Got Yer Golden State Voting Tips Right Here

Tim Cavanaugh | November 8, 2005

California readers, if you're voting in today's special election, here's initiative advice from the Libertarian Party of California:

Prop. 73 (Parental Notification): No position.
Prop. 74 (Teacher Tenure): Yes.
Prop. 75 (Paycheck Protection): Yes.
Prop. 76 (Live Within Our Means): Yes.
Prop. 77 (Redistricting): Yes.
Props. 78 and 79 (Prescription Drug Prices ): No.
Prop 80 (Energy re-regulation): No.

If I get a chance to vote today, I'll put up a post later listing my choices.

If we have any Mendocino or Calaveras residents, I'd be interested in thoughts on the LP officeholders the party brags about on its web page: D.A. Norm Vroman and supervisor Tom Tryon—who unfortunately is not the same Tom Tryon whose painfully and obviously closeted screen presence gave a great emotional charge to movies like I Married a Monster from Outer Space and Otto Preminger's underrated The Cardinal. Of the LP's real Golden State star—Orange County Superior Court Judge Jim Gray—I'm already a big fan.

Comments

|11.8.05 @ 1:27PM|#

If I get a chance to vote today, I'll put up a post later listing my choices.

I mentioned to some friends that I wasn't going to be able to vote today in the Virginia races (two hours from home and missed the absentee ballot deadline) and I got torn a new one.

First time I missed an election and feel "somewhat" bad, but I was going to write in a Republican primary candidate anyway so...

|11.8.05 @ 1:42PM|#

I voted today in Virginia. I held my nose and voted for Tim Kaine and felt lame. Once I got to work, I took a look at The Agitator and found out that Radley Balko had done the same things(holding nose and voting for Kaine).

fyodor|11.8.05 @ 1:49PM|#

If I get a chance to vote today, I'll put up a post later listing my choices.

Um, don't you know what your choices are regardless of whether you actually get to register them?

|11.8.05 @ 1:55PM|#

I am going to reccomend a no vote on 73; partly as it's redefinition of abortion seems to include any state of fertilization, precluding activities such as stem cell research and in-vitro fertilization.

|11.8.05 @ 1:55PM|#

I ended up voting for Kilgore...unenthusiastically. Only because he might be slightly less likely to raise taxes again, and Kilgore's more likely to blow tax dollars on road widenings that I might use, where I didn't get the impression that Kaine was going to spend taxes on anything of use to me. Pure self-interest there, but then that's not entirely un-libertarian, eh? :)

Why didn't the LP run a candidate for governor this year? This was the first year in which I might have considered voting that way. Geez, maybe I should have volunteered to run...if nothing else for shits and giggles.

IO ERROR|11.8.05 @ 1:56PM|#

San Francisco residents should also vote NO on Proposition H (or Preparation H, as some of its detractors call it).

|11.8.05 @ 2:03PM|#

I'm glad to see the LP take no position on Prop. 73.

With that, I suppose someone would say I'm scoring 5 out of six. However, it's me talkin', and who the hell is the LP to tell me how to vote?

...So I'd say the LP is scoring 5 out of 6.

This measure is an effort to take the politicians and politics out of district border creation. It will create an impartial districting team, to which anyone, including the Legislature, can suggest a redistricting plan. The team will submit the best plan to the people in the form of an initiative. In the end, it will be the people, not the Legislature or the panel of judges, who will decide how district boundaries are to be drawn.

One of the biggest problems with government in California is the initiative system. Isn't having someone to decide these issues one of the few justifications for having a legislature? ...and so many initiatives, once passed, wind up in court anyway. I'll bet that the very first redistricting plan passed under this system will wind up in court. ...anybody want a piece of that action?

And besides, while I'd enjoy the farce of seeing a plan from a panel of judges go in front of the court as much as the next guy, I think "impartial" in this case really means unresponsive.

...if the people of California don't care about the way they're being gerrymandered under the present system, then maybe it isn't a big deal.

jimmy|11.8.05 @ 2:06PM|#

Pretty close to how I voted (as if either I or the LP has any relevance). However, I can't go along with Props 74 and 76.

