Published Oct 4 in Pasadena Star News / SG Tribune
Parental rights issue
The Star-News' position against Proposition 85 is the media elite not "getting it" when passionate backers and the growing grassroots groundswell continues to press for basic parental rights. Without it, parents can't know of health complications or abuse.
Prop. 85 is crafted to the standard of a Supreme Court decision, allowing exceptions for life-threatening emergency (of course), pre-existing waiver or emancipation, or judicial waiver for family abuse or abandonment.
The president will sign a bill to cut off interstate minor abortions, and California may join 40 states with these laws. Should Planned Parenthood then rent a ship to offer it in international waters? How pathetic and unnecessary except to avoid accountability to offer real counseling and protection to minors.
Boys will be boys, but two-thirds are men who take opportunity without responsibility and seek a quiet way out. Now clinics may ask, but a girl filling out a form seeking a quick solution ratified by a self-serving boyfriend may not provide a full answer that she would to a parent with authority and the caring to follow through to end abuse.
Families are breaking down. How does the newspaper figure devaluing parental rights is a solution? Crisis pregnancy clinics sponsored by caring churches and individuals offer support to those who have nowhere else to turn, and they will be there regardless.
To me, either people want a solution that will help bring light and life for vulnerable girls and their unborn, or they don't. Vote "yes" on Prop. 85.
Robert Blundell
San Gabriel
This is the Pasadena Star News position on Prop 85
GIVEN how obscure, unnecessary, multi-pronged and even nefarious so many state ballot propositions continue to be, it's no wonder that those to be put before us in November are not exactly the talk of the town. The only place anyone can be heard discussing them is during paid television airtime - and those advertisements are not much of a discussion.
By our lights, only pressing economic or social issues that somehow cannot be solved by the governor, the courts and the Legislature ought to be brought to the ballot. If it's not something Californians are up in arms about, it ought not be put before us. A good example of the kind of issue we should not be voting on - and thus should vote "no" on - is mandatory parental notification of minors seeking an abortion, presented to us as Proposition85.
It does not belong in the state constitution. First off, California voters just turned down virtually the same measure - written and paid for by the same individual backer - only 11 months ago. Why is it here again? Most importantly, there is no clamor among Californians about this. Over 90 percent of teen girls considering abortion already talk to either parent or another adult authority figure - often a minister or family physician - before making any decision.
When teens can't talk to parents about such a crucial moral and medical matter, it's often because they are in an abusive situation at home already. What is clear in states with such regulations is that pregnant and desperate teens don't risk such confrontations - they go to states without them, often resulting in later-term abortions, or they dangerously attempt to self-induce abortion or seek illegal "backstreet" ones. In California, many teens would head for Tijuana. The fact is, both teen pregnancies and teen abortions show sharp downward trends in California in recent years - by 46 percent and about 50percent respectfully. This is a desperate measure in a time in which the trends are in a healthy direction. Vote "no" on Proposition 85.