California's Proposition 4

[hjmick]

And now for something completely different…

With all the talk of national politics, I thought it might be interesting, entertaining even, to take a look at some of the local or state issues confronting us, the voters, during this prolonged silly season.

With this in mind, I submit to you, the board members, California’s Proposition 4. “What is Proposition 4?” you might ask. Well, let’s take a look…


Proposition 4, or the Abortion Waiting Period and Parental Notification Initiative, also known to its supporters as Sarah's Law, is an initiated amendment that will appear on the November 4, 2008 ballot in California. It proposes a new amendment to the California Constitution. The initiative would prohibit abortion for unemancipated minors until 48 hours after physician notifies minor’s parent, legal guardian or, if parental abuse has been reported, an alternative adult family member.

Specific provisions:

The proposed initiative, if enacted as a constitutional amendment, would:

• Provides exceptions for medical emergency or parental waiver.

• Permits courts to waive notice based on clear and convincing evidence of minor’s maturity or best interests.

• Mandates reporting requirements, including reports from physicians regarding abortions on minors.

• Authorizes monetary damages against physicians for violation.

• Requires minor’s consent to abortion, with exceptions.

• Permits judicial relief if minor’s consent is coerced.

Fiscal Impact:

• Health and Social Services Costs. Annual costs in the range of $4 million to $5 million for the state and about $2 million for counties, and potential one-time Medi-Cal automation costs unlikely to exceed a few million dollars.

• Costs to Local Law Enforcement and Courts. Annual costs in the range of $5 million to $6 million per year.

• Potential Offsetting Savings. Unknown, potential savings to the state in health care and public assistance costs from decreases in sexually transmitted diseases and teen pregnancy

Notable arguments that have been made in favor of Prop. 4 include:

• When a minor obtains an abortion without the knowledge of a family member or guardian, her health can be endangered if health complications arise after the abortion. Prop 4 is named after a 15 year old minor, Sarah, who died after receiving a botched abortion. Family is needed to assist with medical history and appropriate after care.

• If a minor becomes pregnant because of sexual violence or predation, a sexual predator may be missed, because the abortion clinic may not report the sexual crime. Although clinics are mandated reporters of abuse, repeated cases of sexual predators concealing crimes through secret abortions reveals a broken system in CA and the need for family notification

Notable arguments that have been made against Prop. 4 include:

• Mandated parental notification laws don't work. No law can mandate family communication.

• Some teenagers can't go to their parents because they fear being kicked out of the house, beaten, or worse.

• Prop 4 may force these teens to delay medical care, turn to self-induced abortions, or consider suicide.

• If a teen chooses to go to another adult, her parents would automatically be reported to authorities and an investigation would ensue

Source… (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_4_(2008))

There you have it, the essentials of Proposition 4. It should be noted that similar propositions have failed on two separate occasions here in California, once in 2005 and again in 2006.

Setting aside your personal feelings as they pertain to the abortion issue, where do you come down on this particular initiative?

Speaking as a father of three girls, one of whom is still a minor, I have to say that I favor notification. We’re talking surgery and in my opinion there is no such thing as “minor surgery,” all surgery is major. I nearly lost my wife when she went for “minor same day surgery” so there will be no convincing me otherwise. Furthermore, if you consider that a school nurse cannot give a child an aspirin without parental approval and a child can be suspended for having them on their person, it makes no sense not to notify a parent or responsible adult where surgery is involved. For all other surgeries parental consent is required, in the absence or parental consent a guardian or the courts intervene. There are provisions that allow for abusive family situations, so I have trouble understanding the opposition. Besides, who wants to be the first parent notified that their minor daughter died on the operating table during a procedure they had no idea was happening?

This is one of only three propositions on the California ballot that will garner a “Yes” vote from me the year.

[Immanuel]

Reading only your quote and not going to the source to see more information, I agree completely with what you say.

I do understand the opposition's point about a minor child turning to suicide or self induced abortion if forced to reveal the pregnancy. I am concerned about those cases and wish I had an easy solution to the problem, but I don't. But, I believe that the consent required will probably save more lives than not requiring consent.

Immie

[LiberalNation]

Against requiring parental consent.

[Monkeybone]

Keyword LN : Minors

[manu1959]

Against requiring parental consent.

how about parental financial support.....are you for or against that for minors....

[Yurt]

Against requiring parental consent.

for abortion only?

what about staying out late?

[LiberalNation]

It's her body, a womans right to choose shouldn't be denied because she's 16 or 17. Anyone who uses the rational her body her choice for being pro-choice would be against this.

[hjmick]

Against requiring parental consent.