I can't see how libertarians can support Prop 74, a state-level, one-size-fits-all teacher tenure law, as opposed to letting tenure be decided at the local level and/or thru collective bargaining. Public employees have a dual nature as both "public" and "employees," and for purposes of tenure as employees I don't think they should be strait-jacketed by state law any more that private sector employees.

And it seems to me that Prop 76 really distorts the separation of powers and gives any governor way too much power over spending (which was meant by the founders to be predominantly a legislative prerogative). If voters in a democracy vote for people who tax and spend too much, it's not the "democracy" that is wrong.

I also voted no on Prop 73 cuz it was a constitutional amendment. It's a major peeve of mine when pols on both sides try to enshrine substantive law in constitutions, which should be solely concerned with the political structure of states and fundamental political rights. Regardless of your views on abortion, it does not belong in the constitution.

|11.8.05 @ 2:13PM|#

ChrisO,
Kilgore and his compatriots really got under my skin on the social issues. Plus there is a definite "minuteman" attitude on immigrants among Repubs starting up in No. Va. that needs to be nipped in the bud.
Also, I wanted to know what it's like to vote for someone who might actually win (it's not that great btw).
There was a LP delegate that went by the name of Scott Mcpherson running in the Annandale/Falls CHurch area. A friend of mine met him and thought he was a capable enough candidate. I didn't get an opportunity to vote LP at all where I am (Springfield). I did see the guy on a local channel and unfortunately, he did come off a bit "tinfoil hat" imo (Note to LP candidates - try not to look so intense).

|11.8.05 @ 2:14PM|#

Yes on 79. No on the rest. undecided on 77.

|11.8.05 @ 2:25PM|#

I can't see how libertarians can support Prop 74, a state-level, one-size-fits-all teacher tenure law, as opposed to letting tenure be decided at the local level and/or thru collective bargaining.

Who are they bargaining with, government employee unions? ...and I have to live with the result?

My initial reaction to the concept of tenure is one of contempt. ...I feel pretty much the same way about collective bargaining.

I'm trying to think of a situation in which something that's bad for teachers' tenure is bad for anyone else, and I'm comin' up blank.

|11.8.05 @ 2:37PM|#

mk:

Kilgore and his compatriots really got under my skin on the social issues.

Me too. Which is why I wasn't paying all that much attention to the details of either Kaine or Kilgore and planned on voting Libertarian--until I actually went on the LPVA's web site this morning and discovered to my horror that my only choice was between bad and worse.

Like I said, I voted pure self-interest in this one, based on what I had read about the candidates. Either one of 'em will suck, though, I'm sure of that.

Also, I wanted to know what it's like to vote for someone who might actually win (it's not that great btw).

I wouldn't be so sure of that. Recent polls had Kilgore gaining momentum, and Va. is basically a conservative state. It'll be close, either way.

I didn't get an opportunity to vote LP at all where I am (Springfield).

I'm in Arlington and didn't have any LP options, either. The LP is only running candidates in four races this year.

I did see the guy on a local channel and unfortunately, he did come off a bit "tinfoil hat" imo.

HaHa!!! I think that's actually a prerequisite for LP candidates--that or a bit of LARPing ambience.

alkali|11.8.05 @ 2:40PM|#

Prop. 73 (Parental Notification): No position.
Prop. 75 (Paycheck Protection): Yes.

There's a slogan: "Let people be free to do what they want, except if we don't like it."

|11.8.05 @ 2:43PM|#

You are ffing brillant Mr Cavanaugh, fffinggg brillant.
Except for the first one I voted same way as you.
voted yes on the first one.

My cousins are named Kavanaugh, K instead of C, even still, I wonder if we are related going back about three gs.
Brilliant minds do think alike.
Terry

|11.8.05 @ 2:44PM|#

Va. is basically a conservative state

Is VA that conservative? From what I had heard during the last election the demographics were shifting pretty strongly to the more liberal north. Was that just the media trying to create a story?

|11.8.05 @ 2:57PM|#

Is VA that conservative? From what I had heard during the last election the demographics were shifting pretty strongly to the more liberal north. Was that just the media trying to create a story?

No, I think there's some truth in that, because Northern Virginia is the fastest-growing part of the state.

However, No. Va. is NOT particularly leftist. Arlington County (where I live), and the City of Alexandria are quite far to the left (lots of govt. employees), but the other No. Va. jurisdictions are very suburban and very Republican--in fact, maybe even more so than normal given that they have a higher concentration of military and former military folks than most suburbs nationwide.

