Mike,
I'm not sure it's true that Proposition 73 takes no position on the morality of abortion. I recall seeing it mentioned in an opinion piece that the language of Prop. 73 refers to "the unborn child." The op-ed writer(s) argued that this language is inflammatory and unnecessary to the alleged purpose of the initiative, and that it shows an intent by the measure's sponsors to insert wording into the law that could in the future undermine a woman's legal right to choose abortion. While there are some types of abortions I *would* like to see banned, I do not want to see a blanket prohibition of the kind that could be supported by vague references to unborn children.
I do agree with you that we are presented with imperfect choices here. If it is currently illegal to inform the parents of a dependent minor that she is seeking an abortion on the basis of "privacy," as I believe you indicated the CA Supreme Court has ruled, then the status quo in my opinion is flawed and legislation is needed. However I also find Morey's comment about the responsibility of service providers persuasive, among other arguments, and am not convinced that Prop. 73 as written would provide a fairer solution. On the whole it is a grey enough area that I think the LPC was probably correct to take no position, but at this point I expect to vote against the measure myself.
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>
Sorry Morey...you are right in every way except when the child is a
minor. There are some contracts a minor cannot make. The law and courts
have held this view for longer than anyone can say.
As a decision about having an abortion is not likely about life or death
(meaning one will die if a decision is made one way as opposed to the
other) the decision is very appropriately left to the parents.
Regardless of whether one thinks abortion is good or bad, this decision
is for parents and children to make together. It is not up to an outside
entity to make. Any outside interference especially that backed by the
state is illegal. Prop 73 appropriately asserts the rights of parents
although not perfectly from a Libertarian perspective.
Prop 73 makes no obvious comment on whether abortion is good or evil.
The only place one could challenge this view is where it removes the
right of parents to force their child to have an abortion. While I would
never personally require an objecting minor to one, I think the measure
would be better legislation if this section was changed to allow parents
to insist the child have one.
From a political perspective, whether one supports abortion or not,
government should not have the right to intervene on behalf of a minor
over the interests of their parents because of some doctrine of
"privacy".
Mike
From: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com [mailto:lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Morey Straus
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 9:58 PM
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Prop 73, or Libertarianism 101
The issue is not that complicated. As the parent, *you* have bottom
line responsibility for every action your child makes. You decide
whether they go outside, whether they have money, and whether or not
to let them out of your sight at all. If your child betrays your
trust, for example, by skipping school and going to the clinic or
having sex, then it is due to your failure as a parent. You have
*all* of the control. The buck stops with YOU.
It is not my responsibility as a vendor or service provider to verify
the authenticity of ID cards or to refuse service to *anyone* able to
pay. Prop 73 takes a big dump on free trade and forces sellers to
join you in parenting.
-Morey
Yahoo! Groups Links
<image.tiff>
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
+ Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
+ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
+ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
<image.tiff>