State measures

Well seems overwhelmingly the country doesn't desire gay marriages, carrying in even a blue state as California...

One that surprises the hell out of me is the failure of CA prop 4, which gave a waiting period of 48 hours before a minor could abort until parental notification was given. Amazing that a state can take away parental rights... it just dumbfounds me that this didn't pass

*edit - didn't read the fine print, only 33% of votes in... so we'll see

EdelBrock wrote: Well seems overwhelmingly the country doesn't desire gay marriages, carrying in even a blue state as California...

Except that San Francisco Bay Area votes haven't been tallied yet...

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: Well seems overwhelmingly the country doesn't desire gay marriages, carrying in even a blue state as California...

Except that San Francisco Bay Area votes haven't been tallied yet...

Still standing with over 95% of the vote in, only absentee ballots need to be counted, so looks like its sticking... though I feel this will end up in court and be overturned.

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote: erm...

who gives a flying fuck about gay marriage???

let 'em get married and be miserable like the rest of us!!!

They won't feel so gay then, eh?

High school debating society ahoy!!!

why anybody would care who marries who is beyond me.

scrimshanker wrote: why anybody would care who marries who is beyond me.

Seperation between Church and State, that's why. Courts give civil unions (even between men/women), only a pastor, priest, rabbi, etc can give a marriage. Its a religious sacrament.

I don't see the need for gays to be married anyways... what's the point? They have civil unions (or PC termed, domestic partnership) which give the same rights as marriage does... its just silly to be fighting over a word.

(and for the record I have a civil union with my wife, it was never done in a church... I get the same benefits as someone that did).

EdelBrock wrote:

scrimshanker wrote: why anybody would care who marries who is beyond me.

Seperation between Church and State, that's why. Courts give civil unions (even between men/women), only a pastor, priest, rabbi, etc can give a marriage. Its a religious sacrament.

Nonsense.

First, in California, it's a marriage, whether its performed by a judge or other civil servant, or by a religious official. You're confusing the civil marriage license (and civil marriage ceremony) with the sacrament of marriage. They're not the same thing, and a church, synagogue, or other religious institution can't be forced to perform the sacrament against its will, even if a couple has a civil marriage license. If a couple in California wants to be married, the only requirement is a marriage license and a civil ceremony; they are not required to have the sacrament performed in order to be married, just as the religious institution is not required to perform the sacrament for anybody with a marriage license. If the couple wish the sacrament to be performed, that is between them and their religious institution.

Second, if you're suggesting that a state must prohibit gay marriage in order to protect religious beliefs, that would be a blurring of the division between church and state.

EdelBrock wrote: I don't see the need for gays to be married anyways...

Well, if you don't see the need for it, it can't possibly be important to gay couples.

EdelBrock wrote: One that surprises the hell out of me is the failure of CA prop 4, which gave a waiting period of 48 hours before a minor could abort until parental notification was given. Amazing that a state can take away parental rights... it just dumbfounds me that this didn't pass

More nonsense.

The state isn't "taking away" parental rights. The voters decided against empowering the state to give parents rights they don't currently enjoy.

You have it completely backwards.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: One that surprises the hell out of me is the failure of CA prop 4, which gave a waiting period of 48 hours before a minor could abort until parental notification was given. Amazing that a state can take away parental rights... it just dumbfounds me that this didn't pass

More nonsense.

The state isn't "taking away" parental rights. The voters decided against empowering the state to give parents rights they don't currently enjoy.

You have it completely backwards.

I don't have it backwards. The parents had parental rights before California was ever even dreamed to be a state. The state took away the rights of parents in this case... its amazing that people can really back this at all.

Youth who can't get confidential access to sexual health services, without the involvement of parents, are more likely to get STIs and to have teenage pregnancy. Do you really want a HIV positive single parent with zero career prospects for a daughter?

The same can be said when infections come from a legal abortion and no one in the family knows about it, so the daughter dies.

The real issue is that pregnancy and abortion are big ticket items in life. They aren't discardable events, like the common cold. Keeping or aborting the baby requires discussion with the family. Minors aren't mature enough to make such decisions on thier own, and it is something that might haunt them for the rest of thier lives.

