What Part of "No" Do You Not Understand?
Posted by: SB Insider | 12/12/2007 12:58 AM
A post authored by "Red Writer" on Red County San Bernardino points to signature gathering efforts for "Sarah's Law," a proposed ballot initiative that the anonymous author suggests will be "similar to last year's Proposition 85." Proposition 85 was a proposed ballot measure that would have enacted a statewide parental consent law on minors opting to have an abortion procedure.
Proposition 85 lost by a significant margin, as did the the nearly-identical California-wide measure Proposition 73 in 2005.
Not content with TWO losses, anti-abortion forces are apparently back with yet ANOTHER proposed initiative that extends what would have been the scope of Propositions 73 and 85, had those ill-conceived (sorry for the horribly awful pun) initiatives been enacted as state law.
Problems with "Sarah's Law," aside from the growing political cliche of naming a political cause after a person, include the uncomfortable subject of having physicians in medical clinics become government-mandated informers to family members of those seeking medical treatment, as "Red Writer" indicates the third proposed ballot measure in as many years aims to accomplish. "It allows for a physician to report the pending abortion on a minor girl to a grandparent or adult sibling."
From my perspective as a libertarian conservative and as a matter of public policy, I find the prospect of a law ordering physicians to notify family members - even distant relatives - of confidential medical decisions to be unsettling, to say the least. Politically, it appears to be a sure loser, just as 73 and 85 were in two statewide elections.
Now, I know some readers will scream "It is a procedure involving a minor, why shouldn't the minor's parents be notified?" A very valid point; however, I thought this matter was settled in November 2005. And again in November 2006 with the defeats of very similar proposed propositions.
As Republicans look to (at best) maintain their current seats in the state Legislature, the last thing they need is a ballot measure that will only draw liberal voters out in droves, as this initiative will likely do.
This proposed initiative is well-meaning; however, California has already spoken twice on this and, in my humble opinion, I think it is ill-advised and could result in only more unnecessary heartbreak for California's struggling pro-life movement.
(EDITOR'S NOTE: The opinions and thoughts expressed by "SB Insider" on this entry do not necessarily reflect the thoughts and views of the editor and members of Red County San Bernardino's "blogpen." Red County San Bernardino welcomes the viewpoints of all those involved on this issue, as you can see from the perspectives of both the Red Writer and the contributor of this opinion piece.)
You can argue all you want about whether or not this rash of “pro life” propositions on recent ballots are valid or worthwhile, and you can argue the reasons why common sense protections for minors and families are defeated by voters (in a predominately liberal and anti family state) over and over but to somehow suggest that the legal obligation that physicians in medical clinics and hospitals have to inform parents of the medical treatment their children receiving is “unsettling” when it comes to informing parents of abortion procedures indicates a serious lack of judgment on the writers part. (Thus, making the case as to why these measures are defeated over and over.)
Some would argue that ear piercing isn’t a medical procedure and yet it too requires adult consent. To suggest an abortion is somehow exempt from the medical procedure category for whatever reason the pro abortion left comes up with is simply manipulation in order to keep the powerful pro abortion lobbies pockets lined with monies from their abortion clinic clients. It is that simple.
The pro abortion lobby’s lack of consideration for families and young adults in crisis pregnancies will once again be exhibited in the next election cycle – I hope and pray the pro life voters in California continue to fight the good fight.
In response to SB Insider's comments in "What Part of "No" Do You Not Understand?, I disagree that the pro life movement is "struggling". In spite of what some may think, the fact that so many church going people are gathering siganatures, not only on Sarah's Law but also for SB 777 and the pro marriage proposal, speaks volumes as to the poltical clout that people of faith can muster if given the tools. The vast majority of ballot measures in CA are qualified by paid signature gathering efforts, the beauty of both Props 73 and 85 and now Sarah's Law is that there are hundreds of volunteers out in force getting signatures. I know many campaigns and candidates who would love to have hundreds of volunteers going out on their behalf. I for one am inspired by the sheer number of people of good will who are willing to give up their precious time to helped with getting the over one million signatures that were turned in each round for Props 73 and 85. In addition the healthy margin of cross over voters among Latino Democrats is a victory in itself. This voting bloc can no longer be ignored, just look at the make up in Sacramento. Sarah's Law polls well among Latino voters. If just from a purely pragmantic political tool, Sarah's law may pull off a larger Latino vote than the last two rounds.