The state is definitely becoming less social conservative due to the population shift, since southside Virginia is part of the Old South, where northern Virginia is a Yankee enclave whose Republicans are more like your typical 'soccer mom/country club' Republicans.

|11.8.05 @ 3:02PM|#

Prop 75 goes deeper than giving union members a choice to donate their money to political causes. It's the taxpayers' money that is being used to fund them. Taxes pay the government workers, the unions take some of that money and give it to the political cause of THEIR choice. Our tax money shouldn't be used AT ALL for these purposes. Prop 75 isn't strong enough, but it's better than nothing.

|11.8.05 @ 3:03PM|#

Shem,
The north isn't really all that much more liberal than conservative within it's borders. This area would have to expand substantially more than it has already (*shudder*) before it would make a real difference statewide.
Dems here who are successful have had to learn to keep a fairly large range of people happy. Mark Warner did a fair job of it which is why I think he may actually stand a chance in the next presidential election. That is, if the Dems are smart enough to get behind him which they aren't.
OTOH, he is tall. Everyone likes to vote for the tall guy.

|11.8.05 @ 3:03PM|#

...where northern Virginia is a Yankee enclave whose Republicans are more like your typical 'soccer mom/country club' Republicans.

I was born in raised in the general area. ...Went to boarding school in the "south" of Virginia.

I understand what you're sayin' about these people, but I don't think it was necessary to use the "Y" word.

...They're just a little different, after all, they aren't animals! ; )

Mike|11.8.05 @ 3:06PM|#

I'm in the Western Fairfax county area and was able to vote libertarian for the House of Delegates, I wrote in myself!

|11.8.05 @ 3:07PM|#

I've lived in NoVa, Richmond, Norfolk and Harrisonburg. NoVa might as well be on another planet from the others.
So forget about calling northerners "Yankees", the appropriate word, from the southern perspective, might be "Martians".

|11.8.05 @ 3:09PM|#

Mike, wish I'd thought of that!! I thought about writing in General Zod for a couple of the uncontested races, but I was in a bit of a hurry...

|11.8.05 @ 3:09PM|#

73 not only places undue burden on doctors to notify parents it also buys into the arbitrary delineation between minors and non-minors. The LP should have had a no recommendation even though the party tries to avoid taking a position on abortion.

75 makes sense because it was by legislative action that the current system was created. The only way to ensure that individual members have a choice each time their dues would be used is to ask them rather than assume as with the current system. Polls indicate that this has support of 25% of union members, which is pretty persuasive. It would be ideal if the union were a private organization where people could opt-out completely, but 75 is a move in the right direction given that legislative action is the only mechanism to cure the harm.

Mike|11.8.05 @ 3:11PM|#

Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck are also great write-ins.

|11.8.05 @ 3:16PM|#

I only vote for candidates who are trained in Lightning Ju-Jitsu!

|11.8.05 @ 3:17PM|#

I'll be voting after work today, and I'll probably hold my nose and vote for Kaine. Kilgore's cornerstone transportation plan for Fairfax County is "widen 66 inside the Beltway," which is . . . a bad idea. A terrible, terrible idea. It will make things a zillion times worse than they are. So, I'm really voting against Kilgore.

Mike|11.8.05 @ 3:20PM|#

The reason I voted for Kilgore is that Kaine specifically said that he wants to stop "out of control development." Being a young professional who is saving up to buy a house, this makes me nervous, since we can all guess what would happen to housing prices in NoVA if development is slowed...

|11.8.05 @ 3:35PM|#

After flirting with some yeses, I voted no on everything but 75 (plus surfer girl Donna Frye for San Diego mayor). I knew 73 would be a definite no, though. I liked that Planned Parenthood sponsored a 'no' ad (saying in effect, and calmly, that you can't force minors to trust their parents).

|11.8.05 @ 3:36PM|#

Making I-66 that small inside the Beltway was asinine to begin with--it desperately needs widening. But then, the highway network around NoVa is absolutely atrocious--by far the worst of any major metropolitan area I've ever encountered.

Steve|11.8.05 @ 3:38PM|#

One of the biggest problems with government in California is the initiative system. Isn't having someone to decide these issues one of the few justifications for having a legislature?

