| [Originally posted 11/05/2005 on NorCal Politics by LSchwark.]
Beyond the criticisms of the proposition as being detrimental to the health and safety of California teens, Proposition 73 is also a stealth initiative to criminalize abortion, amending the state constitution to define abortion as infanticide.
From the text of the initiative (emphasis mine):
This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8 of the California Constitution. This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by adding a section thereto
...
(1) “Abortion” means the use of any means to terminate the pregnancy of an unemancipated minor female known to be pregnant with knowledge that the termination with those means will, with reasonable likelihood, cause the death of the unborn child, a child conceived but not yet born.
I would have thought this was obvious to Californians by now. Unfortunately, the LA Times conducted a poll this week that indicates Prop 73 is running at 51% approval by likely voters. |
This is not the first go around with notification laws. In 1953, the constitution was amended to allow minors to have the same access to medical care as adults, without notification. In 1987, the legislature added a parental notification amendment in the case of abortions for minors. The state supreme court struck it down as being unconstitutional. So, now they anti-choice forces are trying to amend the constituion.
 As they always do, the anti-choice agenda is acting by stealth because people in the US, and even more so in California, are pro-choice. Therefore, they're trying to nibble away piecemeal the underpinnings of abortion access and availability. Much like the Intelligent Design advocates argue they just want to allow their side to be heard alongside evolution to get their foot in the door, the same is the case with parental notification. Conservatives understand the game, moderates are often fooled into supporting the idea as if that were the only issue involved. But it's not the only issue, it's just part of an ongoing campaign. The graphic snipped from the LA Times poll shows why this tactic can work. While pro-choice voters outnumber anti-choice voters 58% to 39%, there's a swing 19% that is open to some limitations on abortion. If they can be convinced that one measure or another is reasonable, the anti-choice forces can sneak through a trojan horse.
There are plenty of conscientious and well-meaning people who take a principled stand against abortion. Many of them are also against the death penalty and concerned with the general social welfare. But the anti-choice activists who put things like Proposition 73 forward are the people who also oppose birth control, sex education. These anti-abortion activists are now debating whether they should oppose the addition of the HPV vaccine that prevents most cervical cancer to the routine child vaccination schedule. Their argument, predictably, is that immunizing girls aginst HPV will encourage sexual activity. You see, HPV is communicable much more easily than most STD's and thus condoms aren't effective. So the fear of cancer is their ally in promoting abstinence only education.
There are plenty of other arguments against Prop 73.
- It most affects the vulnerable teens who live in abusive or unstable home environments.
- It institutes a government bureaucracy that receives notifications of teens seeking abortions. Think about that one for a minute.
- The measure criminalizes doctors and health care providers who provide abortions to teens unless they participate in the notification bureaucracy.
- Expecting vulnerable teens to go to court to get a waiver is ridiculous. Imagine yourself as a poor 16 year old with an unstable home environment. Are you going to be going to court to get a waiver? Again, the idea is ridiculous on its face.
- Most teens seeking abortions do, in fact, already discuss it with their parents.
- The state Supreme Court, in rejecting the last attempt at notification laws, included the opinion that such laws do, in fact, put teens in danger.
Vote NO on PROPOSITION 73. |