Okay, though I would have liked some elaboration as to why you take this position, I respect your choice. I imagine that there will be others who will agree with you.

But this begs the question:

Where do you (not you specifically, LN) draw the line at stripping mothers and fathers of their parental rights? That is essentially what we're talking about here. Should the state and or federal government have more say in regards to children than their parents? Perhaps all children should be removed from their homes at birth and raised by the government?

It is a slippery slope (oh how I loathe that cliché) we travel when the state presumes to know better than parents how to care for a child.

[hjmick]

It's her body, a womans right to choose shouldn't be denied because she's 16 or 17. Anyone who uses the rational her body her choice for being pro-choice would be against this.

But this is not limited to just 16 and 17 year olds. We're talking about 12, 13, 14 year olds as well.

[Yurt]

It's her body, a womans right to choose shouldn't be denied because she's 16 or 17. Anyone who uses the rational her body her choice for being pro-choice would be against this.

so she can stay out late then, it is her body...

[LiberalNation]

so she can stay out late then, it is her body...

Not comparible.

No one should be forced to go through pregnancy, labor, and delivery because someone else wants them to. Be it a man or their parents.

[Yurt]

Not comparible.

No one should be forced to go through pregnancy, labor, and delivery because someone else wants them to. Be it a man or their parents.

no one should be forced to stay in their bedroom or house when they could be living their life outside doing what they want with their body. so then you agree with imprisonment but not consent to a life changing decision...

apparently they are not old enough to drink or vote and someone over 18 who has sex with them is guilty of statutory ""rape"", but they can have an abortion

that is twisted

[manu1959]

It's her body, a womans right to choose shouldn't be denied because she's 16 or 17. Anyone who uses the rational her body her choice for being pro-choice would be against this.

....she is is not an adult until she is 18....it isn't her body yet....

[Yurt]

Okay, though I would have liked some elaboration as to why you take this position, I respect your choice. I imagine that there will be others who will agree with you.

But this begs the question:

Where do you (not you specifically, LN) draw the line at stripping mothers and fathers of their parental rights? That is essentially what we're talking about here. Should the state and or federal government have more say in regards to children than their parents? Perhaps all children should be removed from their homes at birth and raised by the government?

It is a slippery slope (oh how I loathe that cliché) we travel when the state presumes to know better than parents how to care for a child.

great questions

[MtnBiker]

What other medical procedure can be performed on a minor without parential permission?

[Immanuel]

Not comparible.

No one should be forced to go through pregnancy, labor, and delivery because someone else wants them to. Be it a man or their parents.

No one is saying she has to go through the pregnancy. The law states that the parents have to be notified before the abortion takes place. It doesn't even say that the parents can legally stop the procedure if she chooses to have it.

Immie

[Monkeybone]

No one should be forced to go through pregnancy, labor, and delivery because someone else wants them to. Be it a man or their parents.
most of the time sex is not forced on them, they are punishing a baby because they didn't take the time to use protection before getting jiggy with it. you don't wanna kid, use your head before the legs are spread.

[manu1959]

Not comparible.

No one should be forced to go through pregnancy, labor, and delivery because someone else wants them to. Be it a man or their parents.

how about school .... should she be forced to attend school....after all it is her body to do with as she pleases.....

if she makes choices her parents don't like do the parents have the right to choose not to continue to support her or let her live in their house....

[Monkeybone]

No one is saying she has to go through the pregnancy. The law states that the parents have to be notified before the abortion takes place. It doesn't even say that the parents can legally stop the procedure if she chooses to have it.

Immie

nope, sorry Immie, it in some way invades on her bodily rights as a woman. so no!

[Nukeman]

most of the time sex is not forced on them, they are punishing a baby because they didn't take the time to use protection before getting jiggy with it. you don't wanna kid, use your head before the legs are spread.

:lol::lol: I absolutely loved that line, I actaully laghed out loud... Did you hear me???:laugh2::laugh2:

[hjmick]

What other medical procedure can be performed on a minor without parential permission?

None that I am aware of. A minor child can not get their ears pierced without parental consent in the state of California. You have to be 18 to get a tattoo. There are, of course, exceptions that can be and are made should the parent(s) or guardian of a minor child are unreachable and the situation is life threatening.

[Abbey Marie]

Not comparible.

No one should be forced to go through pregnancy, labor, and delivery because someone else wants them to. Be it a man or their parents.

Unless it was rape, who was forced?

[Yurt]

None that I am aware of. A minor child can not get their ears pierced without parental consent in the state of California. You have to be 18 to get a tattoo. There are, of course, exceptions that can be and are made should the parent(s) or guardian of a minor child are unreachable and the situation is life threatening.

but it is MY BODY


http://www.hecklerspray.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/chris-crocker.jpg

[hjmick]

Not comparible.