Should these issues even be before the people or before a legislature?

Granted, this country is now structured so that the above argument appears to make sense. But, only if you buy in to the existing structure.

For example, if there were no federal legislature congressional redistricting would not be an issue; if there were no state mandated, state run educational system a one size fits all tenure system would not be an issue; if there were no state extorting money from those who happen to live in a particular geography there would be no discussion of giving a governor special budget powers.

So, let's work on changing the structure and making all this voting stuff, which is no more than a false legitimatization of extortion, an artifact of the dark ages.

|11.8.05 @ 3:41PM|#

ChrisO, agreed that making it that small was dumb, but widening is, at this point, not an answer. For one thing, as traffic engineers have known for decades, widening only makes congestion worse in the long run, as people who were taking other routes, or public transportation, shift to driving in the expectation that the widened road is now a faster route.

For another, that whole corridor is lined with NIMBYs who are almost certainly going to get their property EDed away in the interest of what can only be a stopgap solution. And part of the problem is limiting development to three-story condo developments and McMansions instead of allowing higher-density development along the route, especially farther out. Not all apartment-dwellers can afford to live in Ballston and Rosslyn.

For a third, most of the problem, aside from the aforementioned atrociousness, is that people around here can't fucking drive. Anyone who would come to a complete stop in the left lane of a freeway during rush hour because of bright sunlight should be pulled from his or her car and beaten senseless.

|11.8.05 @ 3:52PM|#

if there were no federal legislature congressional redistricting would not be an issue

Actually, California could have representatives in Congress without redistricting problems by converting to proportional or affirmative representation. Because it sends an eighth of the representatives to the House, California is the state that could best pull this maneuver off.

|11.8.05 @ 3:52PM|#

I wound up following the LP line exactly, except I had to vote no on 73. Teenagers are stupid, sure, and maybe don't deserve all the privacy rights of adults, but the pragmatic advantage of allowing the most foolish subset of teenagers to not breed tipped the scales for me.

|11.8.05 @ 3:58PM|#

ChrisO, agreed that making it that small was dumb, but widening is, at this point, not an answer. For one thing, as traffic engineers have known for decades, widening only makes congestion worse in the long run, as people who were taking other routes, or public transportation, shift to driving in the expectation that the widened road is now a faster route.

Disagree, in that inner I-66 is so inadequate that sections of it are bottlenecked day and night, well outside of commuting hours, where that argument has more force. I recognize that there would be 'traffic-shifting', but the HOV restrictions would probably keep that to a dull roar.

For another, that whole corridor is lined with NIMBYs who are almost certainly going to get their property EDed away in the interest of what can only be a stopgap solution.

The proposal for widening I-66 would only use the existing right-of-way, from what I've read. There's a lot of wasted space between the roadway and the Metro tracks, as well as on the roadside. I believe the plan is only to add another lane to each side--which would really help.

Of course, it was Arlington NIMBYism that managed to get it limited to a two-lanes per side roadway in the first place, back in the '70s-80s. I'm sure they would sue again, which might be a problem. But the people who live near 66 now suffer because the road is largely useless to them due to its gridlock.

And part of the problem is limiting development to three-story condo developments and McMansions instead of allowing higher-density development along the route, especially farther out. Not all apartment-dwellers can afford to live in Ballston and Rosslyn.

I think this is a case where development is most certainly *not* the issue--there isn't any undeveloped land within 20 miles of inner I-66. It's purely a question of traffic flow and management. Having a four-lane freeway suddenly narrow down to two-lanes as you get closer to the urban center is beyond stupid, and it should be fixed.

For a third, most of the problem, aside from the aforementioned atrociousness, is that people around here can't fucking drive. Anyone who would come to a complete stop in the left lane of a freeway during rush hour because of bright sunlight should be pulled from his or her car and beaten senseless.

You won't get any argument from me on that one...

|11.8.05 @ 4:12PM|#

Is VA that conservative? From what I had heard during the last election the demographics were shifting pretty strongly to the more liberal north. Was that just the media trying to create a story?

Having grown up in Northern Virginia, I'd say yes, Virginia is pretty conservative. Northern Virginia is the fastest growing part of the state but, like ChrisO said, that growth is divided between the more liberal inner-suburbs and the more conservative outer-exurbs (and I think the exurbs are growing fastest). The second-fastest growing part of the state is Charlottesville (where I live now) and that is just plain lefty liberal.

