Why I'll be Voting No on Parental Notification Proposition 4 in California.

Whew! We voted it down AGAIN!

Nelle - Definitely, the best situation is when a woman can turn to her family.

Wilma - Love your comment! I wish more people thought that way.

Bill - California makes it one degree to easy to get things on the ballot, I think. It's kinda scary.

Liz Rizzo ( http://blogher.org/blog/liz-rizzo )

I blog at Everyday Goddess ( http://everydaygoddess.typepad.com/ ).

hahaha How come it's ALWAYS CALIFORNIA coming up with these retarded "props"? hahaha Every time you turn around, California's trying something stupid.

Of course you're right.  If they force notification, girls will go to places where they don't HAVE to notify, which is either going to be an "underground" facility or out-of-state.  Neither one's going to be a good option, and probably not safe either.

On top of that, I could understand if the kid was just going to pop out the next day. :D  That would make sense to say "let the parents decide if they want to keep the kid".  The problem is that it's not that physically, mentally or emotionally simple for a woman to carry and deliver a baby, so the whole concept doesn't make any sense.

When they can transplant the kid into the mother, THEN she should decide if her daughter should keep it or not. :)

~ Bill ( http://billcammack.com )
I blog at billcammack.com ( http://billcammack.com )

but consent sends me to da moon!

I know the arguments pro and con, and there are good arguments both ways. In the end, do I wish my daughters to do an end around to avoid me, or do I wish there be a safe place for them to turn?

OK, so one is 24 and does not give two shits about what I think (heh, exactly how I felt at that age) but the youngun is pushing 17 and I damn well care she has a place to turn if she somehow feels she cannot turn to us.

I like to think both of her parents would be there for her, and we would, though in different ways, because we process differently. We would love her and hug her and stand by her no matter the issue.

No, no notification. We really need to stop trying to regulate women's bodies.  

nelle ( http://refractivethoughts.org/ )

/

llhaesa ( http://llhaesa.org/ )

Hello everyone and thanks for commenting!

Debra - I can't wait to mark my vote on this tomorrow.

Elisa - Seriously, it's hard to believe that they managed to make this prop *even worse* than it's been before. Sigh.

Suzanne - I feel you; when I read about horrible laws being voted on in other states, it's so frustrating. I can only hope that here in California those who go to the polls remember to vote no on this AGAIN.

Carrisa - Thank you for expressing your opinion. I was a youth who always knew my mind, and it didn't agree with my parent's opinions. We still don't agree on many things. Personally, I think that it is absurd that someone who can get pregnant can't choose to take aspirin, and I'm not a fan of laws about smoking or drinking either. I spent my entire childhood waiting to be free. And I do think that this is one instance where nature trumps whatever we think. Suzanne hit the other good points, I think. You just can't know what each individual's situation is, and what's best for them.

Vered - Seriously, it's horrible to consider, but definitely true that parents who can't navigate the system will resort to risky choices.

Kimberly - Not a perfect world by far, unfortunately. But hopefully getting better soon!

Liz Rizzo ( http://blogher.org/blog/liz-rizzo )

I blog at Everyday Goddess ( http://everydaygoddess.typepad.com/ ).

In a perfect world, no one would even need abortions.  In a perfect world, women would not be raped or molested by family and be forced to undergo abortions.  In a perfect world, parents, all parents, would give a damn about their kids.  We don't live in a perfect world. Laws limiting abortion that can hurt both woman and child doesn't help anyone.  Should there be limits? Yes, but limiting your right to choose is not one of them.  Getting four abortions shouldn't be acceptable either.

When abortions become illegal, women still have them illegally, and they often pay with major health complications or with their lives.

If Prop 4 passes, the teens that hide pregnancies and abortions from their parents will still find a way to have an abortion, but instead of getting safe abortions they would go for self-inflicted or for illegally performed abortions. We all know exactly what this means. 

---

Mommy Blogger ( http://momgrind.com/ ) Wannabe.

I manage my kids' activities at UpToUs. ( http://www.uptous.com/ )

Pregnancy is not just an inconvenience for nine months; it can seriously impact a woman's emotional, mental, and physical health both in the short and long term. Does a parent have a right to force a girl to carry a pregnancy to term if she does not want to? (If so, why? Are children mere property? Can parents also deny a cancer-stricken teenager treatment for cancer if she wanted it? I see that as a comparable conflict of interest.) What happens if something goes wrong because her parents would not let her have an abortion? Who is held liable then?