The real issue is that parents can't make good judgement calls if they are not aware of large issues within thier child's life.

On top of all this, there might be rape, molestation that is taking place, and the parents would never know about it... possibly still allowing the events to happen because they know no better.

(and I'm just waiting for Comrade to come out and use the defense of upset fathers... but that defense makes as much sense as schools not sending home report cards because thier kid might get an ass whooping for bad grades)

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: One that surprises the hell out of me is the failure of CA prop 4, which gave a waiting period of 48 hours before a minor could abort until parental notification was given. Amazing that a state can take away parental rights... it just dumbfounds me that this didn't pass

More nonsense.

The state isn't "taking away" parental rights. The voters decided against empowering the state to give parents rights they don't currently enjoy.

You have it completely backwards.

I don't have it backwards. The parents had parental rights before California was ever even dreamed to be a state. The state took away the rights of parents in this case... its amazing that people can really back this at all.

You still have it backwards. The state constitution recognizes the right to privacy. You're claiming that "takes away" parental right parents held before the state existed. But the state didn't "take away" parental rights when it established the constitution-- it recognized certain pre-existing rights, including, apparently, the right to privacy. Government doesn't "create" rights; rather, it acknowledges rights. The fact that the state recognizes a right to privacy and doesn't recognize certain "parental rights" that trump the right of privacy indicates that, in the states view, those rights either never existed, or if they did exist before the state was established, they did not trump the right to privacy.

EdelBrock wrote: The same can be said when infections come from a legal abortion and no one in the family knows about it, so the daughter dies.

The real issue is that pregnancy and abortion are big ticket items in life. They aren't discardable events, like the common cold. Keeping or aborting the baby requires discussion with the family. Minors aren't mature enough to make such decisions on thier own, and it is something that might haunt them for the rest of thier lives.

The real issue is that parents can't make good judgement calls if they are not aware of large issues within thier child's life.

On top of all this, there might be rape, molestation that is taking place, and the parents would never know about it... possibly still allowing the events to happen because they know no better.

(and I'm just waiting for Comrade to come out and use the defense of upset fathers... but that defense makes as much sense as schools not sending home report cards because thier kid might get an ass whooping for bad grades)

Instead, I'll just observe that in the REAL world (i.e., not the fairy-tale world where all parents resemble Ward and June Cleaver), most kids CAN talk to their families, but some kids CAN'T talk to their families. Your apparently strong desire to use the power of the state to force them to talk to their families doesn't change that basic fact.

I find it repellent that men should feel that it is their place to discuss abortion rights anywhere, never mind here.

Diamond 383 wrote: I find it repellent that men should feel that it is their place to discuss abortion rights anywhere, never mind here.

Men most certainly have a place to discuss abortion "rights". Like it or not, they are 50% of the equation. I think most men who have ever held a child would agree.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: The same can be said when infections come from a legal abortion and no one in the family knows about it, so the daughter dies.

The real issue is that pregnancy and abortion are big ticket items in life. They aren't discardable events, like the common cold. Keeping or aborting the baby requires discussion with the family. Minors aren't mature enough to make such decisions on thier own, and it is something that might haunt them for the rest of thier lives.

The real issue is that parents can't make good judgement calls if they are not aware of large issues within thier child's life.

On top of all this, there might be rape, molestation that is taking place, and the parents would never know about it... possibly still allowing the events to happen because they know no better.

(and I'm just waiting for Comrade to come out and use the defense of upset fathers... but that defense makes as much sense as schools not sending home report cards because thier kid might get an ass whooping for bad grades)

Instead, I'll just observe that in the REAL world (i.e., not the fairy-tale world where all parents resemble Ward and June Cleaver), most kids CAN talk to their families, but some kids CAN'T talk to their families. Your apparently strong desire to use the power of the state to force them to talk to their families doesn't change that basic fact.

Comrade,

You really don't think it's a good idea for parents to be notified before their minor daughter has an abortion? Something that can figuratively and literally leave their child scarred forever?

Tex wrote:

Diamond 383 wrote: I find it repellent that men should feel that it is their place to discuss abortion rights anywhere, never mind here.

Men most certainly have a place to discuss abortion "rights". Like it or not, they are 50% of the equation. I think most men who have ever held a child would agree.