And, the conservatism in Northern Virginia is more of a fiscal/pro-military conservatism (Virginia has the highest concentration of military families in the country), not the social conservatism found further south. And, Northern Virginia is big on public education (since they have or used to have such good ones).

Overall, while I think the General Assembly and our presidential electors are locked into conservative politics for the foreseeable future, Virginians don't seem to be afraid to cross the aisle when it comes to gubernatorial races. I'd also argue there is a regional divide (the rest of Virginia isn't too fond of Northern Virginia). I'm more conservative myself but have no problem supporting the right Democrat from Northern Virginia.

|11.8.05 @ 4:17PM|#

I'm voting the same as the LP platform (and I didn't know what it was until Tim's post) except for Prop 73. I was going to vote no until yesterday. The reason that I changed my mind was the fact that parents are legally responsible for (many if not most) of the actions of their children. If they weren't I'd vote no, but they are so I'll vote yes. If you're legally responsible, you should be informed. (If the pregnant teens didn't have the option to go to a judge in the case of "unreasonable" parents, I'd vote no as well.)

By the way, if my teen daugher became pregnant and wanted to keep the child, I'd be angry.

|11.8.05 @ 4:25PM|#

For those Virginia folks, what has amazed me during this race is that there was no serious discussion about toll-based transportation policies. It's been an issue in No.Va. recently with Beltway HOT lanes and renting the Dulles Toll Road to a private company, but it didn't seem to crack the surface statewide. Although, I have to admit I haven't been paying close attention.

As for polling, the final survey out last night showed Kilgore closing. But, the poll released earlier in the day showed Kaine with a substantial lead. In that poll, note (1) Kaine has pulled more Republicans than Kilgore has Democrats, (2) independents are breaking heavily towards Kaine, and (3) Kaine is running even in rural areas, a place where Kilgore has a "natural" advantage, and (4) Kilgore has only a small lead among regular church-goers, another "natural" advantage group. Who knows though...

Final VA Poll

Monday VA Poll

|11.8.05 @ 4:29PM|#

If you're legally responsible, you should be informed.

I have a dumb question that a parent might know... is lack of notification for abortion an exception when it comes to juveniles and medical care? That is, unless there is imminent danger to the juvenile, mustn't a hospital have parental consent before providing medical care?

|11.8.05 @ 4:43PM|#

Generally, parental consent is required for the most simple treatment. Abortion seems to be an excuse for an exception to any law to which it is related.

|11.8.05 @ 4:56PM|#

PP will set up minors with birth control too, after a physical exam.

nmg|11.8.05 @ 5:01PM|#

I voted yes on 73. I didn't like that it was a consitutional amendment, but I'm even more annoyed by the current exception to the law regarding minors and the role of their guardians. Abortion is not special. No one should be allowed to provide medical treatments to someone's child without their permission, much less their knowledge.

Making an exception for abortion was a huge mistake. Just wait until the nanny-state obesity-war fools decide they should make some exceptions to your role as guardian just so they can put your child on some weight-loss treatments behind your back.

nmg

|11.8.05 @ 5:06PM|#

I knew that one, poco. I didn't mean to imply that abortion was the only exception. I guess that anything sex-related is an exception.

|11.8.05 @ 5:29PM|#

Am I right in thinking that the conversation during a minor's visit to a GP or shrink (something nonsexual, say) is confidential, but not the fact of the visit itself, which first requires parental consent? I haven't worried about my rights as a minor in a while, but I remember it sucked to be one.

|11.8.05 @ 5:34PM|#

I hated being a minor, but my single-parent family was very poor and too religious. Had I had two financially successful and relatively libertarian parents, I may never have wanted to grow up!

|11.8.05 @ 5:43PM|#

For those Virginia folks, what has amazed me during this race is that there was no serious discussion about toll-based transportation policies. It's been an issue in No.Va. recently with Beltway HOT lanes and renting the Dulles Toll Road to a private company, but it didn't seem to crack the surface statewide. Although, I have to admit I haven't been paying close attention.

