As many of you know, I am working with a coalition of Pro-Family organizations that have come together to help pass Proposition 73 (The Parent’s Right to Know Initiative). The California Parent’s Rights Coalition is made up of the state’s leading advocates for traditional values and religious liberty. However, we still face a significant uphill battle.
The main stream media is going out of their way to keep the truth from getting out about this initiative and those who oppose it. Take for example this excerpt from a commentary by Thomas Elias published last week in the Ventura County Star:
Proposition 73 is a parental consent abortion restriction forcing pregnant girls younger than 18 to get written permission from a parent or a judge before undergoing an abortion. Proposition 75 would force public employee labor unions to seek permission from their members every year before using dues money for political purposes.
Anyone who thinks these are new issues just hasn't been paying attention.
Parental consent has never before gone directly before the voters. But indirectly, it has. That came in 1998, when conservatives viewed two of Republican Gov. Pete Wilson's state Supreme Court appointees as traitors for their 1997 decision overturning a state parental consent law passed in 1987.
The California Pro-Life Council targeted both Chief Justice Ronald George and his colleague Ming Chin for judicial oblivion when they came up for routine yes-or-no confirmation votes for new 12-year terms.
Just as they do this fall, Democrats fretted in 1998 about whether the campaign against the two justices would bring large numbers of pro-life voters to the polls, worrying at the time that this could reduce the gubernatorial chances of Gray Davis. Plainly, Davis had nothing to worry about in that vote, winning handily at the same time the two justices were easily reconfirmed.
That fizzled campaign against the justices, plus their decision a year earlier to toss the existing parental consent law on personal grounds provides reason to wonder whether Proposition 73 would stand for long even if it passes.
First of all, Prop. 73 does not require parental consent. It simply requires abortion providers notify the parents of minor children 48 hours prior to performing an abortion on their child. Secondly, unlike California’s parental consent law, this measure would amend the California Constitution, thus prohibiting out of control judges from overriding the will of the voters.
One thing Mr. Elias is right about is the potential fate of this initiative. If we, those who value parent’s rights, those who value the well being of our children, those of us who value life…If we do not step up step up to the plate and support this initiative, it will fail. And please understand, support is not a passive thing.
We truly support those people and causes to which we give of our resources. Our time, our talent and our treasury…These are our resources. And anyone can give. If you only can spare and hour or two of your time to make phone calls, knock on doors or stuff envelopes, that support means something. Even if you can only give $10, that is $10 more to help pass this initiative.
But if you have not given of your resources: your time, talent or treasury, then you are not a supporter of Prop 73. You’re a cheerleader… a well wisher… but not a supporter. Our daughters need all the supporters they can get. I hope we can count on your support.
For more information on how you can support Prop. 73 visit the CAParentsrights.org
The main stream media is going out of their way to keep the truth from getting out about this initiative and those who oppose it. Take for example this excerpt from a commentary by Thomas Elias published last week in the Ventura County Star:
Proposition 73 is a parental consent abortion restriction forcing pregnant girls younger than 18 to get written permission from a parent or a judge before undergoing an abortion. Proposition 75 would force public employee labor unions to seek permission from their members every year before using dues money for political purposes.
Anyone who thinks these are new issues just hasn't been paying attention.
Parental consent has never before gone directly before the voters. But indirectly, it has. That came in 1998, when conservatives viewed two of Republican Gov. Pete Wilson's state Supreme Court appointees as traitors for their 1997 decision overturning a state parental consent law passed in 1987.
The California Pro-Life Council targeted both Chief Justice Ronald George and his colleague Ming Chin for judicial oblivion when they came up for routine yes-or-no confirmation votes for new 12-year terms.
Just as they do this fall, Democrats fretted in 1998 about whether the campaign against the two justices would bring large numbers of pro-life voters to the polls, worrying at the time that this could reduce the gubernatorial chances of Gray Davis. Plainly, Davis had nothing to worry about in that vote, winning handily at the same time the two justices were easily reconfirmed.
That fizzled campaign against the justices, plus their decision a year earlier to toss the existing parental consent law on personal grounds provides reason to wonder whether Proposition 73 would stand for long even if it passes.
First of all, Prop. 73 does not require parental consent. It simply requires abortion providers notify the parents of minor children 48 hours prior to performing an abortion on their child. Secondly, unlike California’s parental consent law, this measure would amend the California Constitution, thus prohibiting out of control judges from overriding the will of the voters.
One thing Mr. Elias is right about is the potential fate of this initiative. If we, those who value parent’s rights, those who value the well being of our children, those of us who value life…If we do not step up step up to the plate and support this initiative, it will fail. And please understand, support is not a passive thing.
We truly support those people and causes to which we give of our resources. Our time, our talent and our treasury…These are our resources. And anyone can give. If you only can spare and hour or two of your time to make phone calls, knock on doors or stuff envelopes, that support means something. Even if you can only give $10, that is $10 more to help pass this initiative.
But if you have not given of your resources: your time, talent or treasury, then you are not a supporter of Prop 73. You’re a cheerleader… a well wisher… but not a supporter. Our daughters need all the supporters they can get. I hope we can count on your support.
For more information on how you can support Prop. 73 visit the CAParentsrights.org
Craig DeLuz
Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com
No comments:
Post a Comment