Most women would probably wish to involve the man, or someone else in her decision making process, but you don't need to legislate for that. I would be disappointed if my partner or my daughter didn't feel that she could involve me in her decision, but I would resist any legislation compelling her to do so.

Do you honestly think that any man has the right to insist that any woman should be prevented from terminating an unwanted pregnancy? Or, for that matter, that any man should be entitled to insist that someone has an abortion that she doesn't want?

Abortion doesn't damage women - it's the fucking anti-choice idiots who harp on about it afterwards that damages them.

The same cunts who wouldn't let women make their own mind up about abortion are the ones arguing against proper sex education in schools and the availability of good contraception to everyone. If they could get away with it they'd make the women walk three paces behind them, wear a bag over their head and beat them regularly.

Shit, now I'm debating it on here.

Tex wrote:

You really don't think it's a good idea for parents to be notified before their minor daughter has an abortion? Something that can figuratively and literally leave their child scarred forever?

Crossing the road can leave scars.

The reason people get so excited about abortion is that it's evidence of sex and people don't like to think about their daughters having sex.

Ironically, the sexually-repressed parents who haven't educated their kids properly are more likely to be the ones who's involvement is unwelcome when things go wrong.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: One that surprises the hell out of me is the failure of CA prop 4, which gave a waiting period of 48 hours before a minor could abort until parental notification was given. Amazing that a state can take away parental rights... it just dumbfounds me that this didn't pass

More nonsense.

The state isn't "taking away" parental rights. The voters decided against empowering the state to give parents rights they don't currently enjoy.

You have it completely backwards.

I don't have it backwards. The parents had parental rights before California was ever even dreamed to be a state. The state took away the rights of parents in this case... its amazing that people can really back this at all.

You still have it backwards. The state constitution recognizes the right to privacy. You're claiming that "takes away" parental right parents held before the state existed. But the state didn't "take away" parental rights when it established the constitution-- it recognized certain pre-existing rights, including, apparently, the right to privacy. Government doesn't "create" rights; rather, it acknowledges rights. The fact that the state recognizes a right to privacy and doesn't recognize certain "parental rights" that trump the right of privacy indicates that, in the states view, those rights either never existed, or if they did exist before the state was established, they did not trump the right to privacy.

you don't have any kids do you?

you're voluntarily gagging yourself?! booooooooring.

biggy, you make some excellent points, but it's simplistic to say the reason people get het up about abortion is purely because it's evidence of sex, or that it's anti-choice propaganda that does all the damage (where there is damage) afterwards.

oh, and don't liken it to crossing the road. that's just silly. as well you know.

and now i must away to slave for my two illegitimate brats, the trauma of whose existence is still unravelling.

Tex wrote: Comrade,

You really don't think it's a good idea for parents to be notified before their minor daughter has an abortion? Something that can figuratively and literally leave their child scarred forever?

EdelBrock wrote: you don't have any kids do you?

I think we can all agree that in most families, parents and children should talk. In some families, children can't talk with their parents. In some families, the parents are sexually abusing the children. In some families, the parents are physically abusing the children. In some families, the parents are psychologically and/or emotionally abusing the children.

We have a choice here: Parents in functional families can take on the responsibility to talk about issues like teen pregnancy before they become issues, and to make it clear that the lines of communication are always open, and that the parents will always love their children and be there for them, even if they make mistakes...

...Or parents can take the easy way out, and let the state do the hard work for them, by forcing scared and pregnant teens to talk with their parents. (hmmm, and while we're at it, maybe the state can force teens to get parental permission to buy contraceptives-- that ought to really lower the teen pregnancy rate, eh? )...Even if some parents are sexually, physically, or psychologically abusive. Even if some families believe in honor killings.

It's not that a secret abortion is a good choice for a pregnant minor, it's that sometimes, it's the only best choice she has, and it's not your place, or the state's, to say otherwise. Should children and parents have open lines of communication? Of course they should. Should parents be supportive of their kids when they make mistakes? Of course. Should that be a rationale for the state to compel a scared and pregnant teen to turn to the monsters who are abusing her? Absolutely not.