Probably too controversial an issue (with no clear ideological boundary) for either candidate to address. I haven't been paying close attention, either, so maybe they did address it. However, I also think that it is a solution that doesn't permit the candidates to play Santa Claus, like promising to deliver new/widened public roads does. Personally, I think the HOT lane idea is the only way major new highway projects are going to get built around here, given the expense. Widening I-66 is comparativly cheap and easy, since it does not involve new right of way or 'from-scratch' construction. Be nice if they finally finished the Fairfax County Parkway, as well. This metro area seems to have a legacy of unfinished road projects that stay that way--such as I-95 through DC, as well as the Barney Circle Connector that was supposed to connect the SW Freeway to the Anacostia Freeway.

|11.8.05 @ 6:17PM|#

So, let's work on changing the structure and making all this voting stuff, which is no more than a false legitimatization of extortion, an artifact of the dark ages.

I think I've heard this from some of the other anarchists that frequent this forum--only the people that didn't vote have a right to complain.

...I don't think I agree with it, but I think I understand it.

|11.8.05 @ 6:49PM|#

Be nice if they finally finished the Fairfax County Parkway.

I grew up at the nexus of West Springfield / Burke / Fairfax Station. I remember when they first opened the Parkway... you could sometimes go two or three miles and not see anyone else on it. How times have changed.

For anyone interested in tonight's VA results...

Virginia State Board of Elections

|11.8.05 @ 7:00PM|#

Hey, whaddaya know, I just got back from voting on the way home from work, and that's exactly how I voted.

|11.8.05 @ 8:21PM|#

Prop 75 looks like politics to me. The unions are voluntary organizations, and I don't see why this aspect of their behavior should be subject to governmental restraint.

Tim, what pushed you over to the Yes side, when you seemed pretty No-oriented in your recent article? Saw one too many union-sponsored commercials and decided that the principle wasn't as important as the power struggle? Or can you make a better argument for why 75 isn't unacceptable governmental interference?

Brendan Perez|11.8.05 @ 8:37PM|#

"the fact that parents are legally responsible for (many if not most) of the actions of their children. If they weren't I'd vote no, but they are so I'll vote yes. If you're legally responsible, you should be informed. (If the pregnant teens didn't have the option to go to a judge in the case of "unreasonable" parents, I'd vote no as well.)"

Parents are not responsible for the actions of their kids except in a limited financial sense.

A parent does not have the right to make decisions that affect the rest of their kids life and to which the parent bears only a sliver of any burden or consequences of that decision. The teen is the one who bears 99% of the consequences for the rest of their life based on their parents unlitateral decision.

Imagine if parents could decide to take out mortgages that their kids would be forced to pay back, if parents could mandate organ donation or limb amputation. The outrage would be deafening. As long as the girl suffers all and lifelong, the consequences of the decision, the power to make it belongs exlcusively to her.

Don't bother with the red herring argument that my Senator (Ensign R-NV) tried to evoke, that he knows better than anyone what his daughter is allergic to and her medical history. If your daughter is of child beearing age and doesn't knoe her medical history and what she's allergic to, you are a miserable failure of a parent.

The other argument is that the parents are responsible for medical care relating to any complications from the abortion, which is absurd. The doctors I've talked to say that they are almost always responsible for post abortion complications-they discussed possible exceptions which were generally scenarios where an abortion aggravates a known pre-existing condition that was previously treated and the patient warned that the abortion could cause problems.

This is similar to my brother's oral surgeon treating him for a small infection and some swelling two weeks after he had his wisdom teeth pulled. He said that some patients try to get him to deal with other dental issues as a result of the wisdom teeth being pulled that aren't caused by the surgery, but aggravated such as existing cavities or other oral surgery.

|11.8.05 @ 8:39PM|#

Unions are not voluntary organizations in any sense. This is especially true of the unions which represent state employees. 75 rolls back the law that allowed the union to divert money to lobbying without receiving consent on each diversion. Since you can't opt out of a union, and since 25% of state employees support 75, I really don't think this is that close of a call. When you have employees complaining about how hard it is to get off the political contribution list because of a law that was passed that allowed the unions to act in this manner, I think there is a pretty good justification for the LP to urge a YES vote on 75.

