Tag Archives: abortion

Stupid Ballot Measures Should Not Be the Reason to End Direct Democracy in California

 

Direct democracy used to be affordable in California, pay 200 dollars, write your petition to the Attorney General of California and you would be able to submit your ballot measure petition to be sent to the voters to sign to get it placed on the ballot if you had the money and the signatures required plus another 20 percent to cover any errors.

2015 led to a troll who wrote a ballot measure to ask for homosexual people to be executed and those who promoted “sodomistic propaganda” be massively fined and jailed for up to 10 years which led to direct democracy to be restricted in our state. The ballot measure was extreme and led to a massive outcry where the filing fee got increased to 2000 bucks, but this did not stop a new proponent who decided to implement an idea making abortion first degree murder. Even if one thinks abortion is the murder of innocent unborn people, this does not lead to good optics in a state such as California.

Just as how Democrats are trying to nerf the recall system because it’s not going their way, I do fear that Direct Democracy will be curtailed due to this stupid ballot measure even though it’s highly unlikely it will get the required signatures. Yes, I got slammed by Planned Parenthood and Senator Leyva calling me a Pro-Life extremist, but if we want to fight against Abortion rights extremists this ballot measure is not the tool either. You must do it incrementally such as a ballot measure protecting the right to life pregnancy centers where they would not be forced to advocate for abortion.

If we want to reduce the number of trolls and protect the right of direct democracy in California we need a kill switch that would curtail the crazy ideas or make them harder to pass. Perhaps make it where the ballot measure must pass in two consecutive cycles by majority vote or by two thirds vote in one election to adapt ideas from Nevada into our state.

Most ballot measures are mainstream, but the voice of the public should not be curtailed because its outside the political norm of the majority party either. It would be like if Republicans in California wanted to limit the power of taxation in our state or Democrats in Texas wanted to protect transgender children in schools. However, the irony is that the “Progressives” of the Democratic Party want to undo the major reforms of the founder of California progressive politics.

Some Wisdom from Austin Petersen

People say that if you’re a male, you shouldn’t have an opinion on abortion. That logic doesn’t hold up of course, because weenie liberals don’t have guns, but they sure have a lot of opinions on how other people shouldn’t own them. Except for cops of course. Only cops should have guns, even though liberals think all cops are evil, white racists because ‪#‎liberallogic‬

Austin Petersen (commentator and candidate for President)

Misguided Consultants Spotlight Something Supported In SD 20

Yes, my opponent went thru the Inland Utopia archives back in 2007 and used something I written to write a flyer about me that expressed my pro-life support. However, in 2008 Senate District 20 did support parental notification for abortion.

Proposition 4 in Senate District 20

Parental notification was supported in all the cities of the district.
This ballot measure was even supported when Obama was the main draw on the ballot.

City Yes No
Chino 13259 8842
Colon 7339 4850
Fontana 26908 16467
Grand Terrace 2587 2110
Montclair 5147 3198
Ontario 23242 15054
Pomona 18922 14955
Rialto 14225 8762
San Bernardino 26578 19079

Inland Utopia on the issues: Prop 4

California voters said no twice, and we have parental notification ballot measure part three now.

Since the state supreme court rejected a parental notification process ten years ago, anti-abortion activists  have been encouraging voters to get a notification measure on the ballot.

I would find it reasonable that parents should be notified about a major medical procedure happening with their daughters. However the measure this year is still a scary proposition that makes me reconsider supporting this. The example Thomas Elias wrote about in his column in the Appeal Democrat, about a 16 year old girl getting knocked up after a dance with a guy and she finds out she got pregnant and since Proposition 4 got passed she is required to notify her parents within 48 hours. That does sound reasonable, but what about dealing with an enraged father. If the daughter is worried about reprisal she would not want to notify her parents and that is understandable. Since there is no formal record of abuse then she can not get a waiver for the abortion.

Most parents are understanding about the welfare of their daughters. But there is a danger towards parental notification where either the girl will be beaten up by a family member or relative, or sterile or dead due to a botched abortion or a self abortion.

Then what about incest or rape from a relative or close family friend, the girl would be required under Prop 4 to notify family members who knocked her up which would be ironic and dangerous too. Studies from medical experts have stated that girls notify their families just as equally with or without parental notification regulations.

Sorry parental notification supporters, the third strike is on you. I am voting No. If a forth time happens due to wealthy traditionalists, focus on promoting the culture of life, and protecting both the mother and the unborn, instead of just the unborn. Offer a one time payment of ten thousand, where half would be reimbursed by the adoption agency to cover the expenses of pregnancy and some pocket change so the girl would keep the baby in most cases, and maybe the girl who gets knocked up at the dance will keep her baby.

Why Obama will not get my vote.

I am most likely a McCain voter, if McCain moves too far to the right it may be the Libertarian Party, but if Obama is the nominee he will NOT get my vote.

Obama Is the Most Pro-Abortion Candidate Ever (Obama Believes in Infanticide.)
CNSNews ^ | January 09, 2008 | Terence P. Jeffrey

Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion presidential candidate ever.

He is so pro-abortion that he refused as an Illinois state senator to support legislation to protect babies who survived late-term abortions because he did not want to concede — as he explained in a cold-blooded speech on the Illinois Senate floor — that these babies, fully outside their mothers’ wombs, with their hearts beating and lungs heaving, were in fact “persons.”

“Persons,” of course, are guaranteed equal protection of the law under the 14th Amendment.

In 2004, U.S. Senate-candidate Obama mischaracterized his opposition to this legislation. Now, as a presidential frontrunner, he should be held accountable for what he actually said and did about the Born Alive Infants Bill.

State and federal versions of this bill became an issue earlier this decade because of “induced labor abortion.” This is usually performed on a baby with Down’s Syndrome or another problem discovered on the cusp of viability. A doctor medicates the mother to cause premature labor. Babies surviving labor are left untreated to die.

Jill Stanek, who was a nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Ill., testified in the U.S. Congress in 2000 and 2001 about how “induced labor abortions” were handled at her hospital.

“One night,” she said in testimony entered into the Congressional Record, “a nursing co-worker was taking an aborted Down’s Syndrome baby who was born alive to our Soiled Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold him, and she did not have the time to hold him. I couldn’t bear the thought of this suffering child lying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived.”

In 2001, Illinois state Sen. Patrick O’Malley introduced three bills to help such babies. One required a second physician to be present at the abortion to determine if a surviving baby was viable. Another gave the parents or a public guardian the right to sue to protect the baby’s rights. A third, almost identical to the federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act President Bush signed in 2002, simply said a “homo sapiens” wholly emerged from his mother with a “beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord or definite movement of voluntary muscles” should be treated as a “‘person,’ ‘human being,’ ‘child’ and ‘individual.'”

Stanek testified about these bills in the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee, where Obama served. She told me this week he was “unfazed” by her story of holding the baby who survived an induced labor abortion.

On the Illinois Senate floor, Obama was the only senator to speak against the baby-protecting bills. He voted “present” on each, effectively the same as a “no.”

“Number one,” said Obama, explaining his reluctance to protect born infants, “whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the Equal Protection Clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a — a child, a 9-month old — child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it — it would essentially bar abortions, because the Equal Protection Clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute.”

(more at the link)