Thanks for this Michael....I understand what you are saying. And Mike
Acree is right in noting that the alignment on this issue should suggest
caution. I'm not saying this is a good Proposition. That's why I'm OK
with the LPC taking a "no position" on it. It seems there are very few
truly good options ever presented to the voters. I'll vote for it
because it shuts down a gapping hole in the system, one that allows
third parties to intervene in the private parent/child relationship
without consequence. It also makes it harder for children to go around
their parents who are paying (dearly) for the privilege of their
authority. I see no libertarian conflict in parental authority. I see a
very clear libertarian conflict when third parties intervene in the
private family relationship without consequences or compensation.
It's clear from this discussion there are other holes in the system that
should be addressed. The key one in my view is the need to formalize the
process by which parents pass their liability and responsibility to
their children. This can be done without government involvement through
contracts with notary publics or other non-governmental means. The
notary public system is also there to deal with identification too so we
don't need government for that either. In the past, this wasn't an issue
because the family was everything. But now institutions of all sorts
(largely governmental and more and more medical at the request of
government) are intervening in the family relationship at all levels in
a way one can't understand unless they are parents and experience it.
Let's go over some of the Prop. 73's features:
* Amends California Constitution, prohibiting abortion for
unemancipated minor until 48 hours after physician notifies minor's
parent/legal guardian, except in medical emergency or with parental
waiver.
Mike: Not bad....48 hours seems short to invalidate a prior contract. I
would support this more if it was 30 days but still not a deal killer
for me.
* Defines abortion as causing "death of the unborn child, a child
conceived but not yet born."
Mike: I don't personally have a problem with this but understand others
might not agree.
* Permits minor to obtain court order waiving notice based on
clear, convincing evidence of minor's maturity or best interests.
Mike: This does cause concern as I have enough experience with judges to
be worried about one determining my child's maturity or "best interest".
I'd prefer that this be handled more along the lines of the parent/child
contract issue mentioned earlier. I have no problem with a child
deciding it's time to break free of their parents, take responsibility
for themselves and go out on their own and make a decision like this.
The problem currently is that the child can go off and makes a decision
like this without consequence while the disagreeing parents still have
responsibility and liability for the child. I'd much prefer a cleaner
system that puts pressure on both parties (parents and children) to
cooperate in the decision or at least move more of the burden to the
child if they make a decision like this on their own. Still this
requirement does raise the bar for a child to act without communicating
with parents about their situation which seems a good thing to me as a
parent.
Mandates various reporting requirements.
Mike: Don't know what could be recorded that isn't already recorded
about each and every medical procedure. Anyone know what these are?
* Authorizes monetary damages against physicians for violation.
Mike: I don't have a problem with this. If a physician thinks they know
what's better for a child than the parents, they can act on their own
conscience and take full responsibility for the child and start paying
the bills to feed, house and educate them....or pay the parent damages
for intervening in their relationship with the child. Seems pretty fair.
* Requires minor's consent to abortion, with certain exceptions.
Mike: Nothing wrong here other than it is inconsistent with the
contractual relationship issue of parent and child discussed earlier. In
that situation the parents would be able to tell the child to get an
abortion even if the child disagreed and the medical establishment would
have to perform it. Personally I would never force a child to have an
abortion that didn't want one so this doesn't bother me.
* Permits judicial relief if minor's consent coerced.
Mike: Once again, inconsistent with the parent child relationship. A
parent should be able to coerce their child. I'm not thrilled about it.
I'm not thrilled with the proposition and not lobbying the LPC to change
their position. Those who want to vote No have ample reason to do so.
This discussion has helped me understand the proposition better. I will
now hold my nose when voting for it.
Thanks everyone....
Mike