The Wine Commonsewer|11.8.05 @ 8:55PM|#

Larry, as EZR points out teacher unions are anything but voluntary. And as Reason's Director of Education points out here unions have used their political war chest to screw taxpayers at the expense of students. She puts the cost at 5 billion since 2002. That's a chunk of change.

|11.8.05 @ 9:06PM|#

The nonsense I've read in this thread suggesting that parents shouldn't be informed regarding the health and wellbeing of their children is just that--nonsense.

The Pro-Choice lobby should look at parental notification legislation as the opportunity for them that it is. ...Once Pro-Lifers can no longer complain, quite rightly, that abortion clinics are violating their children, their audience will become much less sympathetic. ...It takes that whole "for the children" card off the table.

So if Pro-Lifers want to live by that sword, let 'em. ...Doesn't that legally enshrine the concept that a female has a right to an abortion just because she or her legal guardian choose one?

The physical abuse of pregnant teens by their parents will remain, of course, a criminal offense.

P.S. Yes, for y'all that know me, I remain a right to life leanin' kind of guy.

|11.8.05 @ 9:12PM|#

Of the abortions performed last year, does anyone know what percentage was performed on minors?

The Wine Commonsewer|11.8.05 @ 9:12PM|#

Brendan, with all due respect, an underage kid cannot even get a driver's license without parental permission. Hell, you can't even get a fucking part time job without permission from the high school. She can't get married without parental permission (something that will affect her the rest of her life), she can't get a mortgage (or a house), forget about that cool tattoo, and let's see you're 15 year old daughter sign herself up for a boob job without mom's say so. It ain't gonna happen.

On top of that, the state decrees that a 15 year old lacks the capacity to decide to have sex with an adult, and will in fact prosecute any adult who has sex with a minor, yet if she gets preggers she is assumed to have immediately acquired the premier judgement that she recently lacked, when she dropped her panties for that hot looking grad student....blah, blah, blah.

You can argue, as I often do, that teen agers shouldn't be treated like children, but until you are ready to concede that 14 year olds should legally be able to buy smokes then you, NOW, PP, and the state are nuts to insist that they should be able to buy abortions.

The Wine Commonsewer|11.8.05 @ 9:16PM|#

Ken, I don't know, but I do know my sister had two. My parents knew about it. My father drove her to the clinic and sat with her both times. He wasn't happy about it but he didn't beat the crap out of her for it. As a 40-something she has regrets but she recognizes that my parents were there for her. The thing that makes that ironic is that they were not the kind of parents that were ever there for the kids. Except in this case. Anecdotal evidence I know, but my dad would be just the one you would have expected to beat the holy living crap out of my sister when she told him.

|11.8.05 @ 9:45PM|#

TWC,

I think I'd go apeshit myself. ...That's what parents are supposed to do--keep the minors minor and when something major happens, go apeshit.

I'd bet that having a Pro-Choice parent doesn't make the average teen much more enthusiastic about tellin' Mom and Dad. ...Pro-Choice parents probably go apeshit too.

...Oh, and you're right about that list of a childrens' legally curtailed freedoms, it means they have very few legal responsibilities too. Even if I was Pro-Choice, I'd remain unconvinced that children, as a matter of policy, should be left to deal with that responsibility alone.

|11.8.05 @ 10:36PM|#

A friend of mine said he was voting against 73 because he thought the state had no place in abortion at all, for minors or adults--it was a "family' thing. I asked him, "If it's a family thing, doesn't that include parents?"

I scored pretty well on the Libertarian Ideological Purity test too. I did voted Yes on 73, but otherwise Tim's list matched my ballot. I think I will lose on almost everything, based on the polls and the news so far (and the Democatic wins out East), but I can still hope. At least some of the Ohio measures are losing too...

|11.8.05 @ 10:42PM|#

Wine C--
Your comments on the consent for sex/consent for abortion disparity really jumped out at me. I can't stand the idiotic hypocrisy and illogic of a system that criminalizes (for the guy) a girl's choice over what to do with her body before sex and then enshrines her abortion right after, all at the same time merrily outlawing her ability to get a tattoo, drive after dark without an adult, or buy a beer. We can't trust kids to drive at night but they can get a medical procedure?

The Wine Commonsewer|11.8.05 @ 10:49PM|#

Ken, we all know exactly how that girl feels at the prospect of telling mom and dad that she's in the family way. But we need to work toward a consistent application of the law (is that an oxymoron?).

