propostion 73

Originally posted by newdad27
fyi to U, we are talking about minor children, the govt is sticking there nose into a parent/child relationship and saying you dont have to tell your parents you are going to have a major medical procedure. Govt doesnt tell a child they can have any other surgery without parental NOTIFICATION. I'm really surprised I have to inform you of this, and it's ...[text shortened]... ven be debating this issue. Thus, it is obvious that you prefer a government running your life.

How is the government NOT TELLING ANYONE to do ANYTHING "sticking their nose in your business"? Please read my first post which quotes the law in every state that DOES NOT require minors to have parental consent for ANY measures having to do with procreation. It's pathetic you're such an idiot that you think the government doing nothing is "running your life".

EDIT: From page one:

no state explicitly requires parental consent for contraceptive services; testing or treatment for sexually transmitted diseases including HIV; counseling and medical care for drug and alcohol abuse; or outpatient mental health services.

Originally posted by no1marauder
How is the government NOT TELLING ANYONE to do ANYTHING "sticking their nose in your business"? Please read my first post which quotes the law in every state that DOES NOT require minors to have parental consent for ANY measures having to do with procreation. It's pathetic you're such an idiot that you think the government doing nothing is "running ...[text shortened]... V; counseling and medical care for drug and alcohol abuse; or outpatient mental health services.

wow are you sloooowwww..... Let me type extra slow for you, I never said, nor does the proposition say, anything about parental consent for an abortion. This ENTIRE discussion is about a proposition requiring parental notification. If you don't understand please refer to the dictionary for the difference between notification and consent.

Originally posted by newdad27
wow are you sloooowwww..... Let me type extra slow for you, I never said, nor does the proposition say, anything about parental consent for an abortion. This ENTIRE discussion is about a proposition requiring parental notification. If you don't understand please refer to the dictionary for the difference between notification and consent.

The background is a parental consent law was struck down by the California courts, so this is a way to throw a roadblock in the way of abortions. You can lie all you want, but that is the simple truth. It is hoped by anti-abortionists like yourself that if the relatively few parents who are not informed by their pregnant daughters of the fact that they are getting an abortion are notified then they will be able to prevent them for getting one by various threats and pressures.

The law actually forces a doctor, not a child, to notify the parents. Thus it is an obtrusive governmental interference into not only a person's right to procreate but also in the confidential physician-patient relationship.

I don't need a dictionary to know this is an anti-abortion tactic; that is COMMON SENSE.

Originally posted by newdad27
wow are you sloooowwww..... Let me type extra slow for you, I never said, nor does the proposition say, anything about parental consent for an abortion.

Yes, consent and notification are different things. His question still stands, and you have declined to answer it.

The proposition would create a new law inserting government into the relationship between physicians and patients and require a breach of confidentiality which could lead to tragic choices by patients in desparate circumstances. Is that the best solution to a problem that actually exists? Has there been some epidemic of teenagers undergoing abortions in secret to a degree that requires government intervention?

The proposition also requires that physicians tabulate and report to the government on abortion procedures provided to minors (with the minors' identities to be kept confidential). What is the purpose of this?

Finally, a point you ignored, newdad: the sneaky attempt to define a fetus as an unborn child in state law.

You cannot be intellectually honest and claim that Proposition 73 is not "anti-abortion" legislation.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The background is a parental consent law was struck down by the California courts, so this is a way to throw a roadblock in the way of abortions. You can lie all you want, but that is the simple truth. It is hoped by anti-abortionists like yourself that if the relatively few parents who are not informed by their pregnant daughters of the fact that they a ...[text shortened]...
I don't need a dictionary to know this is an anti-abortion tactic; that is COMMON SENSE.

"Thus it is an obtrusive governmental interference into not only a person's right to procreate but also in the confidential physician-patient relationship."

moronic, nothing more to say really. Yes one should want there 12 yr old daughter to have a private patient doctor relationship about a medical procedure that will change their emotional wellbeing forever. I'm sure you would tell a 12 yr old girl "you have a right to procreate". You are spinning this into something the prop is not about.

And if someone fears parental abuse or intimidation she can go before a judge (planned parenthood will drive her) and have the notification requirement waived. So, do you have any other points to fail with?

Originally posted by Algernon
Yes, consent and notification are different things. His question still stands, and you have declined to answer it.

The proposition would create a new law inserting government into the relationship between physicians and patients and require a breach of confidentiality which could lead to tragic choices by patients in desparate circumstances. Is that ...[text shortened]... not be intellectually honest and claim that Proposition 73 is not "anti-abortion" legislation.

you both are missing the point, there should be NO intrusion between the government and a Parent/Child relationship, EVER. We are not talking about adults, the Government should not be able to enable a child to keep something of that magnitude from a parent.

Originally posted by Algernon
Yes, consent and notification are different things. His question still stands, and you have declined to answer it.

The proposition would create a new law inserting government into the relationship between physicians and patients and require a breach of confidentiality which could lead to tragic choices by patients in desparate circumstances. Is that ...[text shortened]... not be intellectually honest and claim that Proposition 73 is not "anti-abortion" legislation.

