The Freedom Minute

PROP 4 – Vote NO

This Proposal:

This measure, the WAITING PERIOD AND PARENTAL NOTIFICATION BEFORE TERMINATION OF MINOR’S PREGNANCY INITIATIVE amends the State Constitution to require, with certain exceptions, a physician to notify the parent or legal guardian of a pregnant minor at least 48 hours before performing an abortion involving that minor. This measure does not require a physician or a minor to obtain the consent of a parent or guardian, only to notify them. The requirement for notification would be waived in cases of medical emergencies or if the pregnant minor successfully petitions a court to approve a waiver. In addition, if the minor states in writing that she fears physical, sexual, or severe emotional abuse from a parent who would otherwise be notified, and her fear is based on a pattern of such abuse of her by a parent, the physician could notify an adult family member instead of notifying the minor’s parent. Any person who performs an abortion on a minor and who fails to comply with the provisions of the measure would be liable for damages in a civil action brought by the minor, her legal representative, or by a parent or guardian wrongfully denied notification.

Background:

In 1953, a state law was enacted that allowed minors to receive, without parental consent or notification, the same types of medical care for a pregnancy that are available to an adult. In 1987, the Legislature passed a law to require minors to obtain the consent of either a parent or a court before obtaining an abortion. Legal challenges were brought, and the law was never implemented. In 1997, the California Supreme Court ultimately found the law unconstitutional. Proponents of this initiative are now attempting (as they have numerous times in the past) to circumvent the Supreme Court ruling by changing the State Constitution.

Arguments:

Proponents claim that this constitutional change would protect pregnant minor females by allowing a family member to know of their medical situation and be informed about risks to their health and safety. Furthermore, they argue, California law requires a parent to provide written consent in person before a minor can use a tanning salon but a minor can get an abortion without a family member being notified.

Opponents claim that in the real world, not all teens live in homes where communication is possible, and even in the best homes, many teens aren’t able to talk about something as sensitive as pregnancy and believe they can’t go to their parents for help. These girls can feel scared, trapped, and desperate. Instead of seeking the counseling and safe medical care they need, they may choose an unsafe, back alley, illegal abortion, go across the border, or even contemplate suicide. Furthermore, opponents of this measure charge that those backing this proposal are exploiting fears to advance their own political agenda and that their real goal is to eventually outlaw abortion.

Recommendation:

My recommendation is to vote NO. If passed, Prop 4 could do more harm than good. The motives of the proponents of this proposition are suspect and it appears designed to deter pregnant teens from seeking an abortion under the threat that their parents would be notified. It is also likely that many pregnant teenagers from abusive homes would be unable to satisfy the requirements for waiving the notification. Teens could be put in a seriously dangerous predicament – pregnant with nowhere to turn. This would likely cause some teens to attempt to circumvent the law and turn to risky alternatives such as crossing the border into Mexico or adjoining states, obtaining an abortion from unqualified individuals, or attempting to self induce an abortion. Furthermore, there is no indication that this proposal is necessary to address any problems that actually exist. I further find the “tanning salon” argument to be specious. Just because a law exists that requires parental notification for minors’ use of tanning salons, it does not mean that such a law is either necessary or effective and we shouldn’t use it as the precedent for the enactment of other laws. In addition, Prop 4 would potentially cost the public several million dollars annually for health and social services programs, court administration, and state health agency administration. In light of the potential to cause additional hardship on pregnant teenagers and no evidence of any substantial benefit from its enactment, this proposition should be rejected.

For more information: Voter Information Guide – Prop 4

October 17th, 2008 Posted by freedomminute | Ballot Initiatives, Election, State Government | no comments

PROP 3 – Vote NO

Background:

There are four general obligation bond measures on the November 5th ballot, totaling $16.8 billion in new authorizations. Bond financing is a type of long-term borrowing that the state uses to raise money for various purposes. The state obtains this money by selling bonds to investors. In exchange, it agrees to repay this money, with interest, according to a specified schedule. Generally, the total cost over the life of a bond issuance is about twice the authorized amount since interest must be paid in addition to the principle. Note also that for each bond measure approved, a portion of the state’s annual revenues must be set aside for debt-service payments on the bonds and therefore are not available for other state programs. This means that in order to pay for any bond measure approved, the legislature would either have to raise taxes or cut expenses elsewhere in the budget.

This Proposal:

This bond measure is called the CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL BOND ACT. It provides for a bond issue of $980 million to fund the construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing and equipping of children’s hospitals.. The total cost of approving this bond measure would be about $2 billion to pay off both principal ($980 million) and interest ($933 million). Proposition 61, which voters approved at the November 2004 statewide general election, has authorized the sale of $750 million in general obligation bonds to provide funding for children’s hospitals. As of June 1, 2008, about $403 million of the funds from Proposition 61 had been awarded to eligible hospitals. This means that there are still untapped funds from that bond issue yet to be used.

Recommendation:

My recommendation is to vote no. The State of California is currently facing a huge budget crisis and in order not to run out of money is being forced to offer for sale billions of dollars of new general obligation bonds. There has also been speculation that the State may have to borrow billions of additional dollars from the Federal Government in order to remain solvent. Incurring any additional debt for anything but the most essential infrastructure is unwise and irresponsible. In addition, since an almost identical bond measure was approved by voters just four years ago and about half that money remains unspent, this new bond initiative is unnecessary. Furthermore, the institutions which will receive these funds are not impoverished. Several are part of the well-funded University of California system, and the others have substantial private and foundation support. Finally, whenever anyone uses “the children” as an issue, I become highly suspect. This is no exception. There is no indication that children’s hospitals suffer from a critical lack of funding. Singling these institutions out to receive special funding seems unfair at a time when many other institutions will be denied funding for their needs.

