More election musings

I'm torn about the whole proposititon thing. I understand it's a great tool for the public to have. If our issues or needs aren't being addressed by our representatives, we the people can petition to have our issues voted on by the general public. It's democracy in its purest form.

By the same token, we have representatives for a reason....to represent us. And if they're not addressing our needs, we should vote them out of office. Many of the propositions on the ballot every election are too arcane for the public to follow. And of course, half of the problem is that most voters don't take the time to read the propositions. So they make this huge decision based on a thirty second TV ad.

Like I wrote this week, the propositions were hard calls. Who wouldn't want better infrastructure, schools and housing for the disadvantaged? Those are all worthy causes. But I think with California in the shape we're in, it's best if we don't make those kind of expenditures right now. Gas taxes go to repair infrastructure and 1A will make sure that money doesn't get raided for other things. Local communities can pass their own bonds for school repair. That's what we did.

Proposition 86 was a toughie because I love sticking it to tobacco companies. But I think the $2.60 increase per pack on cigarettes is just too high. I, in some in law enforcement, believe it's to the level that would seriously impact crime in the form of smuggling. Also, it will send smokers to the internet and to Indian casinos to buy their smokes. This isn't just rhetoric. I know several smokers who plan to do this, to evade the tax. And if all of these new health care programs are dependent on this revenue stream, what happens when the funds don't materialize? What happens when people evade paying the tax and smokers quit smoking? Who's going to foot the bill then? If this had been a fifty cent increase, I think it would've been workable.

Proposition 85 is the parental notification for a minor's abortion measure. I supported a similar measure that failed last time out. To me, it doesn't sit well that a minor can go and have an abortion without their parent's knowledge in California. It's been noted that kids can't get their ears pierced or be administered so much as an aspirin at school without parental permission, yet they can receive an abortion. And I have to tell you that I'm not paticularly persuaded by opponents saying, "But what about an abused girl?" or "what about violent homes where its too dangerous to notify the parents?" First, these aren't the norm. Second, there is a provision in the law that would allow girls in those situations to obtain a waiver. This law isn't even asking for parental consent. Just notification.

But I'm voting no on this proposed law because there are things that disturb me. One is the 48 hour waiting period. The 48 hour waiting period is presumably so the pregnant girl can seek alternatives to abortion. It seems like moralizing to me. I believe a girl smart enough to know about abortion probably knows about adoption, too. She can also probably figure out that she has the option of keeping the baby. The waiting period presumes that pregnant girls are complete idiots who don't think. I've never been a girl nor pregnant but I would think that a pregnant girl thinks about her pregnancy and her options obsessively.

Second, it requires the consent of the girl and it allows courts to intervene if the girl is coerced to have an abortion. Well, what if the girl is corced to give the baby up for adoption? Will the courts intervene then? Nope.

I'm not a knee jerk pro-choice advocate. I don't believe every slope is slippery. And parental consent to an abortion for a 13 year old is not absurd in my mind. But I can't support this as written.

Anyway, vote early and vote...once.