"The proposition also requires that physicians tabulate and report to the government on abortion procedures provided to minors (with the minors' identities to be kept confidential). What is the purpose of this?"

The answer is simple, if you have a 12 year old coming in to get an abortion she obviously had sex. Thus, since she is 12, there is a greater than zero chance there was a crime committed. Statutory rape, molestation, etc are all highly probable. Of course she could of been having sex with someone her age but I would bet that is the exception.

Originally posted by Algernon
Yes, consent and notification are different things. His question still stands, and you have declined to answer it.

The proposition would create a new law inserting government into the relationship between physicians and patients and require a breach of confidentiality which could lead to tragic choices by patients in desparate circumstances. Is that ...[text shortened]... not be intellectually honest and claim that Proposition 73 is not "anti-abortion" legislation.

Ok, from what I've learned so far, I disagree with proposition 73. I wonder, however if there is a moral hazard problem that it can solve.

If a minor does not inform her parents, can we safely assume that the state is paying for the procedure (Since the bill should show up if the parent's insurance was involved.)?

If so then it may be in a parent's best interest, to pretend not to be informed. If it's a few hundred bucks one way and free another, tell your daughter, "I love you, but some things are just more important than family (e.g. money). You got yourself into this mess; now you get yourself out. If you're grown-up enough to get knocked up, then you're grown up enough to walk to the clinic." She'll understand.

🙂

Seriously though, if the financial arrangement is like I've described, then Prop 73 could tie up the "I never knew" loophole by asking the notified parent to foot the bill. This would save me, like $0.001 in taxes.

Originally posted by telerion
Ok, from what I've learned so far, I disagree with proposition 73. I wonder, however if there is a moral hazard problem that it can solve.

If a minor does not inform her parents, can we safely assume that the state is paying for the procedure (Since the bill should show up if the parent's insurance was involved.)?

If so then it may be in a parent ...[text shortened]... phole by asking the notified parent to foot the bill. This would save me, like $0.001 in taxes.

i think even if parents are notified the state will still pay..I'm pretty sure that is the case.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Life is all about dealing with the consequences of your choices. Sticking the government's nose into every facet of your life is not exercising "common sense". And please stop pretending that this proposition has nothing to do with "anti-abortion"; we've read your comments in the other thread. You are a liar.

I have no idea what you mean b ...[text shortened]... nt to whether anybody does or doesn't get an abortion; it's NOMFB. And it's not yours either.

You were spot-on with those fist two sentences .. I couldn't agree more. I might tweek it a little to say: "Life is all about the choices you make" .. period, but you hit it pretty good for my nickle.

You lost me after that. The proposition has very little to do with abortion, and everything to do with a parents rights and responsibilty in rasising their children.

After that you trailed off into namecalling and a rant about abortion on demand .. you lost the point.
It's about a parents rights and responsibilty.
.........................
You started off so good. I think you can make a better, more logical argument. I'd like to hear it.

Originally posted by jammer
You were spot-on with those fist two sentences .. I couldn't agree more. I might tweek it a little to say: "Life is all about the choices you make" .. period, but you hit it pretty good for my nickle.

You lost me after that. The proposition has very little to do with abortion, and everything to do with a parents rights and responsibilty in rasising thei ...[text shortened]... started off so good. I think you can make a better, more logical argument. I'd like to hear it.

i'm glad someonse sees that this is a parent's rights issue.

Originally posted by newdad27
you both are missing the point, there should be NO intrusion between the government and a Parent/Child relationship, EVER. We are not talking about adults, the Government should not be able to enable a child to keep something of that magnitude from a parent.

I'm not sure why you do not get this. How is a law that FORCES a minor child to communicate with her parents not an example of government involving itself in a private family?

Forced communication sure sounds like government involvement to me.

TheSkipper

Originally posted by TheSkipper
I'm not sure why you do not get this. How is a law that FORCES a minor child to communicate with her parents not an example of government involving itself in a private family?

Forced communication sure sounds like government involvement to me.

TheSkipper

I get it.
Their are plenty of laws that involve the government in private family affairs
How about this .. we've passed laws that children under a certain age can't be legally tatooed or have any body parts pierced without a parents written consent.
This is only one, small example of the way the government is involved in our private lives.
We allow it.
Hell, we even encourage it .. by passing laws.
That's what this thread is about .. a Proposition to be voted on "by the people" that will make it law that a parent be notified before a child kills a baby.
Somehow a lot of parents have the feeling that 13 yr olds aren't mature enough to make these types of decisions.
They actually think it might be their responsibilty as parents to counsel and guide their offspring ... go figure.

Originally posted by newdad27
you both are missing the point, there should be NO intrusion between the government and a Parent/Child relationship, EVER. We are not talking about adults, the Government should not be able to enable a child to keep something of that magnitude from a parent.

I am not missing the point. You claimed that this proposition was not an act of government intrusion in personal affairs. That is exactly what it is, and it is for reasons you defend as legitimate. Take your position and stick to it.