For more information: Voter Information Guide – Prop 3

October 17th, 2008 Posted by freedomminute | Ballot Initiatives, Election, State Government | no comments

PROP 2 – Vote NO

This proposition is called the STANDARDS FOR CONFINING FARM ANIMALS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

Beginning January 1, 2015, this measure prohibits with certain exceptions the confinement on a farm of pregnant pigs, calves raised for veal, and egg-laying hens in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs. Under the measure, any person who violates this law would be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and/or imprisonment in county jail for up to six months.

Proponents claim that this measure would stop cruel and inhumane treatment of certain food animals by requiring that they be kept in cages large enough for them to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around freely.

Opponents claim that this measure would ban modern housing systems for egg-laying hens. In addition, they claim that implementing Prop 2 would drive California family farmers out of business or out of state where regulations are more lax, raising the cost of California eggs.

The independent Legislative Analyst states:

Compared to current practice most commonly used by California farmers in the affected industries, this measure would require more space and/or alternate methods for housing pregnant pigs, calves raised for veal, and egg-laying hens. As a result, this measure would increase production costs for some of these farmers. To the extent that these higher production costs cause some farmers to exit the business, or otherwise reduce overall production and profitability, there could be reduced state and local tax revenues. The magnitude of this fiscal effect is unknown, but potentially in the range of several million dollars annually.

This is the relevant text of this proposal:

PROHIBITIONS. In addition to other applicable provisions of law, a person shall not tether or confine any covered animal, on a farm, for all or the majority of any day, in a manner that prevents such animal from:
(a) Lying down, standing up, and fully extending his or her limbs; and
(b) Turning around freely.

——-edit 10/28/08———

Recommendation:

My recommendation is to vote NO. While I previously took no stance on this issue, upon further research and reflection, I believe this measure would be bad for our economy and unfairly burden egg producers in California. Furthermore, I find that the campaign being waged by the proponents is somewhat misleading and uses emotion rather than good science to make its point. While certainly no one thinks it’s ok to abuse animals, the claims that the treatment of hens on egg farms rises to the level of cruelty is unsupported. Furthermore, we need to be careful of transferring our sense of “comfort” onto animals. For example, if you forced a human to continue standing indefinitely, that would be abuse, but for horses, it is the norm. Therefore, it is often difficult to know the “comfort level” of the animals in question and making law based on our emotional reactions is almost never a good idea. Finally, if some one truly objects to the how egg producers treat their animals, they can choose not to buy their products and only purchase “cage free” eggs. Since it’s unclear that these animals are being mistreated, I’m recommending a no vote on this issue.

For more information: Voter Information Guide – Prop 2

My previous comments:

My recommendation is to vote your conscience. If you feel it is inhumane to confine food animals in such a way that they are not able to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs at all times, then you should vote yes.

If you feel that State law which currently requires that animals confined in an enclosed area be provided with an adequate exercise area, and permitted access to adequate shelter, food, and water is sufficient or that the economic hardship that might be imposed by this measure outweighs the benefits, you should vote no.

October 17th, 2008 Posted by freedomminute | Ballot Initiatives, Election, State Government | no comments

PROP 1A – Vote NO

This is the first in a series of posts explaining the various initiatives on the November ballot in California.

Background:

There are four general obligation bond measures on the November 5th ballot, totaling $16.8 billion in new authorizations. Bond financing is a type of long-term borrowing that the state uses to raise money for various purposes. The state obtains this money by selling bonds to investors. In exchange, it agrees to repay this money, with interest, according to a specified schedule. Generally, the total cost over the life of a bond issuance is about twice the authorized amount since interest must be paid in addition to the principle. Note also that for each bond measure approved, a portion of the state’s annual revenues must be set aside for debt-service payments on the bonds and therefore are not available for other state programs. This means that in order to pay for any bond measure approved, the legislature would either have to raise taxes or cut expenses elsewhere in the budget.

This Proposal:

This bond measure is called the SAFE, RELIABLE HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN BOND ACT. It provides for a bond issue of $9.95 billion to establish high-speed train service linking Southern California counties, the Sacramento/San Joaquin Valley, and the San Francisco Bay Area. This is for train service between cities, not for local commuter train service. The total cost of approving this bond measure would be about $20 billion to pay off both principal ($9.95 billion) and interest ($9.5 billion). However, it is important to note that this bond measure would fund only the first phase of the project. The total cost to develop and construct the entire high-speed train system would be about $45 billion, so additional funds would be needed.

Recommendation:

My recommendation is to vote no. The State of California is currently facing a huge budget crisis and in order not to run out of money is being forced to offer for sale billions of dollars of new general obligation bonds. There has also been speculation that the State may have to borrow billions of additional dollars from the Federal Government in order to remain solvent. While high speed train service may be a desirable goal for California, it would be irresponsible to incur additional debt at this time.

For more information: Voter Information Guide – Prop 1A

October 17th, 2008 Posted by freedomminute | Ballot Initiatives, Election, State Government | no comments