HEY WE'RE GETTING A HIGH SPEED FUCKING TRAIN

Tristan Jayol wrote: HEY WE'RE GETTING A HIGH SPEED FUCKING TRAIN

Do you have to bring a date, or can you show up stag?

Tristan Jayol wrote: HEY WE'RE GETTING A HIGH SPEED FUCKING TRAIN

Voted yes for that, but a bit weary it will ever be built and its just a waste of money on the wrong people (reading the prop all the way through showed it didn't have to actually be built to spend the money). Let's cross our fingers and hope it does actually get built.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Tex wrote: Comrade,

You really don't think it's a good idea for parents to be notified before their minor daughter has an abortion? Something that can figuratively and literally leave their child scarred forever?

EdelBrock wrote: you don't have any kids do you?

I think we can all agree that in most families, parents and children should talk. In some families, children can't talk with their parents. In some families, the parents are sexually abusing the children. In some families, the parents are physically abusing the children. In some families, the parents are psychologically and/or emotionally abusing the children.

We have a choice here: Parents in functional families can take on the responsibility to talk about issues like teen pregnancy before they become issues, and to make it clear that the lines of communication are always open, and that the parents will always love their children and be there for them, even if they make mistakes...

...Or parents can take the easy way out, and let the state do the hard work for them, by forcing scared and pregnant teens to talk with their parents. (hmmm, and while we're at it, maybe the state can force teens to get parental permission to buy contraceptives-- that ought to really lower the teen pregnancy rate, eh? )...Even if some parents are sexually, physically, or psychologically abusive. Even if some families believe in honor killings.

It's not that a secret abortion is a good choice for a pregnant minor, it's that sometimes, it's the only best choice she has, and it's not your place, or the state's, to say otherwise. Should children and parents have open lines of communication? Of course they should. Should parents be supportive of their kids when they make mistakes? Of course. Should that be a rationale for the state to compel a scared and pregnant teen to turn to the monsters who are abusing her? Absolutely not.

Can anyone else with kids help Commie understand that kids don't work through "open communication". It works on some levels, but you'll never get full open communication and if you are, you become too pal-pal with them and you are no longer are a parent.

You can't tell me a 13 year old girl has the maturity and understanding of what she will be doing... and that she'll be willing to talk to her parents about it, even in an "open relationship". Plus its the ONLY medical procedure in which the parents aren't involved in making the desicions.

But tell me Comrade, my son is 10 and he'll be getting Sex Ed next month... I have to do the dreaded talk with him... do I tell him, "sex is OK as long as you wear protection and are responsible with it, and if you get a girl pregnant, know I'm always there for you"...

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:

Tristan Jayol wrote: HEY WE'RE GETTING A HIGH SPEED FUCKING TRAIN

BUT CAN GAYS GET FUCKING MARRIED ON IT???

NO! Its to throw them off it!

EdelBrock wrote: Can anyone else with kids help Commie understand that kids don't work through "open communication". It works on some levels, but you'll never get full open communication and if you are, you become too pal-pal with them and you are no longer are a parent.

You can't tell me a 13 year old girl has the maturity and understanding of what she will be doing... and that she'll be willing to talk to her parents about it, even in an "open relationship". Plus its the ONLY medical procedure in which the parents aren't involved in making the desicions.

But tell me Comrade, my son is 10 and he'll be getting Sex Ed next month... I have to do the dreaded talk with him... do I tell him, "sex is OK as long as you wear protection and are responsible with it, and if you get a girl pregnant, know I'm always there for you"...

Your basic argument is that you want the state to violate the constitutional rights of an abused minor because you're afraid that your own teen might exercise the same constitutional right not to confide in you unless the state forces her to.

The reality is that Planned Parenthood already counsels minors to discuss their pregnancy with their parents, and two-thirds of those teens do go home and talk with their parents. Do you really believe that a teen determined not to talk with her abusive family won't get a back-alley abortion if a safe and legal abortion is not an option?

The irony is that the same people who profess to want a small, unobtrusive government are the ones who clamor the loudest for the government to violate the basic constitutional rights of its citizenry.

