A sad day for Arnold... [:frown:]Follow

I got that. I simply don't agree with Pat's position at all. To me, the burden is on the state, not the parent. Can the state take away the power of a parent over their child because "not all parents know what's best for their child"?

Shouldn't the state *only* take that power away when it can proove the parent wont do what's best for the child? That's my problem here. You're essentially saying it's ok to take away my rights as a parent as long as you can find a single instance of a parent abusing that right. I think that's backwards. The burden should be on the state. Unless it can show that *all* parents will make the wrong choice, then they should not override that parent's choice. Because otherwise we're all being assumed to be guilty of bad decisions based on what others might do.



And no Pat. It's not about the child's right versus the parents rights. Or at least it *shouldn't* be. The point your missing is that the *only* medical case in which minors are allowed to make medical decisions without parental consent is on the issue of abortion. Why do you suppose that is Pat?

A minor cannot recieve a prescription for a flu without parental consent, but that same minor can get an abortion? Don't you think there's a bit of a double standard there?


My problem is that you are presenting this as though it's a minor's rights versus the parents rights, but if that was the case, then why aren't you championing that cause for *all* other issues as well? I don't see any of the people arguing this particular issue also arguing for removal of permission slips for children attending field trips at school. Or for taking sports. Or going on trips. Or getting credit cards. Or getting bank accounts. Or any of hundred different things that minors must get parental permission to do.

If it was truely about the minor's rights, we'd be hearing those same people pushing those issues as well. Funny that I don't hear *anything* about that. Funny how we still hold those same parents responsible for their children. Funny how we still charge parents with criminal negligence for leaving their teens at home without adult supervision, but apparently think it's perfectly ok for those same teens to make a decision about abortion without ever talking to their parents.


I'm sorry. But that's a *huge* double standard. How you can't see that is beyond me...

Edited, Thu Nov 10 22:00:18 2005 by gbaji

Most of the Propositions in CA were very close. Prop 73 (which this thread now seems focused on), was 3,252,061 / 47.5% Yes votes ...... 3,600,140 / 52.5% No votes. The biggest objections I have been hearing about Prop 73 are:

1) All the minors applying for the parental notification waiver would bog down the juvinile court system. The assuption being if they haven't told their parents in the first place, they will take steps to keep from having to do so. And the cost would be extensive given court time and appointment of a guardian ad litem, all at taxpayers expense.

quoted from text of Prop 73:




2) That it is a Constitutional amendment (vs. a statute in the Health and Safety code). If it passed and was found to have more negative effects than anticipated (costs to taxpayers, spike in juvinille court cases, appeals of decisions, etc.) it can't be removed simply by a ballot proposition but would require 2/3 majority vote to repeal the amendment.

Edited, Sat Nov 12 14:35:03 2005 by BloodwolfeX