Reviewing the 2008 November California propositions — Prop 4

Basic information about Proposition 4 — “WAITING PERIOD AND PARENTAL NOTIFICATION BEFORE TERMINATION OF MINOR’S PREGNANCY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.”

Umbrella yes-vote site.

Umbrellla no-vote site.

Some issues I feel strongly about without wanting to talk about them all that much. Prop 4 is an example of that.

I’ll quote myself from earlier this year, though:

…this had all been coming after years of thinking about the matter as a slowly-more-aware teen news freak, observing the actions of Operation Rescue, probably hearing about the murder of abortion providers, and grappling with what is, after all, an incredibly complex and heartwrenching issue.

I make no apologies for my pro-choice beliefs but neither do I think it is anything less than one of the most intense, sensitive matters someone can grapple with. Honestly, I feel uncomfortable even talking about it now, and feel that this might be all I have to say on the subject.

Prop 4 does not specifically address the legality of abortion, of course. But in addressing the question of parental notification it makes a fraught subject even more tangled than less.

Ultimately, I can but stick to my belief that I have always held — that there should be more choices, not less, and perhaps especially in the case of someone who is a legal minor. Better, of course, that there was such a thing as universally intelligent and thoughtful sex education and birth control awareness. But this is not the world we are in.

A flat NO.

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

3 Responses to “Reviewing the 2008 November California propositions — Prop 4”

  1. Eve Says:

    Very glad with your conclusion here, but I just want to add one thing as someone who follows this issue very carefully.
    The point of restriction on abortion laws is to make it more difficult for women and to slowly start chipping away at the rights until you get a proposition like the one in SD or CO right now. Which are both specifically there so that way if they pass they will have to be challenged in court, hopefully all the way to the Supreme Court in an effort to overturn Roe V. Wade. So we have to vote against any and all restrictions on abortion.

  2. Ned Raggett Says:

    Good points indeed. The broad scope is sometimes hard to see properly unless you’re fully tracking it, as you indicate.

  3. david schwarm Says:

    I know nothing about this issue.

    I am not going to vote.

    I am, however, surprised by Ned’s vote on this one–so far the only one that I have been surprised by; but first:

    > So we have to vote against any and
    > all restrictions on abortion.

    I thought the No on Four people were the open minded members of our democracy? A universal position is not tenable long term, in my opinion–I am sure that there are people who could come up with some real horrorshow examples that would indicate times when Restrictions on Abortion would be in everyone’s best interest…

    In any event, I thought Ned’s initial observation that this is a “hard to talk about” topic and requiring people to talk about it only makes it more complicated put a very interesting spin on the entire thing.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: