to political finance laws, it makes sense for laws to be instituted via Proposition.

NO on 76. Our budget is already restricted by well-meaning Propositions that have simply grown out of date. The Legislature and Governor already have so little control over the budget, it’s not even funny. The problem with the budget is in the stupid Propositions, not with the Legislature or the Governor.

YES on 77. Again, a decent system and a good use of the ballot initiatives.

NO on 78. If the pharmaceutical companies wanted to voluntarily reduce prices, they could do so right now.

NO on 79. I agree with the concept of Medical bargaining for the best prices, and dropping drugs that are simply overpriced. This is capitalism at work. But the rest of the proposition is pure trash. Prices should be lowered with market pressure, not with regulatory agencies.

? on 80. This is the first I’ve even heard of this Proposition! At the risk of being laughed at … is it new? :frowning:

49

But we’re talking something a bit more extreme here. Even abortion is not done on the spur of the moment. Maybe I’m just an optimist, but I still think that most kids would want parental support in this case - assuming they have supportive parents.

I couldn’t find any statistics one way or another, but here (admittedly from an anti-73 site) are some quotes from the AMA and American Academy of Pediatrics. (Warning - pdf). They say notification is good, usually, but this should be balanced with the need for confidentiality in some cases. It seems to me to be a well thought out set of opinions, asking the state not to get involved in a doctor - patient relationship.

Do you really think many would take that risk? A kid against a parent, with the penalty for guessing wrong going back to an even worse situation? I’m sure I don’t have to remind you of the many times social workers get it wrong.

50

The current rules are that no one who doesn’t want to give money to their union for this has to. It is done on a yearly basis, this proposition makes it done on a per issue basis. It’s clearly for revenge against the unions who have committed the dastardly crime of wanting more money for education. For shame!

51

NO on 73. Emphatic “No.” Abortion is between a patient and a doctor not a patient and a judge. I am against anything that puts a judge between anyone’s body and medical treatment.

The truth is that there actually is medical confidentiality with minors. You fifteen year old actually can walk down to the doctor and get The Pill, or whatever, without you being involved. It’s common standard practice. Nothing shocking.

Presumably the doctors do their job and watch out for drug interactions and other risks. Having a child is a legal obligation for eighteen years and a moral one forever. It’s not a decision that belongs to anyone but the person involved. These parents arn’t going to have to deal with the implications of having a baby to support for the next eighteen years- but the kid is going to have to deal with the baby long after they reach adulthood- so I don’t think they should have any right to try to sway a kid to have one.

And a parent has the legal right to, say, put his kid in handcuffs and ship him or her out to a “behavior modification camp” in the caribbean where they are held in prison-like conditions and beaten on a daily basis. Consulting with your parents is not just a “heads up.” It basically amounts to parental conset since it’s totally legal for your parents to, say, only allow you to go to school and back and have armed gaurds escort you along the way.

NO on 74. Let the people who actually work in schools figure out how to do their jobs, not a bunch of people who find it fun and easy to waltz in and put wierd and petty restrictions on them. Teachers have been a handy target lately. Why not tell doctors they all have to sing “Hotel California” before every surgery? Why don’t we tell lawyers that they have to wear pink suits? Because they arn’t the scapegoat of the second that we feel like imposing random restrictions on for no better reason than we feel like we ought to “do something.” I trust trained and experienced people to run the schools, not some slob like me who knows shit all about it.

NO on 75. Public employees are also an easy target. They are the only one’s who can be randomly batted around by whoever is in power at the time- and it happens regularly. When they decided to not give checks to state employees because the budget wasn’t balanced, guess who lost? It wasn’t the state legislator in their fancy homes. It was the lowly call center-workers, janitors, clerks and service people that make this state work. They deserve some protection from the states’s massive power to screw them when they want a statement.

NO on 76. No. We have a legislator for a reason. Seems like a shameless power grab for Arnold and I doubt he’d do much good with it. I always try to vote for laws assuming that Hitler is going to be the next guy in power. If I wouldn’t want Hitler to have a law, I don’t want it now.

NO on 77. I don’t know enough about redistricting to really say much, but this whole “let’s hand all the power to three random judges” doesn’t seem like the solution.

NO on 78. Not a real proposition, just an attempt by the drug companies (read: pure evil) to split the vote. Seems to be working. I’m totally perplexed as to why the evil proposition is showing better poll numbers than the good one.

YES on 79. The good one. Although I’d like to see an actual healthcare solution, rather than a bunch of band-aids, this will save lives.