I see your point on why the law puts limits on things like driving, smoking, and drinking, but at the same time, there's a strange double standard in saying that a minor is not responsible enough to decide whether she wants to carry a pregnancy to term but responsible enough to carry a pregnancy to term if her parents want her to. It's not easy being pregnant, and someone not responsible enough to drive probably isn't responsible enough to engage in all the proper activities needed for a healthy pregnancy. Definitely a catch-22.

Again, I point out that most young women do tell a parent, guardian, or other responsible adult if she is pregnant, and they work through the situation together. Whether we like it or not, we cannot legislate family communication and good relationships. The state should not interfere in family dynamics, which is exactly what parental notification asks it to do.

Suzanne Reisman ( http://www.blogher.com/member/suzanne-reisman ), Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender ( http://blogher.org/topic/feminism-gender )
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants ( http://cussandotherrants.com/ )

So I don't get to vote on this. Of course if I were, there's no way I could vote No on that. There's a reason a child is considered a minor until they are 18.

Just because a 13 year old CAN get pregnant, doesn't mean that she is capable of making such a huge life changing decision. 

Parents are legally responsible for their children until they are 18. If a school can't even administer Tylenol to your kid without parental consent, how is it even remotely ok to allow an abortion to be performed without it? What if something goes wrong? Who is held liable then? Are we going to turn around and hold a parent financially responsible for medical bills their child might accrue due to a procedure she was allowed to have without their consent?

There's a reason the law puts age limits on things. Driving, smoking, drinking, voting... How can someone who is deemed too young to vote, suddenly be responsible enough to make wise choices regarding abortion?

I respectfully disagree with you on this matter. 

I wish that I could vote on this, but I don't live in California. What's scary about Prop 4 is that the rich dude who repeatedly puts parental notification on the ballot will not stop until it passes. This is at least the third time Californians have had to vote on this, and he's doing a great job wearing out voters. The first time it was on the ballot, it was soundly defeated. The last time, it was barely defeated. It's incredibly scary that one rich guy can overrule the majority of Californians in his crazed insistence on interfering in the lives of young women and their families.

I don't have the stats on hand, but the vast majority of young women already inform a parent, guardian, or other responsible adult about their decision to have an abortion. And this law really can subvert the rights of young women to obtain a medical procedure that is their legal right. As you so aptly said, if nature decides you can get pregnant, you also get to decide how to handle it.

Thanks for writing about this. I think it is a critical issue.

Suzanne Reisman ( http://www.blogher.com/member/suzanne-reisman ), Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender ( http://blogher.org/topic/feminism-gender )
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants ( http://cussandotherrants.com/ )

I've been focusing so much of my energy on 2 and 8 I feel like 4 has been neglected.

And I'm so glad you wrote about this ridiculous provision that in order to assign another adult as the receiver of the notification, the girl will have to sign an affadavit sating her parents are repeatedly abusive. How is that not going to compound the problem, not solve it? I feel like that aprt is getting lost in the shuffle.

I gotta my No on 4 post today, and this post will be a great resource.

Elisa Camahort Page
BlogHer
elisa@blogher.com

My BlogHer profile ( http://www.blogher.com/haystackprofile/viewprofile... ) truly shows you everything I do online...Check it out!!

I've already voted No on this proposition. It was one of the easiest choices on the ballot.

Debra
A Stitch In Time ( http://astitchintime.blogspot.com )
Weight for Deb ( http://weightfordeb.wordpress.com )

Although you love to think that when your baby is born you will be the center of the universe for them, it is naive to think so.

Even if you communicate it is naive to think you and your child will have the same values, same opinions or the same views.

It is naive of others to think that as a parent you 'should' be the one to know everything about your child or be the one that the child should turn to, always and with every problem.

Why not ask the teen involved and let them choose.
Would no pregnant teen turn to their parents if they felt they could?

Couldn't a wonderful independent doctor or health professional who will approach this teen with no judgment not be a great safe resource to go to, when in doubt and confused and upset?

About whose welfare is this?

Where is the common sense in this?

Wilma Ham

www.wilmasblog.com ( http://www.wilmasblog.com/ )