No one should be forced to go through pregnancy, labor, and delivery because someone else wants them to. Be it a man or their parents.

I fear that you may be confusing issues here. I am not questioning the validity of the current abortion laws. The issue I am interested in discussing here is a parent's right to know when their minor child is undergoing a major medical procedure and the undermining of parental rights in general.

[Immanuel]

nope, sorry Immie, it in some way invades on her bodily rights as a woman. so no!

I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say here, Monkey, or maybe you misunderstood me? Can you explain what you meant please?

Immie

[LiberalNation]

the undermining of parental rights in general.
Parental right isn't absolute and shouldn't be. There are always exceptions. A "child" can't be forced to work, abused, ect. Children are not "property" of their parents even if some like to think so. Abortion should be an exception IMO. Old enough to get pregnant = old enough to choose.

[Monkeybone]

Parental right isn't absolute and shouldn't be. There are always exceptions. A "child" can't be forced to work, abused, ect. Children are not "property" of their parents even if some like to think so. Abortion should be an exception IMO. Old enough to get pregnant = old enough to choose.

so then when the child does something it's not the parents fault either? or if they are out drinking at a party or doing drugs? they also don't have to provide for them, becasue since it's not theirs oh well. should we allow all ages to vote too?

[LiberalNation]

Unless it was rape, who was forced?

So lets you have product you want to by and you find two identical copies of this product but one is at a higher price. If someone said you "had" to buy the higher priced one would you not consider that being forced even tho you had to choice not to purchace either and go without.

[MtnBiker]

Parental right isn't absolute and shouldn't be. There are always exceptions. A "child" can't be forced to work, abused, ect. Children are not "property" of their parents even if some like to think so. Abortion should be an exception IMO. Old enough to get pregnant = old enough to choose.

What is if a minor commits a crime that causes a monetary loss for the victim? Are the parents responsible?

[LiberalNation]

Are the parents responsible?
I don't know, are they?

[MtnBiker]

I don't know, are they?


Parental Criminal Liability
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Firearm Access Laws

Some states have laws which hold parents criminally liable when children gain access to firearms. At least nine states hold adults criminally responsible for storing a loaded firearm in such a way as to allow a minor to gain access. Some of these provisions include an enhanced penalty if the minor causes injury or death. Other state laws create exceptions for parental liability when the minor gains access to a weapon by unlawful entry into the home or place of storage, or if the firearm is used in self-defense. In addition, several states have provisions that create criminal liability when a custodial adult or parent is aware that his or her child possesses a firearm unlawfully and does not take it away. A number of jurisdictions have enacted laws making it a crime to leave a loaded firearm where it is accessible by children. Typically, these laws apply -- and parents can be charged -- only if the minor gains access to the gun. There are usually exceptions if the firearm is stored in a locked box and/or secured with a trigger lock. In most states, the penalty for unlawful access is a misdemeanor unless the minor injures someone else, in which case the parent can be charged with a felony.

Internet Access and Computer Hacking


Another parental criminal liability issue involves certain unlawful computer and Internet activities committed by minors. In 2003, The Recording Industry Association sued 261 persons for downloading protected music onto their personal computers and infringing copyrights. Among the defendants were several surprised parents who had no knowledge of their minor child's downloading activities. In Thrifty-Tel v. Bezenek, the California Court of Appeals upheld a verdict against the parents of juvenile computer hackers who accessed the phone company's network in order to make long-distance calls without cost. And with the appearance of camera cell-phones and computer video cameras in the early 2000s, the opportunity for minors to sell pornographic images of themselves or otherwise engage in illegal Internet activities has increased dramatically. In such matters, federal law (e.g. Section 301 of the Copyright Act) may preempt state laws and provide a more uniform guidance for resolution. However, these examples point to the need for a more comprehensive approach to parental liability across state lines.

Juvenile Delinquents

In addition to Access Protection Laws, some states hold parents responsible for paying restitution as well as criminal fines where crimes are committed by minors. Once a minor becomes involved in the juvenile justice system, parents may find themselves reimbursing the state for costs associated with their child's prosecution and rehabilitation. Minors who run away from home, exhibit chronic truancy, or refuse to obey their parents are classified by many states as incorrigible. Incorrigible minors are often referred to as status offenders because they would not be in court but for their status as minors. When a minor commits a criminal act that would still be a crime if committed by an adult, most states will classify the minor as a juvenile delinquent.

