I have been, and continue to be, working locally to re-elect Rick Santorum to his seat as the third most powerful republican in the senate. In the process, I have been reaching out to patriots from outside of Pennsylvania, asking them to volunteer their time, and to donate financially, to Santorum’s campaign, because this election will have powerful repercussions for all of us, far into the precarious future of our republic.
There is also a crucial proposition on the ballot on November 7th in the state of California that needs to be addressed by us all. We need to take some time to call or write to anyone we know who is a resident of that state, and, if they are not well informed about the issue, educate them about the contents of Proposition 85, and the malevolent, socialist motives of its vocal opponents.
Proposition 85 will simply require that doctors notify a parent or guardian at least forty-eight hours before performing an abortion on their daughter, if she is under the age of eighteen. It contains codicils that take into account rare and unusual family situations …
… in which cases, the child may petition juvenile court to permit an abortion without notifying a parent. She can request a lawyer at taxpayer expense. If the evidence shows she is mature enough to decide for herself or that notifying a parent is not in her best interests, a judge may grant her petition. The proceedings must be confidential, prompt, and free. She may also seek help from juvenile court if she is being coerced by anyone to consent to an abortion.
In other words, this law seeks simply to respect God-given, Constitutionally-insured parental rights, while also allowing for the occasional circumstance in which a young girl cannot turn to her parents for help, support or advice.
Parents and daughters in thirty other states have benefited for years from laws like Proposition 85. After such laws are passed, the state generally experiences substantial reductions in pregnancies and abortions among minors. When parents are involved and minors cannot rely on secret access to free abortions they naturally tend to avoid the reckless behavior which leads to pregnancies.
Polls show that most people support parental notification laws. They reveal that most Americans believe that a minor girl — pregnant, scared, and possibly abandoned or pressured by the baby's biological father -- needs the advice and support of a parent. And that parents are still ultimately responsible for, and care deeply about, the major decisions their minor daughter may face.
Most parents, as a result of the God-instilled nature of the parent-child relationship, have invested more attention and love in raising their daughter than has the state or the courts. They know her personal and medical history better, and care more about her future than business people employed by abortion clinics who make significant profits by performing abortions on children.
Under Prop 85, a minor still has a legal right to obtain or refuse an abortion, but a parent can help her understand all options, obtain competent care, and provide medical records and history.
An informed parent can also obtain prompt care should hemorrhaging, infection, and other possibly fatal complications occur post-surgery.
I can think of no negative repercussion to this legislation, other than that it would represent a major roadblock in the road toward the leftists’ socialist utopia.
As would be expected, the opponents of this proposition are arguing that voting against it would be a vote for the children.
Their arguments consist of two main points:
(1) that some teenagers live in dangerous homes in which parents are violent or sexually abuse their daughters ... and
(2) that forcing a teenager who can’t turn to her parents to seek help from California’s overcrowded court system would be a nightmare for the child, because courts are already backlogged, red tape is rampant, and California courts are hard to navigate, even for adults
Notice that both arguments presume that the parents of this child are either uncommunicative or sexually predatory.
I would ask these ‘child-advocates’ exactly who is responsible for the fact that our courts are backlogged, hard-to-navigate, and rife with red tape. Could it be those same left-leaning ideologues who have succeeded in tying the hands of law-enforcement, manning the courts with activist judges, allowing tort lawyers to tie up the system with frivolous, profit-motivated lawsuits, and writing laws that bend over backwards to protect the ‘rights’ of the criminal while forcing the victim to jump through all manner of legalistic hoops?
The teen pregnancy rate in the U.S. is the highest among the most developed countries in the world, including Australia, Canada, England, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, and Sweden (AGI, 2002 – ‘Birth, Abortion, Pregnancy Rates for Developed Countries’, 2006) and teen pregnancies account for a full 25% of all unintended pregnancies in the U.S. each year (Advocates for Youth, 2004; AGI, 1999).
The socialists/elitists among us would have us believe that the dramatic increase in teenage pregnancies over the past four decades is not largely a result of their own pernicious agenda to infiltrate itself into every thread of the fabric of American society. A large part of that agenda has been focused on crafting the demise of the nuclear family and the concurrent loosening of moral constraints among our youth … with the inevitable increase in power of the leftist elite, and the coincidental erosion of individual liberty, being the final outcome.
They would instead have us believe that, independent of their ‘noble, for-the-children’ social agenda that has taken root since the sixties, parents have suddenly and inexplicably become uncommunicative, sexually predatory monsters from whom the state must protect their own children.
The megalomaniacal junior senator from New York has inserted her two cents into this California proposition, taping a message to the voters in which she urges them to ‘join her and ‘so many concerned parents’ in defeating proposition 85.
Who exactly are these ‘concerned parents’ to whom Ms. Clinton refers?
Parents concerned about what?
About a teenager’s ‘right’ to have unprotected sex without being hindered by her own parents’ personal, religious, and lifestyle guidelines?
About the fact that parents ought not to consider themselves worthy of knowing when and if their daughter has opted to have a physically and psychologically dangerous medical procedure?
About the fact that their daughter should be permitted to make a decision to kill her unborn child without first at least discussing that decision with them?
About the fact that the state believes that it knows better – both morally and legally – what is best for their child?
That’s the kind of mock ‘concern’ that leads to the destruction of entire civilizations.
I would like to ask (no, I would like to demand) that Ms. Clinton explain just who these ‘concerned parents’ are who are supporting her effort to deny other parents their natural, God-given rights as regards their minor child’s life-altering, and potentially deadly, behaviors and resulting decisions.
And I will want to ask those Americans who will vote for Hillary for president in 2008 just exactly what they believe her qualifications are.
(1) being married (in the loosest sense of the word) to an experienced traitor/felon?
(2) being a cattle futures and real estate investment wizard?
(3) throwing a mean ashtray?
(4) having sponsored no significant legislation during her freshman term?
(5) being an avowed socialist seeking the presidency of a representative republic?
(6) being the (media-declared) smartest woman in the world?
If you pick any fairly well educated woman off the street, I believe her qualifications (not to mention her character) would generally trump those of Ms. Clinton. But I digress …
How many of those potential Hillary supporters even know the definition of a socialist? Or the gruesome threat that the incremental imposition of socialism on a formerly free society poses to its citizens?
Ms. Clinton, and her fellow elitists, propose a world in which there would be no legal obstacles to unlimited personal pleasure. And the first such obstacles that must be eradicated are monogamy and the nuclear family.
Thus her (and all other socialists’) insistence on implementing laws (for the children) that will eventually declare the state the legal guardians of our children (for the children’s well being, of course). Parents will simply become baby factories, who, once the birthing process is complete, relinquish to the state all rights to their ‘product’.
Ludwig von Mises wrote, ‘It is no accident that the proposal to treat men and women as radically equal, to regulate sexual intercourse by the state, to put infants into public nursing homes at birth and to ensure that children and parents remain quite unknown to each other should have originated with Plato.’
And that is precisely what Hillary Clinton’s main political objective is – to ensure that children and parents remain quite unknown to each other -- so that the state becomes the primary sculptor of the minds and characters of the youth of America, and, in that way, increases and perpetuates the power of the elite (of which Ms. Clinton considers herself among the most brilliant, visionary and indispensable).
The people of California must understand what Proposition 85 represents, and they must defeat the elitists’ latest attempt to undermine the importance of the nuclear family to the moral fabric of civilized society, the sanctity of parental rights, and the limits of the government’s reach into the lives and individual liberties of its citizens.