I don't understand why CA Prop 73 is necessary

natedogg · #1 10-13-2005, 12:59 AM

In order for the school nurse to give your child *aspirin* they must have written permission from you. Signed in triplicate.

An emergency room will only treat life-threatening conditions until a minor's guardian gives permission.

So why do we need a state consititutional amendment to require doctors to *notify* parents that their child is asking for an abortion? This makes no sense to me. IS there some law on the books that has exempted abortion from the usual rule that a minor needs a guardian's permission to get medical treatment?

Or is initiative complete nonsense. I intend to vote for nearly all the intiatives, and this one too if there's a law that exempts abortion from parental rights over minors.

So what's the deal?

natedogg

Matty · #2 10-13-2005, 01:27 AM

Totally unrelated:

Are you voting for 78 or 79?

Edited to add: http://www.voteyesonprop79.com/comparison.htm

It's just amazing for me to see the pharmeceutical lobby spend upwards of a hundred million friggin dollars on a proposition. It should make national news.

natedogg · #3 10-13-2005, 01:59 AM

" Are you voting for 78 or 79? "

No, I am voting against both.

Here's how I plan to vote as of now:

73: yes ( although I wonder why it's even necessary, and yes, I'm very pro-choice)

74: yes ( increase tenure window for teachers)

75: yes ( restrictions on forcing unions members to make political contribs)

76: yes! The most important one. Spending limits. Say it with me people. SPENDING LIMITS! YEahhahah.

77: yes. Redistricting reform. Badly needed.

78: no. Free meds? Are you joking?

79: no. Free meds? Didn't I just vote no on this? And I get to vote no TWICE on this? Cool.

80: No. Hell no. I quote from the voter pamphlet: "A yes vote on this measure means: The Public Utilities Commission would have broadened authority to regulate electric service providers". Nuff said. No.

natedogg

natedogg · #4 10-13-2005, 02:11 AM

Well, in reading over the voter pamphlet, I see it says:

"A no vote on this measure means: Minors would continue to receive abortion services to the same extent as adults"

I'm as excited about all these abortions as the next guy, but I don't understand why parental rights start with aspirin but stop at abortion. It makes no sense. If you want the state to regulate what medical treatments a child can get, then do so. If you want parents to have control over their children's medical treatments, then by god ABORTION should fall under that. Good grief.

I'm voting yes on 73.

natedogg

PS "By god" is simply a phrase. I am not a believer.