Although some states impose criminal liability on parents of delinquent youth, many more have enacted less stringent types of parental responsibility laws. Kansas, Michigan, and Texas require parents to attend the hearings of children adjudicated delinquent or face contempt charges. Legislation in Alabama, Kansas, Kentucky, and West Virginia requires parents to pay the court costs associated with these proceedings. Other states impose financial responsibility on parents for the costs incurred by the state when youth are processed through the juvenile justice system. Florida, Idaho, Indiana, North Carolina, and Virginia require parents to reimburse the state for the costs associated with the care, support, detention, or treatment of their children while under the supervision of state agencies. Idaho, Maryland, Missouri, and Oklahoma require parents to undertake restitution payments.

http://family.findlaw.com/parenting-law/parental-criminal-liability.html

[hjmick]

Parental right isn't absolute and shouldn't be. There are always exceptions.

Yes, there are indeed exceptions to most every rule. But when should an exception be invoked? Arbitrarily across the board? Or only when there is evidence of a need for said exception? For all other medical procedures, parental consent is required. In instances where parental consent is not readily available and there is serious risk to the welfare of the child, the consent of a legal guardian or the intervention of the court is an acceptable substitute. Under Prop 4, allowances have been made for abusive family relationships. If there is no evidence of an abusive family environment, why should parents rights be overlooked?


A "child" can't be forced to work, abused, ect. Children are not "property" of their parents even if some like to think so.

I absolutely agree with this sentiment. Though I do expect my kids to contribute to the household and family dynamic by doing chores around the hacienda. Nothing strenuous, just the usual… Feed the dogs, clean their room, take out the trash, do their dishes, etcetera.


Abortion should be an exception IMO. Old enough to get pregnant = old enough to choose.

A twelve or thirteen year old may be old enough to get pregnant, but I am not convinced they are old enough to give consent to a major medical procedure. I am convinced they are not old enough to understand the ramifications of consensual sex. Yet there are instances of just such a thing happening.

[April15]

If you, as a parent, aren't aware your child is screwing then you don't need to be notified. You are obviously lacking parenting skills.

[MtnBiker]

Everyone step aside, April15 is going to qualify who is and who isn't a good parent.

[Immanuel]

If you, as a parent, aren't aware your child is screwing then you don't need to be notified. You are obviously lacking parenting skills.

Think way, way, way back. For you farther! Go way back. Come on even farther... when you were a young whippersnapper. Come on farther!

Do you really believe your parents knew everything you did? You told them everything? Really?

My mom had this damned "little bird" that used to tell on me. I still say that if I find that "little bird" I'm having it for dinner! But, even with that "little bird" she didn't know everything... at least I hope not! :laugh2:

Immie

[April15]

Think way, way, way back. For you farther! Go way back. Come on even farther... when you were a young whippersnapper. Come on farther!

Do you really believe your parents knew everything you did? You told them everything? Really?

My mom had this damned "little bird" that used to tell on me. I still say that if I find that "little bird" I'm having it for dinner! But, even with that "little bird" she didn't know everything... at least I hope not! :laugh2:

Immie

The little bird, Boy that goes back a long way. About the time I reached puberty I had a job. I still went to church every sunday and wednesday and then cleaned the church kitchen after the wednesday night dinners. Between work, school and study she pretty much knew my every move.
Now at sixteen and a drivers license all bets were off.

[Abbey Marie]

So lets you have product you want to by and you find two identical copies of this product but one is at a higher price. If someone said you "had" to buy the higher priced one would you not consider that being forced even tho you had to choice not to purchace either and go without.

No, I would choose to go without. Real force is rare, and and I think the term is overused.

[Yurt]

Think way, way, way back. For you farther! Go way back. Come on even farther... when you were a young whippersnapper. Come on farther!

Do you really believe your parents knew everything you did? You told them everything? Really?

My mom had this damned "little bird" that used to tell on me. I still say that if I find that "little bird" I'm having it for dinner! But, even with that "little bird" she didn't know everything... at least I hope not! :laugh2:

Immie

thats funny! i hunted that little bird until my early teens....AND its still out there!!!

[Yurt]

If you, as a parent, aren't aware your child is screwing then you don't need to be notified. You are obviously lacking parenting skills.

what is your rationale behind this statement? why do you think that?

[Abbey Marie]

:laugh2:
what is your rationale behind this statement? why do you think that?

I guess we are supposed to force our kids to get gynecological exams every week?

[Yurt]

:laugh2:

I guess we are supposed to force our kids to get gynecological exams every week?

the day after look?

[April15]

what is your rationale behind this statement? why do you think that?As a parent my then wifw and I explained sex to our children and made sure they were comfortable communicating with us when intercourse started. We were adamant about protection from disease and pregnancy.
I knew of many parents who do not communicate with thier children.