Propositions 86 and 87 are two birds of a feather. The premise is simple: identify an unpopular segment of the population and tax their behavior to fund other, tangentially-related programs.
Continue reading →

On the ballot November 7th is Proposition 85, which would require that no minor in the state of California could obtain an abortion until waiting at least 48 hours after her parents or legal guardians are notified. Similar measures have been adopted in other states, pushed forward largely by people that would much rather outlaw the practice entirely, but are willing to settle for any speed bumps they can throw in the path of some body seeking to terminate her pregnancy.

(+) For the purposes of seeking serious medical treatment, our society generally requires parental consent except in emergencies. A child cannot get a tonsillectomy or root canal without the explicit approval of a parent. Abortions certainly fall under this category. The underlying reason for this is a general desire for parents to take responsibility for the children under their care, and to give parents the authority to make decisions regarding the well-being of the child.

(-) There is some serious concern that some minors have cause to fear retribution from their parents upon notification. Such minors would be able, under Prop 85, to petition the juvenile court system for a waiver. This basically means that the minor can still get the abortion without telling her parents, but only after jumping through some hoops.

This proposition strikes me as blatant pandering to a certain segment of highly-motivated voters, and a wedge that local politicians can use in an attempt to differentiate themselves from their opponents, not as any serious attempt to assert parental rights or to protect young girls and unborn children. A quick look at the arguments for and against in the voter guide shows the shrill unthinking tone of the debate around this issue. Note how many phrases uses are either in all-caps, italicized, or both. If either side on this issue had a reasonable case to appeal to their opponents’ better judgment, that wouldn’t be necessary. This Proposition is bullshit, pure and simple, and reflects a disdain for the general public. Its proponents aren’t trying to save unborn children or protect parents, they just want to be seen as seeking to.

Disinclined to encourage such political tactics, Proposition 85 will be getting an easy “no” vote from me; it helps nobody, hurts a few high-risk youths, and places yet another potential burden on our juvenile court system.

Proposition 83 is an interesting expression of how public sentiment and hundreds of years of legal principles can butt heads. The rule of law generally holds that if you were to behave in a manner that is explicitly outlawed, you are subject to the punishments proscribed at the time of that behavior. If you violate the speed limit, you are subject to fines as described in the various traffic laws. If you steal somebody’s television, you are subject to certain maximum or minimum jail sentences as proscribed in the criminal statutes. Proposition 83 seeks to retroactively lay a series of punishments onto a subspecies of criminal: sex offenders.
Continue reading →