Funny, that I don't want government in my family, by telling me what I can and can't know about my own children... and what a doctor can and can't tell me about my own children. If my child had cancer, you'll bet the doctor will be notifying the parent... and it has little to do with government law, but because its the right thing to do... even if they simply ended up at the emergency room, they'd tell you why they are there... but a doctor can't answer a question if you ask them point blank is completely wrong...

but you still haven't aswered the question... do you have any children?

EdelBrock wrote: Funny, that I don't want government in my family, by telling me what I can and can't know about my own children... and what a doctor can and can't tell me about my own children. If my child had cancer, you'll bet the doctor will be notifying the parent... and it has little to do with government law, but because its the right thing to do... even if they simply ended up at the emergency room, they'd tell you why they are there... but a doctor can't answer a question if you ask them point blank is completely wrong...

Oh, but you do want the government intruding into your family, using the full force and power of the state to compel your children to talk with you.

EdelBrock wrote: but you still haven't aswered the question... do you have any children?

No. And if I did, I still wouldn't expect the state to do my job for me.

EDIT: That's not to say that if I did have kids, I wouldn't want them to talk with me-- in fact, everything I've said here indicates that I would work towards that from the time they were born. But if I need the state to force them to talk with me, I've already failed at my job.

Psychotherapist's opinion: Proposition 4 will only put pregnant teens in danger

By Richard M. Garcia Special to the Mercury News

For nearly 25 years I have been working with at-risk youths as a domestic violence counselor and family therapist. So I know firsthand that Proposition 4, the ballot measure that would require a girl under 18 to notify a parent before having an abortion, will not do what its proponents say it will. It does not protect teenagers. It puts them in danger.

The fact is, most teens who plan to have an abortion do tell their parents. Those who don't are the ones I tend to see in my office. They are desperate and too afraid to talk to a parent. They are the ones who might seek an unsafe, illegal abortion or even think about killing themselves. This initiative does not help them. It only creates another obstacle for teens who might trust and consult with a doctor, counselor or teacher. It does nothing to resolve the real problem, which is the lack of trust and communication between them and their parents.

This is why my colleagues who work directly with teens, including the California Academy of Family Physicians, the California Association of School Counselors and the California Teachers Association, strongly oppose Proposition 4. It is also the reason that California voters soundly rejected two similar initiatives in the past four years.

This year's version of the proposed law is even worse than before. Pregnant teens who don't want to tell a parent are given the option of telling another specified family member — who is notified by form letter — but in order to do so they must state in writing that their parents have abused them. This automatically launches a police investigation. There already are strong laws in place to protect against child abuse, but Proposition 4 would only place a teenager in more danger.

Consider the two incidents that Proposition 4 proponents have recounted. One involved a 13-year-old who was impregnated by her stepfather, and the other involved a 24-year-old man who impregnated his half-sister. These horrific cases of incest are exactly the type of dysfunctional families in which notification would make a destructive situation even worse.

Think about it for a minute. If these abused teens believed they could tell a parent about the abuse, they would have already. Under Proposition 4's narrow terms, the teens could have invoked the substitute family notification option only if they had falsely accused their mothers of serial mistreatment and reported them to the police. Their only remaining option would be to navigate the overcrowded and intimidating court system and face a judge to try to get a waiver from the law or to travel out of state to obtain an abortion.

These are abused teens: It's more likely that they would panic and end up doing something dangerous to "take care of the problem" themselves.

Proposition 4 would victimize these young victims again by putting up barriers to medical care and counseling. The 13-year-old, who was 51/2 months pregnant, would not have had time to obtain a court order. She would have been forced to bear her stepfather's child.

Tragic cases like this illustrate how ridiculous it is for Proposition 4 proponents to equate this dangerous law with laws that require parental consent for teens to visit tanning salons or get an aspirin at school. Approaching a parent about a pregnancy is much more complicated and frightening. After all, how many girls are afraid to tell their parents that they want a tan or an Advil — and how many may take desperate measures to get one? Let's not trivialize the issue.

In my work, I see the kinds of drastic actions some teens are prepared to take rather than tell a parent they are pregnant. These are the teenagers we need to protect. Please join me in voting No on Proposition 4 and keep them safe.

Richard M. Garcia, is a family violence psychotherapist and member of the San Jose Unified School District Board of Education. He wrote this article for the Mercury News.