If the law works with a commonly accepted definition of what constitutes a minor then the law should also define broadly accepted, principled, and consistent rules about what minors may or may not do.

The Wine Commonsewer|11.8.05 @ 10:51PM|#

Thanks Daniel, sounds like we voted jest alike. :-)

James Anderson Merritt|11.9.05 @ 11:20AM|#

Wow. I looked through this whole thread for any opinions about Mendocino DA Norm Vroman or Calevaras County Supervisor Tom Tryon. Did I miss them?

I'm not so far from Mendocino County that I don't read about their court cases (and Vroman's activities) from time to time. But Tryon is just a face on the CA LP website to me. One thing you can say about him, however: he is definitely in the running for being re-elected more times than any other Libertarian. So SOMEBODY must have an opinion about him! :-)

|11.9.05 @ 12:30PM|#

"Brendan, with all due respect, an underage kid cannot even get a driver's license without parental permission. Hell, you can't even get a fucking part time job without permission from the high school. She can't get married without parental permission (something that will affect her the rest of her life), she can't get a mortgage (or a house), forget about that cool tattoo, and let's see you're 15 year old daughter sign herself up for a boob job without mom's say so. It ain't gonna happen."

I wasn't aware that all areas required permission from the school system to get a part time job. My area most certainly didn't.

All of those things are restrictions imposed by the governement. I like how people attempt to use one government imposed restriction to justify others.

"On top of that, the state decrees that a 15 year old lacks the capacity to decide to have sex with an adult, and will in fact prosecute any adult who has sex with a minor, yet if she gets preggers she is assumed to have immediately acquired the premier judgement that she recently lacked, when she dropped her panties for that hot looking grad student....blah, blah, blah."

The state also decrees that a 12 year old who commits any number of crimes can be held accountable as an adult. Some states allow persons over 14 to be tried as adults for any violent crime (which can include a fight at school).

More importantly, the state isn't actually decreeing anything in not making it a legal requirement that a girl get permission to get an abortion. There's nothing stopping the provider from requiring that same permission. It's not a violation of the manufactured concept of "parents rights" for the government to fail to act on one subset group of parents' behalf. "Parents Rights" should not be allowed to turn into mandates.

I wonder, would a parent be allowed to force their kid to smoke cigarettes? To me, this would be similar to a parent being able to unilaterally decide to force their daughter to forgo an abortion and have the kid. Should a parent be allowed to deny their teenage daughter the ability to put the baby up for adoption as well?

"You can argue, as I often do, that teen agers shouldn't be treated like children, but until you are ready to concede that 14 year olds should legally be able to buy smokes then you, NOW, PP, and the state are nuts to insist that they should be able to buy abortions. "

Done. I concede.

Once again, I like how one government imposed restriction has to come down before another one can be brought down. They can all be tied together this way.

Also, where do 16 and 17 year olds fit into this? I notice you only mentioned 14 and 15 year olds, is this deliberate?

|11.9.05 @ 12:45PM|#

'A friend of mine said he was voting against 73 because he thought the state had no place in abortion at all, for minors or adults--it was a "family' thing. I asked him, "If it's a family thing, doesn't that include parents?"'

It is, at best, a family thing. Also, who excluded parents?

The government has NO place in the decision. If your daughter gets an abortion and doesn't tell you, well that's between you and your daughter.

By the way, I feel this way about all of these government policies that seek to "protect" parents rights, when in reality they are supporting one group of parents over another.

Government policies requiring parental permission for various activities are an infringement on "parents rights" in that they don't allow a parent to just tell their kid yes and let that be that, instead they require the parent to come down and prove that they said yes and force the parent to constantly stop whatever they're doing to prove again to the government that they are OK with what their kid is doing. Permissions slips should be the absolute maximum that is required.
There are a lot of times when a parent is busy and shouldn't have to be forced to come down with their kid so the kid can get something done. If a kid does something without permission, that's an issue between that kid and his parents and shouldn't affect what another kid with permission can do.

Family values and "parental rights" have been used to attack the last few areas of society where a kid can act without needing constant permission and supervision and have actually destroyed the idea of "parental rights" as it existed, after all shouldn't a parent have the right to tell their kid yes and that be all that is required?