UNDECIDED on 80. Don’t know enough about it.

52

Well, I looked into it, and I don’t see how you figure this. The initiative requires a form to be filled out each year. Can you clarify which part of the initiative you’re talking about?

53

I vote “No” on all propostions al the time. Government by proposition is idiotic.

54

It’s not a bad starting point, and I generally vote “no” if I can’t understand the thing in about 15 seconds.

But… in lots of places the legislature simply won’t address issues critical to the voters. I think it’s a good outlet ion a few occasions, but most of the time the initiative is just someone’s pet peeve.

55

Also, there are some propositions which must be put to the voters even after they have been approved by the legislature. For example, bond issues.

Ed

56

You make a good point, Maureen. I don’t understand why this is a ballot issue. Are there a lot of parents in California who are so disconnected from their own daughters that they need a law to tell them that their daughter is going to have an abortion? I hope not. I’m still tryng to find out who’s behind this initiative. It’s not the principle itself; it’s that someone, somewhere, thinks that this should be a ballot proposition. Thank you very much, whoever you are, but when I have a daughter, I’ll make sure she’s perfectly comfortable telling me if she gets pregnant–I don’t need your help, whoever you are. You can walk right out of my living room, and keep on walking–don’t stop.

I think November 8th is a real sleeper date for California. I’m very glad to see that so many people are finally taking an interest to this, even those who don’t agree with me. Probably the most important thing is control of the state budget, particulary with regard to education. Prop 13 happened before my time, but 76 seems to me the modern-day version. A lot of people have expressed their concern about the initiative process here. I think it’s gone astray. It isn’t the people expressing their will; it’s big money taking advantage of the process.

57

BTW, the CDP was portraying this election as a 73 million dollar boondogle. Actually, quite a few local elections are piggy-backing on it, not the least of which are the tri-city area in Northern California, and, of course, the mayoral election in San Diego–which includes those two city council members who were convicted by the Feds.

58

Can you explain this? Thanks.

59

73 - YES. Parents need to involved. This comes down to the numbers of adults boyfriends/molesters controlling the minor girlfriends/girls decision on abortion versus the number of parents abusing their daughters. I believe the former is higher. Therefore…YES.

74 - YES. Although I believe no job should be “permanent”, extending it to 5 years is better than 2 years. I’ve seen employees work steadily 10 years and then don’t give a rat’s ass from year 11 and onward. I had a math teacher who handed out 6 sheets of busywork at the beginning of a class and then kick his feet up and read the newspaper for the rest of the class…he should have been the first to go. I COULD HAVE TAUGHT THAT CLASS!

75 - YES. This should be an OPT-In system, not OPT-out. Also, the unions should let the duespayer decide what person or proposition they want to fund. THAT WOULD BE TRUE REPRESENTATION - not the false representation that Unions claim to have in their duespayer’s best interest. The union I was in intimidated some of the candidates that I knew into pulling out of the race because the power and control that the union bosses carried…financially and politically.

76 - YES. Balanced budget should always be goal #1. Anyone here remembered when IOU’s (to state employees and contracted agencies - we were one of them) were handed out in July-September of 1992 because of the budget gridlock between Willie Brown and Pete Wilson? That damn near sent the State into 3rd world status. These two jokers played chicken with the state, with the CURRENT rules that we still have in place. The Governor should have the final say if the legislature can’t get their act together and get the budget passed. Even though I am on the receiving end of this funding budget indirectly, a passing vote here is better than the crap that happened 13 years ago…and we nearly avoided using IOU’s in other fiscal years as well because of partisan chicken games.

77 - YES. This is a no-brainer…pull out the foxes who are guarding the chickencoop. Although not the panacea I’m looking for, it’s a step in the right direction. If I had my way, I would get a map of California with population plot data and make a computer program divide it into quadrants and then divide those quadrants into quadrants and so on and so on…until you stop dividing at breaking point were each quadrant is close to the number of constituents needed to make up a district. I can’t count on the legislature to do this, but the judges may be open to such ideas…I’ll give them that chance.

78 - Undecided.
79 - Undecided.
80 - Undecided.

60

Wha? No. It comes down to whether or not a young woman should have her right to privacy protected or not, and whether or not she should be allowed to make a decision regarding her body on her own or not. I agree that her “adult bf/pimp” shouldn’t be making her decisions for her. But it’s still her body and her decision. You are effectively taking her choice from her and making it her parents’ choice.